2009 boundary-ward report

8/3/2019 2009 Boundary-ward Report

1/34

DATE: February 2, 2009 REPORT NO. CM2009001TO:

FROM:

Chair and MembersCommittee of the Whole - Operations and AdministrationJohn Brown, City Manager

1.0 TYPE OF REPORT

2.0 TOPIC

CONSENT ITEM [ ]ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION [x ]PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL ITEM [ ]

Review of Council Structure and Electoral Ward Boundary Options

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONTHAT Report CM2009001, respecting a Review of Council Structure and ElectoralWard Boundary Options, BE RECEIVED for information.


2/34

Report No. CM2009-001February 2, 2009 Page 2

WHEREAS a comprehensive review of the City of Brantford Council Structure,including Ward Boundaries and representation has not been completed in recentyears; andWHEREAS opportunities may exist to revise the City's current Council and WardBoundary Structure resulting in operating and governing efficiencies within theCorporation; andWHEREAS the appropriate time to finalize such a review would be in 2009 priorto the next regular election scheduled for November of 201 O.NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:THAT Staff BE DIRECTED to bring forward a report for Council's consideration inJanuary of 2009, which would include the following components:

a comprehensive review of Council and Ward Boundary Structures inplace in other comparable Ontario Municipalities; and a comprehensive review of the City of Brantford's existing Ward BoundaryStructure in order to identify alternative models for voter representationand distribution; and a review of available options and municipal best practices to identifyalternatives available to Council to revise the current Council and Ward


3/34

Report No. CM2009-001February 2, 2009

6.0 STRATEGIC PLAN CONTEXT

Page 3

One of the long-term desired outcomes of the City of Brantford's Community StrategicPlan is that Brantford will be known for its open and accessible government. StrategicAction 4.8 related to this Goal, provides that the City will review its municipalgovernance structure. This review is in keeping with this Strategic Action.

7.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCESIn the preparation of this Report, City Clerk's Department Staff have consulted withseveral Ontario municipalities, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the OntarioMunicipal Board, MPAC as well as the City's Legal, Planning and Finance Departments.

8.0 ANALYSISThe Analysis Section of Report CM2009-001 has been subdivided into the followingcomponent parts for ease of presentation:

A) Report Methodology.B) Historical Review of Brantford's Council Structure and Ward Boundaries.C) Legislative Requirements and Associated Timelines.D) Data Analysis - Summary of Survey Findings and Report Reviews.E) Council Structure Options for Consideration.


4/34

Report No. CM2009001February 2, 2009 Page 4

An extensive search and review of the City Clerk's Department Archives was alsocompleted in order to present Members of Council with an historical framework to thecurrent Council and Ward Boundary structure.IB) Historical review of Brantford's Council Structure and Ward Boundaries I

In order to fully assess options for change within the current Council and WardBoundary structure, it is important to understand the evolution of the City's currentstructure. The Clerk's Department has fully researched this evolution beginning with theoriginal Council and Ward Boundary structure of 1842.On July 28, 1847, a special Act was passed incorporating Brantford as a Town. A wardsystem was very quickly established and initially consisted of seven wards: East Ward;West Ward; North Ward; South Ward, Kings Ward, Queens Ward and Brant Ward. By1849 the wards were re-defined reducing the number from the original seven to fiveeliminating the South and West Wards. In 1891 the name identifiers for the wards waschanged to a numbering format resulting in Ward 1, Ward 2, Ward 3, Ward 4 and Ward5, a naming practice that remains today.Over the years ward representation varied, ranging from one member per ward to up toa three-member representation. From 1849 to 1934 a three-member representation perward existed resulting in a Council membership of sixteen - 15 Councillors and theMayor. However the exception to this governing format occurred in the years 1867,1868 and from 1872 to 1877 inclusive where Council representation was based on atwo member per ward format. This resulted in a Council membership of eleven - 10


