Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLK 03-25 Report to Council Report Number : CLK 03-25 Date: July 15, 2025 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 2025 Ward Boundary Review Re-evaluation Report from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. File: A-2000 Recommendation: 1. That the 2025 Ward Boundary Review Re-evaluation Report, prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated July 15, 2025, provided as Attachment 1 to Report CLK 03-25, be received; 2. That Final Option A, as outlined in the Ward Boundary Review Re-evaluation Report, for the City of Pickering be approved; 3. That the draft By -law included as A ttachment 3 to this report be approved and enacted; 4. That staff be directed to present a Ward Boundary Review Policy for Council’s consideration during the 2026-2030 Term of Council; and, 5. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to give effect to this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to respond to Resolution #654/25 adopted at the January 27, 2025 Council meeting (Attachment 2). Resolution #654/25 directed the City Clerk to engage the services of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. in association with Dr. Robert J. Williams (the “Consultants”) to reconsider the findings of the 2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review dated June, 2021, based on updated population data, and to make recommendations on any appropriate adjustments to the ward boundaries set out in By -law 7875/21. The Consultants have now completed their independent re-evaluation of the findings of the 2021 Ward Boundary Review . The Consultants’ re-evaluation and recommendations are set out in their Ward Boundary Review Re-evaluation Report dated July 15, 2025 (Attachment 1). Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Foster an Engaged and Informed Community. Financial Implications: Resolution #654/25 approved the payment of up to $35,000.00 plus applicable taxes for the re-evaluation review and provided that such costs were to be funded from Contingency Account 503500.1100. Costs of $17,695.60 have been incurred to date, CLK 03-25 July 15, 2025 Page 2 however the final invoice for the work undertaken has not been received as of the time of writing this report. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to respond to Resolution #654/25 adopted at the January 27, 2025 Council meeting (Attachment 2). Resolution #654/25 directed the City Clerk to engage the services of the Consultants to reconsider the findings of the 2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review dated June, 2021, based on updated population data, and to make recommendations on any appropriate adjustments to the ward boundaries set out in By -law 7875/21. A. 2021 Ward Boundary Review After a comprehensive Ward Boundary Review, and a subsequent petition submitted by residents of the City of Pickering, on August 30, 2021, Council adopt ed new ward boundaries which are set out in By -law 7875/21. By -law 7875/21 was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) and although the appeal was withdrawn, the deadline for the new ward boundaries to take effect for the 2022 Municipal E lection was not met in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”). As a result, the new ward boundaries in By -law 7875/21 would take effect for the 2026 Municipal Election unless otherwise amended in accordance with the Act. The purpose of the Consultants’ re-evaluation was to determine whether the ward boundaries contained in By -law 7875/21 are still considered appropriate, given that actual population growth has varied from the population growth estimates in the 2021 rev iew . In accordance with Resolution #654/25, the same Consultants who conducted the 2021 review were engaged once again to conduct an independent review of the 2021 w ard boundaries to ensure that the same guiding principles used in 2021 were consistently applied. B. 2025 Ward Boundary Review: Public Engagement Recognizing the importance of public engagement for this initiative, the City follow ed a robust public engagement plan to garner public input for the 2025 Ward Boundary Re-Evaluation Review. Below are the various engagement methods used for this purpose: • publication of a dedicated webpage with updated information on the new Review (March 2025); • whiteboard animation video to provide education on the new 2025 Ward Boundary Review process (March 2025); • displays on all of the City’s digital signs to promote the dedicated webpage, public consultation sessions, and the public consultation survey (March – May 2025); • regular posts and promotion on all City and Pickering Library social media platforms (Facebook, X, Instagram); • m edia release to kick -off the promotion of the in-person public consultation sessions (April 2025); • email blasts to the City’s Advisory Committees, Boards, and Taskforces (April 2025); CLK 03-25 July 15, 2025 Page 3 • email blasts to community groups, ActiveNet registered program users, and Ratepayer Associations (April 2025); • information sheets placed at front counters at City Hall and the City’s Libraries advertising the public consultation sessions and the survey (April – May 2025); • email blasts to interested parties for the 2025 Ward Boundary Review (April 2025); • distribution of information sheets on the public consultation sessions and the survey during visits through the Library’s bookmobile into Seaton and Greenwood areas (May 2025); • in-person public consultation sessions – two held on May 1, 2025 at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex -Lobby and May 14, 2025, at the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre – Lions Meeting Room from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm (May 2025); • public consultation survey (May 2025); and • display of the information boards presented at the public consultation sessions at City Hall and the Library (May 2025). C. Consultant’s Recommended Option: Final Option A As a result of the R eview , the Consultants have included two “adjusted” ward boundary options being Final Option A (the recommended option) and Final Option B. Final Option A involves two changes to the existing ward system, starting with moving a portion of the proposed Ward 1/Ward 3 boundary south from Concession 3 to the Canadian Pacific rail line, to keep the Cherrywood community, a community of interest, in the same ward. Final Option A also includes modifications that would incorporate the Duffin Heights and Brock Ridge urban neighbourhoods into the proposed Ward 3. It also proposes moving the boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 2 from Dixie Road back to Fairport R oad, which has served as the boundary between those wards since 1982. Final Option B involves only one change to the existing ward system, namely moving a portion of the proposed Ward 1/Ward 3 boundary south from Concession 3 to the Canadian Pacific rail line to keep the Cherrywood community, a community of interest, in the same ward. D. Next Steps Should Council dec ide to change to the ward boundaries by adopting Final Option A, it will need to enact the draft By-law set out in Attachment 3. In accordance with Section 222 of the Act, notice of the passing of the by -law must be given to the public within 15 days specifying the last date for filing a notice of appeal to the OLT. If no appeals are filed within 45 days of passage, the by-law comes into force on the day the new Council of the municipality is organized following the 2026 Municipal Election and the 2026 election shall be conducted as if the by -law was already in force. Should Council enac t the attached draft By -law at the July 15, 2025 Special C ouncil Meeting, the deadline for appeals would be August 29, 2025. CLK 03-25 July 15, 2025 Page 4 The Consultants’ Report recommends Final O ption A , and sets out the reasons for that recommendation. Council m ay therefore choose to: • adopt Final O ption A; • adopt Final O ption B, (not recommended by the Consultants); or • adopt neither Final O ption A nor Final O ption B and retain the existing ward boundaries set out in By -law 7875/21. It should be noted that should Council c hoose Final O ption B, an amendment would be required to the attached draft By -law prior to its adoption. The Consultants have also recommended the adoption of a Ward Boundary Review Policy. Such Policy would trigger subsequent ward boundary reviews in future terms of Council i f population thresholds are outside of the optimal r ange. Given the anticipated growth in the City over the next ten years, having a Ward Boundary Review Policy in place would allow staff to engage the appropriate consulting services to periodically review population data to ensure that the wards remain balanced from an effective representation standpoint. Staff are therefore seeking Council’s approval to undertake the creation of a Ward Boundary Review Policy which would be brought to Council for approval in the 2026-2030 Term. Attachments: 1. 