5/34


Throughout the history of municipal government in Ontario, the election process hasalso seen changes over the decades. Between 1847 to 1956, municipal Councillorswere elected for a one-year term of office. Recognizing that twelve months wasinsufficient to provide good municipal management, the term of office was increased totwo years between the years 1957 to 1981. With increasing workloads and demandson municipal Councils, the term was, once again increased and from 1982 to 2005councils were elected for a three-year term. With municipal pressure to have localcouncils elected for a term of office to mirror both Provincial and Federal electedofficials, changes to the Municipal Elections Act were made in 2006 resulting inmunicipal Councillors now being elected for four-year terms.I C) Legislative Requirements and Associated Timelines IShould Council wish to move forward with potential changes to either the size of Councilor the City's Ward Boundaries, consideration must be given to the overriding legislativeframework that governs these changes. Members of Council will find that if changesare to be considered for the 2010 Municipal Election there is a very narrow window ofopportunity to move potential changes forward.The Ontario Municipal Act provides the legislative framework for both changes toCouncil Structure and Municipal Ward Boundaries. A summary of these legislativerequirements is provided in Appendix "A" to this Report.Changes to Council Composition


6/34


Boundaries. In other cases municipalities have employed outside consultants, in aneffort to identify appropriate changes to ward boundaries.It is important to note that although the Municipal Act does not provide any formalcriteria to be followed in the creation of wards, recent decisions of the Ontario MunicipalBoard with reference to changes to ward boundaries, have identified that considerationshould be given to creating Wards representative of as equal a number of electors aspossible. The OMB has identified a rationale to be utilized when diverting from theprinciple of equal electors per ward if necessary:

Wards should preserve communities of interest. Wards should recognize natural (rivers, lakes, swamps) or manmade(highways, railways) barriers/dividers. Wards should recognize areas of growth/decline. Wards should recognize density (ward with few people over a largegeographic area equals a ward with large population in a small geographicarea). Wards should recognize accessibility/communication issues.

The Municipal Act provides for a very detailed approval process for ward boundarychanges that incorporates an appeal mechanism to the Ontario Municipal Board. Any


7/34


law may not necessarily be appealed to the OMB, timelines need to recognize thepotential for such an appeal to occur.As a result, should Council wish to move forward with ward boundary changes for 2010,a decision would be required quickly. It is important to note that a number ofmunicipalities that have undertaken comprehensive ward boundary reviews for the 2010Municipal Election, commenced those reviews immediately after the 2006 MunicipalElection(Kitchener, Milton).

[D j Data Analysis - Summary of Survey Findings and Report Reviews [Appendix "8" attached to this report provides a detailed summary of findings from thesurvey conducted of several Ontario Municipalities.In addition to the survey, staff reviewed reports from a number of Ontario Municipalitiesthat have completed similar Council structure or ward boundary reviews.When analyzing this data in conjunction with the resolution approved by City Council,the following survey findings appear very relevant to the City of Brantford:SUBJECT SURVEY AVERAGES BRANTFORDCouncillor positions 89% Part-time Part-time11% Full-timeElectoral system 82% Ward based Ward based


8/34


I E) Council Structure Options fo r Consideration IFollowing the resolution approved by City Council and a general review of survey dataobtained from other Ontario Municipalities, there appear to be at least 3 models forCouncil structure that warrant a more detailed analysis. A detailed review of options E1,E2 and E3 (see below) are provided in the following pages. A more cursory review ofoptions E4, E5, E6 and E7 then follows.Options for Further Evaluation:

E1)E2)E3)E4)E5)E6)E7)

Status Quo - Existing Structure - 5 Wards - 10 Councillors (2 perWard)9 Member Council - 8 Ward Model (1 perWard)7 Member Council - 6 Ward Model (1 perWard)At-Large RepresentationMixed System - At-Large and Ward RepresentativesDeputy Mayor ModelWard Boundary Options - Maps &Charts

One of the determining factors in selecting these models for further analysis is the factthat an odd-numbered Council be maintained for Council voting purposes in anyscenario. Throughout Ontario the vast majority of municipalities maintain an oddnumbered Council. The other primary consideration is the legislative requirement underthe Ontario Municipal Act that a Municipal Council must contain at least 5 members.


9/34


Advantages Allows for an equitable distribution ofboard and committee responsibilities.

Allows for a sharing of constituentresponsibilities. Most cost effective model (SeeAppendix "C") Provides 2 perspectives on ward

issues. Part-time Council positions allow thosewith other jobs to serve as Counciliors. Existing Standing Committee Structureworks best for two Councillors perward, with one ward rep. on eachCommittee Potential for collaboration on issuesbetween Ward Councillors. Two points of contact for residents ofthe ward.