2025 Ward Boundary Review Re-Evaluation Report 2. Resolution #654/25 3. Draft By -law Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Susan Cassel Paul B igioni City Clerk Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Original Signed By: Rumali P erera Deputy Clerk SC:rp CLK 03-25 July 15, 2025 Page 5 Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 July 15 2025 info@watsonecon.ca In association with: Dr. Robert J. Williams 2025 Ward Boundary Review City of Pickering ________________________ Re-Evaluation Report Attachment 1 to Report CLK 03-25 Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction and Study Objectives ................................................................... 1 2. Context ................................................................................................................ 2 3. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the City of Pickering ................ 6 3.1 Existing Population .................................................................................... 6 3.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2024 to 2035 ................................................ 7 4. Public Engagement ............................................................................................ 8 4.1.1 Website ......................................................................................... 9 4.1.2 Surveys ....................................................................................... 10 4.1.3 Social Media Engagement .......................................................... 11 4.2 Public Consultation Sessions ................................................................... 11 5. Principles .......................................................................................................... 12 6. Pickering’s “Existing Ward Structure” ........................................................... 12 6.1 The “Existing Ward Structure” Reconsidered ........................................... 13 6.2 Other 2021 Final Options Reconsidered .................................................. 16 7. Final Options 2025 ............................................................................................ 22 7.1 Final Option A .......................................................................................... 23 7.2 Final Option B .......................................................................................... 26 8. Next Steps and Council Decisions .................................................................. 30 Appendix A Public Engagement Information Boards ........................................... A-1 Appendix B Survey Results .................................................................................... B-1 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 1. Introduction and Study Objectives The City of Pickering has retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association with Dr. Robert J. Williams, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant Team, to conduct a re-evaluation of the City’s approved ward boundaries before the 2026 municipal election. The primary purpose of the study is to prepare Pickering Council to make a decision related to modifying the ward structure adopted in 2021 through By-law 7875/21, should the review determine that the adopted boundaries are no longer relevant and equitable from an effective representation perspective. This re-evaluation included: • Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the ward system adopted in 2021 based on identified guiding principles. • Conducting an appropriate consultation process in accordance with Pickering’s public engagement practices to ensure community support for the review and its outcome. • Identifying plausible modifications to the existing (2026 approved) ward structure based on the guiding principles adopted for the design of the wards established through By-law 7875/21; • Determining whether the approved wards provide equitable and effective representation, meeting the guiding principles based on updated population projection data; • Reviewing objections to By-law 7875/21 filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal in November 2021; and • Delivering a report that will set out recommended ward boundaries to ensure effective and equitable electoral arrangements for Pickering. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1 This report provides Pickering Council with the findings of the re-evaluation and recommends an alternative ward boundary option for 2026. 2. Context Pickering Council comprises seven members, consisting of a mayor, who is elected at- large, and six councillors, two of whom (one City councillor and one Regional councillor) are elected in each of the three wards. The current Consultant Team undertook a comprehensive Ward Boundary Review for the City of Pickering ahead of the 2022 municipal election and, in June 2021, presented four options to “re-divide” the City into wards. Pickering Council initially opted to make no change to the then-existing ward configuration (see Figure 1); however, in response to a petition submitted under section 223 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Council passed By-law 7875/21 to “re-divide” the City into wards (see Figure 2) in August 2021 to take effect for the 2022 municipal election. Subsequently, By-law 7875/21 was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under section 222 (4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 but was withdrawn after the deadline for new boundaries to take effect for the 2022 municipal election. As a result, the 2022 election was conducted using the previous ward configuration (Figure 1) but the wards described in By-law 7875/21 (Figure 2) are now operative for the 2026 municipal election, unless amended under the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001. On January 27, 2025, Council passed a resolution to “reconsider the findings” of the 2021 Ward Boundary Review, taking into account recent population changes and updated population projections with new information available, “to ascertain whether these boundaries are still relevant and equitable from an effective representation perspective.”[1] In light of this resolution, plus changes in the housing market, provincial policy initiatives, and other external factors, as well as the appeal submitted to the Ontario Land Tribunal in 2021, this re-evaluation will offer possible modifications to the ward configuration set out in By-law 7875/21. Detailed background on the Pickering electoral system was included in reports prepared during the previous Ward Boundary Review and will not be repeated herein. All reports [1] Council Resolution #654/25, January 27, 2025. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 are still available on the City’s project website for residents to read as background to this re-evaluation at www.pickering.ca/wardboundaries. When the City of Pickering was created, the population was less than 40,000; in 2020 it was approximately 100,000 and was forecast to grow by a further 58,000 by 2030. As anticipated in Pickering Council’s 2025 resolution, the population change from 2020 to 2024 has resulted in a population of approximately 118,250 in 2024. The updated population estimated derived for 2024 was completed through a review building permit activity from 2021 to the end of 2023 that were provided by City staff. A revised population forecast was then prepared through this re-evaluation report, in accordance with the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated May 26, 2020) less the growth allocation for Northeast Pickering, resulting in a forecasted population that is expected to reach approximately 168,000 by 2035. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 Figure 2-1 City of Pickering Ward Structure – 1982 to 2021 Note: The 2022-2026 Pickering Council was elected in this ward configuration. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 Figure 2-2 City of Pickering Ward Structure (By-law 7875/21) (Final Option 2), hereinafter referred to as the “existing ward structure” Note: Unless modified, the 2026-2030 Pickering Council will be elected in these wards. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 Population growth has not been distributed evenly across the City, with future increases expected to be concentrated in northern areas (Seaton) – historically and currently part of Ward 3 – and in the downtown core, primarily within the boundaries of the former and current Ward 2. The net result is that population data collected for both the 2021 Ward Boundary Review and this 2025 ward boundary re-evaluation indicate that the existing population in the approved 2026 three-ward configuration is significantly unbalanced but the wards are expected to grow closer to parity with the advancement of the Seaton development by 2035. 3. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the City of Pickering One of the basic premises of representative democracy in Canada is the expectation that the geographic areas used to elect a representative are reasonably balanced with one another in terms of population. Accordingly, a detailed population estimate for the City of Pickering, including its constituent wards and communities, was prepared during the previous Ward Boundary Review to allow evaluation of the then-existing ward structure and subsequent alternatives in terms of representation by population. Pickering Council’s 2025 resolution to “reconsider the findings” from the 2021 Ward Boundary Review directs the Consultant Team to incorporate population changes since that time and revised population projections for the next decade into an evaluation of the ward configuration adopted in By-law 7875/21. 3.1 Existing Population Since the City’s existing wards were established in 1974, the population of Pickering has increased by approximately 150%. As mentioned, this study needs to look at both the existing and future population distribution. A 2024 population estimate was derived by utilizing the 2021 Census and a review of building permit activity provided by City staff. Pickering’s estimated 2024 population is 118,250. The 2024 base population was developed at a sub-municipal level, allowing the Consultant Team to aggregate these blocks to determine populations for existing and alternative ward options. As addressed in previously prepared reports, the wards adopted in 2021 still do not represent Pickering in an equitable way since one of the Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6 three wards (Ward 1) is home to about 45% of the City’s population as presented in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 City of Pickering 2024 Population by “Existing” Ward (By-law 7875/21) Ward Number 2024 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range* Ward 1 52,632 1.34 OR+ Ward 2 44,984 1.14 O+ Ward 3 20,639 0.52 OR- Total 118,255 -- Average 39,418 -- [1] Population includes a net Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding. Source: Derived from the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated May 26, 2020) by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. *See Table 6-1 for more details on the Optimal Range Calculation. 3.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2024 to 2035 In response to Pickering Council’s resolution, the Consultant Team also prepared a City-wide population forecast for the 2024 to 2035 period that is consistent with the City of Pickering’s latest growth projections and the Region of Durham Official Plan (less the growth allocation for Northeast Pickering). Community level growth allocations were guided by a comprehensive review of opportunities to accommodate future residential growth through plans of subdivision (registered unbuilt, draft approved, and proposed), and site plan applications. By 2035, Pickering’s population is anticipated to grow by approximately 50,000, bringing the total population (including undercount) to approximately 166,150, an increase of over 40%. Most of this growth is anticipated to occur north of the current urban neighbourhoods and within the Seaton Lands south of Highway 7, and through intensification in the form of high-density developments within the urban core. The development of the Seaton Lands will change the landscape of Pickering from a southern urbanized City with a sparse northern rural community to a fully developed City south of Highway 7. Moreover, the growth in Seaton is anticipated to occur rapidly Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7 over the next 10 years. The anticipated population growth to 2035 was identified at a small geographic unit level and is presented by the existing ward structure in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 City of Pickering 2035 Population by “Existing” Ward (By-law 7875/21) Ward Number 2035 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range* Ward 1 55,638 0.99 O Ward 2 50,094 0.89 O- Ward 3 62,420 1.11 O+ Total 168,152 -- Average 56,051 -- [1] Population includes a net Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding. Source: Derived from the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated May 26, 2020) by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. *See Table 6-1 for more details on the Optimal Range Calculation. 4. Public Engagement The 2025 Ward Boundary Review employed a comprehensive public engagement strategy, in which the Consultant Team solicited feedback from staff, Pickering Council, and citizens of the City of Pickering through a variety of methods: • Online engagement through surveys, social media outreach, and a public-facing website; • Public consultation sessions; and • Interviews with members of Pickering Council, the Mayor, and key members of staff. The public engagement component of this study was delivered in person and was designed to: • Inform the residents of Pickering about the reasons for the re-evaluation and the key factors that were considered in the review; and Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8 • Engage the residents in a manner that provides valuable input to the re- evaluation of the existing system (2026 approved boundaries) and the development of alternative ward boundaries. Two in-person consultation sessions were conducted on May 1 and May 14, 2025. The Consultant Team’s information boards can be found in Appendix A and other information about the review is available on the City’s project website: www.pickering.ca/wardboundaries. Through the public consultation sessions and survey, participants were invited to provide their input and opinions with respect to the existing (2026 approved) ward system, including utilizing Concession 3 Road as a north/south divider, and Dixie Road or Fairport Road as east/west dividers. The feedback and comments collected through the public consultation process are reflected in the analysis presented below and have helped inform the two final options to be presented to Pickering Council. While public input from consultation provides some valuable insight into the review, it is not relied on exclusively. The Consultant Team utilized the public input in conjunction with its professional expertise and experience in ward boundary reviews, along with best practices, to develop the options presented throughout the two ward boundary reviews. In addition to the public engagement, it was crucial for the Consultant Team to benefit from the perspectives of Members of Council. Therefore, the Consultant Team, in coordination with the City Clerk, conducted a series of virtual interviews with the Mayor and Members of Pickering Council. These interviews were used to explain the process to be followed by the Consultant Team, to gather observations from Members of Council about the By-law 7875/21 wards (the approved wards to be in effect for the 2026 election) and tentative adjustments to those wards in keeping with Council Resolution #654/25. 4.1.1 Website A new public-facing web page was established to raise awareness about the 2025 Ward Boundary Review, to disseminate information about the process and to give Pickering residents an opportunity to provide feedback. Through this platform, residents could access an online survey, review background material from 2021, including the Interim and Final Reports to Council, view adjusted ward boundary options in response to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9 Council Resolution #654/25, and provide feedback directly to staff and the Consultant Team. A purpose-built Whiteboard Animation Video was also posted on the web page, which distilled some key information about the Ward Boundary Review into an accessible format. Engagement with the City of Pickering’s online tools and Ward Boundary Review website was excellent. Through March 18, 2025, to May 25, 2025, the City’s website had received over 1,250 views, and 960 active users. 4.1.2 Surveys The survey was open from May 1 to May 25, 2025, and resulted in 129 responses. In summary, residents were divided when asked if using Concession Road 3 as the north/south boundary between Wards 1 and 2 and Ward 3 made sense, recognizing that this boundary would split some communities into multiple wards. Specifically, 45% answered no, 40% answered yes, and 14% were unsure. Similarly, respondents were divided when asked if using Dixie Road as the east/west boundary between Wards 1 and 2 made sense (resulting in some population imbalances), with 43% believing that it does make sense, 37% believing it does not make sense, and 20% were unsure. When asked which ward the Cherrywood community is more affiliated with, 58% indicated that Cherrywood is more affiliated with Ward 3, while 22% indicated that it is more affiliated with Ward 1, and 20% were unsure. As for the community north of Finch Avenue along Brock Road, 58% of respondents believed that it is more affiliated with Ward 2 (urban Pickering), 35% of respondents believed it is more affiliated with Ward 3 (rural Pickering), and 7% did not know. Lastly, when asked if moving the approved boundary line between Ward 1 and 2 from Dixie Road West to Fairport Road made sense to address population imbalances, opinions were split. Specifically, 30% believe that both roads are an acceptable divide, 28% believe that Fairport Road is an acceptable divider, and 24% believe that Dixie Road, as approved in 2021, should remain as the Ward 1 and 2 boundary. Please see Appendix B for more details. In interpreting these results, it is important to highlight that this survey does not constitute a representative sampling of the population and is by no means a scientific assessment of public preferences. The level of participation in the surveys, relative to Pickering’s population, was low and not randomly selected. Additionally, more than half of respondents (61%) were from Ward 3, and it should be noted that some of the survey results could reflect the opinion of specific communities. The survey was nevertheless Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10 a source of insight for the Consultant Team but should be viewed as one of several resources informing the Consultant Team’s determination of the options presented throughout the two ward boundary reviews. 4.1.3 Social Media Engagement Social media are effective platforms for disseminating information about the Ward Boundary Review to the public and were used extensively in the 2021 Ward Boundary Review as well as in 2025. This approach was crucial in 2021 since all public consultation was conducted virtually in the wake of public health restrictions during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Notices were also posted on X, Facebook, and Instagram, raising awareness and directing the public to the feedback survey. In total, 2 posts were made on X with 562 views; 7 posts were made on Facebook, generating 18,539 impressions and receiving 136 reactions, 63 shares, and 220 link clicks; and 9 posts were made on Instagram, generating 13,353 views and receiving 69 likes, 2 saves, 15 shares, and 22 profile visits. 4.2 Public Consultation Sessions The Consultant Team held two public consultation sessions with Pickering residents in May 2025, one at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering) and the other at Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre (4941 Old Brock Road, Claremont). The format for these two in-person sessions involved placing display boards where they would attract the attention of passers-by already on site, as well as those who learned about the sessions through other channels, who would then be invited into a conversation with a member of the Consultant Team. The boards explained the reasons behind this re-evaluation (see above) and showed the pre-2021 wards, the wards as adopted through By-law 7875/21, the three options presented to Pickering Council in June 2021, three “adjusted” versions of the By-law 7875/21 wards, and an overall assessment of the various configurations. Feedback from these sessions was used to evaluate the recommendation provided in this report. The information presented at the two sessions was supplemented by information about the review available online (see footnote 1). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11 5. Principles The City of Pickering established core principles and other directions for the 2021 electoral review that will be referred to for guidance in the conduct of this review: • Representation by Population (the population parity principle); • Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods (the community of interest principle); • Current and Future Population Trends (the future population principle); • Physical Features as Natural Boundaries (the natural boundaries principle); and • Effective Representation. These principles are discussed briefly in the Discussion Paper (pages 10 to 12) and at greater length in Part 7 (pages 14 to 20) of the December 2020 Interim Report (see footnote 2), so they will not be addressed again in this report. The Consultant Team has thoroughly considered the importance of each principle and a detailed evaluation of which of the principles were most important for determining an appropriate system of representation during the 2021 ward boundary review. We also collected responses from the public about the priority they assigned to the guiding principles (see the Interim Report, Part 6). The principles contribute to the development of a system that provides equitable ongoing access between elected officials and residents, but they may conflict with one another in their application. Accordingly, it is expected that implications for achieving the overriding principle of effective representation will be important in arbitrating conflicts between principles. Any deviation from the specific principles must be justified by other principles in a manner that is more supportive of effective representation. The priority attached to certain principles makes some options more desirable in the eyes of different observers. Ultimately, the ward design adopted by Pickering Council should be the one that best fulfills as many guiding principles as possible. 6. Pickering’s “Existing Ward Structure” To be clear, no municipal election has yet been conducted in Pickering using what is referred to herein as the “existing ward structure” (sometimes referred to as the “existing wards”). This is because it was under appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal when the deadline for new boundaries for the 2022 municipal election took effect, and the 2022 election was run in a ward system that has since been replaced. This re-evaluation is Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12 intended to determine whether the 2026 municipal election should be conducted under the existing ward structure adopted in 2021 or a modified ward structure. In the assessment of the Consultant Team in 2021, the ward boundaries presented as Final Option 2 (the option adopted by Council in August 2021) were considered “largely successful” in meeting the effective representation principle. Although it did not provide for population parity between wards in the short term, the wards were forecast to grow into a better population balance within 10 years. When considered in terms of 2025 population data, the same assessment holds: the strength of the option lies in the way it accommodates the City’s future population. The option was deemed by the Consultant Team to meet the community of interest principle and the natural boundaries principle, resulting in an overall positive evaluation for achieving effective representation. As will be discussed below, this assessment was considered flawed in one respect, which led to the appeal of By-law 7875/21. Pickering Council had been provided with three final options in 2021 and, in response to the petition submitted in the summer of 2021, selected Final Option 2. The other two recommended options were assessed as less successful in achieving effective representation for various reasons (see City of Pickering 2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review Final Report Part 9, pp. 17-28) and are briefly re-considered herein in terms of updated population data as directed by Council Resolution #654/25. 6.1 The “Existing Ward Structure” Reconsidered As noted, the by-law adopted by Pickering Council was based on Final Option 2 (see Figure 2): it is a simple design with only two boundary lines (Concession Road 3 and Dixie Road). Its main attribute was the expectation that two of the proposed wards would be at the optimal population range (that is, within 5% of optimal) by 2030 (see City of Pickering 2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review Final Report, p. 23). Part of the rationale for this configuration was the population forecast for the proposed Ward 3. Although its population was well below the acceptable range of variation in 2021, it was projected to grow by about 40,000 residents by 2030 to fall into the optimal range (that is, within 5% of optimal). During that time, councillors elected in the proposed Ward 3 would need to be engaged in the complex task of representing a brand-new large urban community in the heart of the ward. The main drawback to this option was the extremely low population in the proposed Ward 3 that, at present, included virtually no urban neighbourhoods. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13 The objective of population parity, where every councillor generally represents an equal number of constituents within their respective ward, is the primary goal of an electoral redistribution. Some degree of variation is acceptable considering the City’s population densities and demographic factors. The indicator of success in a ward design is the extent to which all the individual wards approach an “optimal” size. Optimal size can be understood as a mid-point on a scale where the term “optimal” (O) describes a ward with a population within 5% on either side of the calculated optimal size. The classification “below/above optimal” (O+ or O-) is applied to a ward with a population between 6% and 25% on either side of the optimal size and is considered an acceptable variation. A ward that is labelled “outside the range” (OR+ or OR-) indicates that its population is greater than 25% above or below the optimal ward size. The adoption of a 25% maximum variation was part of the terms of reference established by the City and can reasonably be applied in municipalities like Pickering. These ranges are presented in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Optimal Population Ranges for a 3-Ward System – 2024 and 2035 Symbol Description Variance 2024 Population Range 2035 Population Range OR+ Outside Range -High 25% and above >49,273 >70,063 O+ Above Optimal but Acceptable 5% to 25% 41,389–49,273 58,853–70,063 O Optimal Population Range +/-5% 37,447–41,389 53,248–58,853 O-Below Optimal but Acceptable -5% to -25% 29,564–27,447 42,038–53,248 OR-Outside Range -Low -25% and below <29,564 <42,038 Applying 2024 population data to the existing ward configuration, only one of the three wards would be at the optimal range in 2035, but the other two would be within the acceptable range of variation (one 11% above and the other 11% below). This distribution can still be considered as being successful in meeting the future population principle. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14 Table 6-2 Updated Population by Existing Ward (By-law 7875/21) Ward Number 2024 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range 2035 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 52,632 1.34 OR+ 55,638 0.99 O Ward 2 44,984 1.14 O+ 50,094 0.89 O- Ward 3 20,639 0.52 OR-62,420 1.11 O+ Total 118,255 --168,152 -- Average 39,418 --56,051 -- [1] Population includes a net Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding. Source: Derived from the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated May 26, 2020), by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. As noted, however, By-law 7875/21 which implemented this ward structure was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal on the grounds that the use of Concession 3 as the boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 3 divides the Cherrywood community, thus breaching the community of interest principle without significantly assisting in the achievement of other guiding principles. The Consultant Team accepts that even though the Ontario Land Tribunal did not rule on the application, this claim has some merit, and it will incorporate an alternative boundary line in relation to Cherrywood in its re-evaluation of the wards in the adjusted options (see below). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15 Table 6-3 2025 Evaluation Summary – Existing Ward System (By-law 7875/21) Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population No Two of the three wards are outside the acceptable range of variation. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Largely Successful The two urban wards are coherent collections of neighbourhoods, while the third is largely rural today. The Cherrywood community is split. Current and Future Population Trends Yes Successfully achieves the kind of population balance sought in this principle. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Markers used as boundaries of the wards are straightforward and identifiable. Effective Representation Largely Successful Effective representation is hindered in the short term by uneven population distribution but accommodates demands on councillors brought on by large-scale development. Levels of evaluation for how the Guiding Principles are met Yes Largely Successful Partially Successful No Higher Rating Lower Rating 6.2 Other 2021 Final Options Reconsidered The Consultant Team interprets its response to Council Resolution #654/25 to include an opportunity to select one of the other two final options from the 2021 review in light of the new population data and other considerations. Both Final Options 1 and 3 were assessed as “largely successful” in terms of the effective representation principle and were broadly similar in the way the other guiding principles were assessed. Final Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16 Option 3 was expected to achieve reasonable population parity for the 2022 election but not in 2030, and Final Option 1 was the opposite. In Final Option 1, Concession 3 was used as the boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 3 that divided the Cherrywood community, thus also breaching the community of interest principle identified in the appeal of By-Law 7875/21. 2021 Final Option 1: Applying 2024 population data to Final Option 1, one of the three wards would be outside the acceptable range of variation whereas two were outside the acceptable range of variation in 2021. Two wards would be outside the acceptable range of variation in 2035, but one proposed ward is still at the optimal point by 2035. This distribution can be considered an improvement over the version presented in 2021 in terms of meeting the population parity principle, but it would fail to meet the future population principle. The inclusion of the urbanizing Brock Street corridor east of Duffins Creek boosts the population of the proposed Ward 3, but these neighbourhoods are different from the hamlets and rural communities in the northern area of Pickering. The Concession 3 boundary between Ward 1 and Ward 3 is problematic since it divides the Cherrywood community. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17 Figure 6-1 2021 Ward Boundary Review – Final Option 1 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18 Table 6-4 Updated Population Final Option 1 Ward Number 2024 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range 2035 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 37,098 0.94 O-39,439 0.70 OR- Ward 2 50,637 1.28 OR+ 55,400 0.99 O Ward 3 30,519 0.77 O-73,313 1.31 OR+ Total 118,255 --168,152 -- Average 39,418 --56,051 -- [1] Population includes a net Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding. Source: Derived from the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated May 26, 2020), by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Table 6-5 Final Option 1 Evaluation Summary (Re-evaluated) Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population Partially Successful One ward is outside the acceptable range of variation and another is near the bottom of the acceptable range. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Partially Successful Two wards include a mix of communities of interest and neighbourhoods. Current and Future Population Trends No Two proposed wards are outside the acceptable range of variation, although one is at the optimal point. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Most markers used as boundaries of the wards are straightforward and identifiable. Effective Representation Partially Successful Effective representation is hindered by uneven forecast population distribution and allocation of communities in the proposed wards. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19 2021 Final Option 3: Applying 2024 population data to Final Option 3 places all three wards at the optimal point, whereas two were outside the acceptable range of variation in 2021. The forecast population growth in the proposed Ward 3, however, pushes it well above the acceptable range of variation in 2035, while the relatively stable populations located in the other two proposed wards means they are both hovering at the brink of the lowest acceptable range of variation by 2035. This information can still be considered as improving Final Option 3 over the version presented in 2021 in terms of meeting the population parity principle, but it would fail to meet the future population principle. A recurring critique of this option is the proposal to include neighbourhoods both east and west of Frenchman’s Bay in the same ward; also, the proposed northern ward would include a significant urban population north of Finch Avenue, as well as many hamlets and rural communities, undermining the coherence of the communities of interest located there. Table 6-6 Updated Population Final Option 3 Ward Number 2024 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range 2035 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 39,566 1.00 O 42,403 0.76 O- Ward 2 38,816 0.98 O 42,323 0.76 O- Ward 3 39,872 1.01 O 83,426 1.49 OR+ Total 118,255 --168,152 -- Average 39,418 --56,051 -- [1] Population includes a net Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding. Source: Derived from the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated May 26, 2020), by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20 Figure 6-2 2021 Ward Boundary Review – Final Option 3 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21 Table 6-7 Final Option 3 Evaluation Summary (Re-evaluated) Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population Yes All three wards are at the optimal point. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Partially Successful Two wards include a mix of communities of interest and neighbourhoods. Current and Future Population Trends No One proposed ward is outside the acceptable range of variation and two are near the bottom of the acceptable range of variation. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Most markers used as boundaries of the wards are straightforward and identifiable. Effective Representation Partially Successful Effective representation is hindered by uneven forecast population distribution and allocation of communities in the proposed wards. In the assessment of the Consultant Team, the new population data available since 2021 and other considerations do not lead to the conclusion that either 2021 Final Option 1 or 2021 Final Option 3, as originally proposed to Pickering Council, could now be considered a plausible alternative to 2021 Final Option 2, the option adopted by Council as By-law 7875/21. 7. Final Options 2025 Since this review is intended to determine whether the 2026 municipal election should be conducted under the existing ward structure or a modified version of it, the Consultant Team has prepared two “adjusted” options for consideration, labelled Final Option A and Final Option B. The alternatives primarily involve modifications that are integrated into the By-law 7875/21 configuration, in both cases by moving the proposed Ward 1/Ward 3 boundary south from Concession 3 to the Canadian Pacific rail line, to acknowledge the implication of that configuration on the community of interest principle (and by extension the grounds for the appeal of By-law 7875/21). Ignoring that Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22 objection would likely mean another appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, whatever other changes are made. This small change would negate that possibility and would have no impact on the evaluation of the two population principles. While the Concession 3 boundary could be moved north to Taunton Road, the consultation process and the other evidence gathered by the Consultant Team confirms that the Cherrywood community of interest is more aligned with Pickering’s rural and agricultural interests and the well-established hamlets and communities to the north rather than with the larger, more populated communities in the urban area. 7.1 Final Option A Final Option A involves two changes to the existing ward system, starting with the single modification outlined above, namely moving the proposed Ward 1/Ward 3 boundary south from Concession 3 to the Canadian Pacific rail line. Final Option A also includes modifications that would incorporate the Duffin Heights and Brock Ridge urban neighbourhoods into the proposed Ward 3. It also proposes moving the boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 2 from Dixie Road back to Fairport Road, which has served as the boundary between the wards since 1982. These two changes to the existing ward system help to achieve the representation by population principle for the 2026 municipal election and contribute to a ward configuration that echoes familiar features of Pickering’s pre-2021 wards. Without returning the population along the Brock Road corridor to the proposed Ward 3 from By-law 7875/21, the proposed ward will include about two-thirds of the City’s land mass but only approximately 25% of the population, an undesirable population distribution that can be addressed with this map. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23 Figure 7-1 Final Option A Ward Configuration Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24 Population forecasts gathered in 2025 anticipate more than twice as many residents living in the proposed Ward 3 by 2035. In that process, rural Pickering and its historic hamlets would be further overwhelmed by urban neighbourhoods and the population of the proposed ward would be well over the acceptable range of variation. Presumably these two significant changes to the Pickering community would be reason enough to undertake a fresh ward boundary and council composition review at that time. In the meantime, Final Option A addresses the shortcomings of the pre-2021 ward system by narrowing the gap between the smallest and largest ward populations and can be seen as a plausible three-ward configuration to provide effective representation over the next two elections or longer, dependent on the scale and timing of growth within the Seaton community. Table 7-1 Final Option A – Population by Ward Ward Number 2024 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range 2035 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 44,633 1.13 O+ 47,267 0.84 O- Ward 2 42,726 1.08 O+ 47,188 0.84 O- Ward 3 30,896 0.78 O-73,697 1.31 OR+ Total 118,255 --168,152 -- Average 39,418 --56,051 -- [1] Population includes a net Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding. Source: Derived from the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated May 26, 2020), by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25 Table 7-2 Final Option A – Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population Yes Successfully achieves the kind of population balance sought in this principle. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Largely Successful Two of the wards are coherent electoral units. Ward 3 continues to be a mix of neighbourhoods ranging from suburban neighbourhoods to sparsely populated rural areas and hamlets, as well as the forecast Seaton development. Current and Future Population Trends Largely Successful The two urban wards are balanced with one another, but Ward 3 is well above the acceptable range of variation. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Most markers used as boundaries of the wards are straightforward and identifiable. Effective Representation Largely Successful Effective representation is hindered in the short term by uneven population distribution but accommodates demands on councillors brought on by large-scale development. 7.2 Final Option B Final Option B involves only one change to the existing ward system, namely moving the proposed Ward 1/Ward 3 boundary south from Concession 3 to the Canadian Pacific rail line. When then-Option 2 was adopted in the by-law by Pickering Council in August 2021, the data available to the Consultant Team indicated that two of the proposed wards were significantly outside the acceptable range of variation, but the main attribute of the design was the expectation that two of the proposed wards would be at the optimal range (that is, within 5% of optimal) by 2030. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26 Figure 7-2 Ward Map of Final Option B Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27 The population changes since the by-law was adopted and updated population projections considered in this re-evaluation indicate that, by 2035, the pattern no longer holds: two of the proposed wards were still significantly outside the acceptable range of variation in the short term, but only one ward is forecast to be at the optimal point in 2035, and two are within the acceptable range, one 11% below optimal and one 12% above optimal. With this minimal change, Pickering would probably still have a much- improved ward configuration over the pre-2021 system, but the new information available confirms that the population of the proposed Ward 3 is only about half the optimal size, a finding that undermines the case for this option. Population figures by ward are presented in Table 7-3 with the consultants evaluation presented in Table 7-4. Table 7-3 Final Option B – Population by Ward Ward Number 2024 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range 2035 Population[1] Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 52,255 1.33 OR+ 55,254 0.99 O Ward 2 44,984 1.14 O+ 50,094 0.89 O- Ward 3 21,015 0.53 OR-62,804 1.12 O+ Total 118,255 --168,152 -- Average 39,418 --56,051 -- [1] Population includes a net Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding. Source: Derived from the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated May 26, 2020) by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 28 Table 7-4 Final Option B – Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population No Two of the three wards are outside the acceptable range of variation. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Yes The two urban wards are coherent collections of neighbourhoods, while the third is largely rural today. Current and Future Population Trends Largely Successful Population growth brings better balance, but only one ward is at the optimal point. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Markers used as boundaries of the wards are straightforward and identifiable. Effective Representation Largely Successful Effective representation is hindered in the short term by uneven population distribution. A comparison of the evaluations of the “Existing” configuration to that of the final two options are presented in Table 7-5. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 29 Table 7-5 City of Pickering Evaluation Summary Final Option Representation by Population Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Current and Future Population Trends Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Effective Representation By-law 7875/21 No Partially Successful Yes Yes Largely Successful Final Option A Yes Largely Successful Largely Successful Yes Largely Successful Final Option B No Yes Largely Successful Yes Largely Successful Levels of evaluation for how the Guiding Principles are met Yes Largely Successful Partially Successful No Higher Rating Lower Rating 8. Next Steps and Council Decisions This report will be presented to Pickering Council at a meeting scheduled for July 15, 2025. There are a number of possible actions for Council to take, beginning with a decision to leave the wards set out in By-law 7875/21 as the format for the 2026 municipal election. This approach is both inadvisable and inconsistent with the premise of this 2025 re-evaluation. It is inadvisable, since the By-law includes a ward boundary drawn along Concession 3, the primary reason the by-law was appealed in 2021. Maintaining that feature would in all likelihood prompt another appeal. Also, the 2025 re-evaluation was initiated to provide more up-to-date population figures as a basis for discovering whether the main features of the by-law can stand up to further scrutiny. The re-evaluation has demonstrated that the population data on which By-law 7875/21 was designed is not Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30 perceptibly changed by the “Cherrywood” modification, but as noted, the basis of the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal would remain in place, risking another appeal. Instead, it is the recommendation of the Consultant Team that Pickering Council adopt an option to re-divide the City into three wards that successfully meet the guiding principles that framed the 2021 ward boundary review, in light of its direction to the Consultant Team through Resolution #654/25. This report has re-evaluated those three options from 2021 but determined that the option adopted through By-law 7875/21 should be the basis for re-dividing Pickering for the 2026 municipal election. Final Option A is the recommended alternative: it returns to some features of the pre- 2021 ward configuration that will be familiar to residents and allows for a better population distribution in the short and longer term. Final Option B includes a minor boundary adjustment to the By-law 7875/21 map but is less successful when more up- to-date population projections are taken into account. Neither final option, nor the by- law map and the pre-2021 boundaries, meet the population parity principle for 2026 but offer alternative approaches to address the expected population growth in Pickering. Put another way, the Pickering ward maps presented herein are about growing into parity, not about achieving it immediately. On that point, it is probably also important for Pickering Council to consider adopting a Ward Boundary Review Policy that commits the municipality to a regular review of its ward boundaries, perhaps after a designated number of elections or when population growth reaches a pre-determined threshold. Electoral reviews (and note that this refers to “reviews” not necessarily changes) should be proactive and routine, not reactive and discretionary. As the Consultant Team noted in its 2021 Final Report: “it is appropriate for the City to be prepared for...inevitable change in the community.” Ward boundary lines are not meant to be permanent markers on the City map. Instead, they are demarcations that need to be evaluated on a regular basis to confirm whether they provide effective representation for residents of Pickering. The Consultant Team recommends Final Option A in this report to enhance effective representation in Pickering. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 31 Appendices Appendix A Public Engagement Information Boards Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-4 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-5 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-6 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-7 Appendix B Survey Results Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-1 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-2 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-3 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-4 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-5 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-6 Attachment 2 to Report CLK 03-25 Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum January 31, 2025 To: Susan Cassel City Clerk From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on January 27, 2025 Ward Boundaries Council Decision Resolution #654/25 WHEREAS, in 2017, the City of Pickering obtained the services of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. To undertake a review of the City’s ward boundaries; And Whereas, on August 30, 2021, Council adopted new ward boundaries which are set out in By-law 7875/21; And Whereas, By-law 7875/21 was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) and although the appeal was withdrawn, the deadline for the new ward boundaries to take effect for the 2022 Municipal Election was not met in accordance with the requirements under the Municipal Act; And Whereas, the new ward boundaries set out in By-law 7875/21 will take effect for the 2026 Municipal Election unless otherwise amended by the prescribed timelines set out in the Municipal Act; And Whereas, several years have passed and intervening events, population growth patterns, and the population projections used in the Consultant’s report to determine the proposed boundaries, should be reviewed to ascertain whether these boundaries are still relevant and equitable from an effective representation perspective; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering directs through the Office of the CAO: 1. That the City Clerk be directed to engage the services of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., to reconsider the findings in its Final Report titled “2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review, City of Pickering” dated June, 2021, based on available and updated population data, and to make recommendations on any appropriate adjustments to the ward boundaries set out in By-law 7875/21, and that such adjustments be consistent with applicable law and best practices; 2. That the Ward Boundary Review carried out by Watson & Associates include engaging in public consultation with suitable time allotted to effectively engage the public through public information session, social media, website notice of boundary review, etc.; 3.That the costs associated with the review by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Shall not exceed $35,000.00 plus applicable taxes, funded from Contingency Account 503500.11100; and, 4.That the City Clerk report back to Council with the Consultant’s report and recommendations, no later than the end of Q2 2025, in order to consider any amendments to By-law 7875/21 in time for the adjusted ward boundaries to take effect for the 2026 Municipal Election. Please take any action deemed necessary. SC:am Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor ________________________________ ________________________________ Attachment 3 to Report CLK 03-25 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. xxxx/25 Being a by-law to change the ward boundaries in the City of Pickering Whereas Section 222(1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended (the “Act”), provides authority for a municipality to divide or redivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards; And Whereas at its Special Meeting held on July 15, 2025, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering approved changes to the ward boundaries in the City of Pickering; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That the ward boundaries, as shown and described in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and forming part of this by -law are hereby approved; 2.That pursuant to Section 222(8) of the Act, the new ward boundaries shall come into force on the day the new Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering is organized following the 2026 Municipal Election provided that: (i)no notices of appeal are filed; (ii)notices of appeal are filed and are all withdrawn before January 1, 2026; or, (iii)notices of appeal are filed, and the Ontario Land Tribunal issues an order to affirm or amend the by -law before January 1, 2026; 3.That pursuant to Section 222(9) of the Act, the 2026 Municipal Election shall be conducted as if the by -law was already in force; and, 4.That By -law 7875/21 is hereby repealed. By-law passed this 15th day of July , 2025. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk Schedule “A” to By-law XXXX/25 -Ward Boundary Descriptions Ward 1 Beginning where the centre line of the Canadian Pacific rail line crosses the centre line of York-Durham Line (that is , where the City of Pickering municipal boundary meets the municipal boundary of the City of Toronto), then in an easterly direction along the centre line of the Canadian Pacific rail line to the centre line of Fairport Road, then in a southerly direction along the centre line of Fairport Road to Highway 401, then in an easternly direction along the centre line of Highway 401 to the intersection of where the CNR crosses the 401. From this point, in a southeasterly direction along a line drawn to Frenchman’s Bay and across Frenchman’s Bay to the gap in the sandspit that separates the Bay from Lake Ontario, then in a westerly direction along the City of Pickering municipal boundary in Lake Ontario to the Rouge River (the municipal boundary with the City of Toronto), then in a northwestern direction along the Rouge River (the municipal boundary with the City of Toronto) to Twyn Rivers Drive then in a northern direction along the centre line of Scarborough-Pickering Townline to the point of origin. Ward 2 Beginning where the centre line of the Canadian Pacific rail line crosses the centre line of Fairport Road, then in a northeasterly direction along the centre line of the Canadian Pacific rail line to the centre line of Third Concession Road east, then in an easterly direction along the centre line of Third Concession Road to the centre line of Valley Farm Roard. Following the centre line of Valley Farm Road in a southerly direction to the centre line of Finch Avenue, then in an easterly direction along the centre line of Finch Avenue to the centre line of Brock Road, then in a southerly direction along the centre line of Brock Road to the centre line of Kingston Road (Highway 2) , then in an easterly direction along the centre line of Kingston Road (Highway 2) to the municipal boundary between City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax, then in a southerly and easterly direction along the City of Pickering municipal boundary with the Town of Ajax to the City of Pickering municipal boundary in Lake Ontario, then westerly along the City of Pickering municipal boundary in Lake Ontario to the gap in the sandspit that separates the Frenchman’s Bay from Lake Ontario, then in a northwesterly direction along a line drawn from that point to the end of a line drawn from Frenchman’s Bay to Highway 401, where the CNR intersect. Following in a westerly direction along Highway 401 to the centre line of Fairport Road, then in a northerly direction along the centre line of Fairport Road to the point of origin at the Canadian Pacific rail line. Ward 3 Beginning where the centre line of Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road meets the centre line of Regional Road 30 (York Durham Line), then in an easterly direction along the centre line of Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road (the municipal boundary of the City of Pickering with the Township of Uxbridge) to where it meets the centre line of Lake Ridge Road (the eastern municipal boundary of the City of Pickering with the Township of Scugog), then in a southerly direction along municipal boundary of the City of Pickering with the Town of Whitby to the northern municipal boundary of the Town of Ajax, then in a westerly and southerly direction along the municipal boundary with the Town of Ajax to the centre line of Kingston Road (Highway 2), then in a westerly direction along the centre line of Kingston Road (Highway 2) the centre line of Brock Road, then in a northerly direction along the centre line of Brock Road to the centre line of Finch Avenue, then in a westerly direction along the centre line of Finch Avenue to the centre line of Valley Farm Road, then in a northerly direction along the centre line of Valley Farm Road to the line of Third Concession Road, then in a westerly direction along the centre line of Third Concession Road to the centre line of the Canadian Pacific rail line, then in a southwesterly direction along the centre line of the Canadian Pacific rail line to the centre line of Scarborough-Pickering Townline, then in a northerly direction along the centre line of Regional Road 30 (York Durham Line) to the point of origin.