Page 9

Disadvantages Part-time status of positions results in aheavy workload for Councillors.

May be confusion over who isresponsible for ward matters. 2 Members per ward can diffuseresponsibility and diminishaccountability for Ward issues. Effective communication between wardrepresentatives is vital to effectiveiyrepresent the Ward. Time required for Committee andCouncil meetings may be significantconsidering the large number ofmeetings. Councillors are also competitors with

one another for re-election. Part-time Members of Councilgenerally require the majority ofCouncil and Committee meetings to beheld during evening hours.


10/34

Report No. CM2009001February 2, 2009

Advantages Eliminates duplication of administrativework in communicating the sameinformation to and from two or moreCouncillors. Simplifies the election process forelectors as they select one preferredcandidate like federal and ProvincialElections. Councillor is accountable to the Ward. Eliminates potential conflicts with Wardmate.

Page 10

Disadvantages Voters may have a restricted choice ofcandidates in elections for individualwards. Electors only have one point of contactfor ward-issues. Smaller ward boundaries might besusceptible to frequent change causedby demographic shifts and growth. Changes would likely be required tothe current Committee structure toallow for representatives of each ward

on Committees. With a smaller Council, some Boards

and Advisory Committees may nothave a Council appointee. Constituent response time may belonger as Councillor's cannot rely on award mate to share responsibility. Councillors would be required to serve


11/34


Advantages Significant communities of interest arelikely to be maintained. Eliminates duplication of administrativework communicating the sameinformation to and from two or moreCouncillors. Simplifies the election process forelectors as they select one preferred

candidate like Federal and ProvincialElections Councillor is accountable to the entireward. Citizens and staff know who to contactfor ward issues. Eliminates potential conflicts with award mate. Increased opportunities for Councillorsto meet with staff face to face duringthe day rather than by phone or emailafter hours.

Page 11

Disadvantages It is estimated that a full-time Councillormodel such as this will result in anoverall cost increase for theCouncil/Legislative area, with the needfor full time administrative support andupdated office accommodations. Fewer points of contact for wardrelated issues with staff. Greater workload for Members ofCouncil in attending meetings ofCommittees, Boards and AdvisoryCommittees. Constituent response time may beslower given the number ofconstituents represented in this model. Councillors would be required to serveas Mayor of the Month more frequentlythereby adding additionalresponsibilities to an already busyworkload. Creating full-time Councillor positions


12/34


E4) At Large Representation

Page 12

Although certainly not typical in Ontario, some municipalities continue to elect theirCounci l on the basis of an "At Large" System. The election of Councillors "At Large"typically tends to be as a result of the specific geography or demographics of aparticular municipal ity and tends to be more common in smaller, more rural or northernmunicipalities. In the survey conducted for this report (where primarily urbanmunicipalities were contacted), only 3 of 18 or 16% utilized an "At Large" system.The following chart analyzes the primary advantages and disadvantages of an "AtLarge" system of representation:Advantages Disadvantages

Electors generally have greater choiceand flexibility in elections, as eachvoter has the opportunity to considerevery candidate in the election.Electors are able to select thecandidates they think will do the bestjob, rather than having to make achoice among candidates who happento run in their ward.Residents will have a larger number of

Candidates must campaign across theentire municipality which may make thecost of campaigning prohibitive,especially for new comers. It isimportant to note that the campaignexpense limit is based upon thenumber of electors in the electoralarea. As a result the costs of contestsfor Councillor positions could becomevery costly, with campaign expenselimits very close to that of the Mayor'srace.


13/34


:l

Advantaaes Disadvantages Allows Councillors to focus on higher Large number of candidates can belevel strategic planning initiatives for confusing for voters.the municipality as opposed to ward orneighbourhood issues. Confusion for residents on not knowingwho to call.

Less accountability to citizens. Can be problems among members ifsome do not carry their own weight interms of responding to constituentneeds. Possibility of many Members of Councilbeing contacted and following up onthe same work resulting in duplicationby Members of Council and Staff.

E5) Mixed System - At Large and Ward representativesAnother option for Council structure is a mixed system of representation. In this modelsome Members of Council are elected by Ward, and others are elected "At-Large". Thismodel is designed to provide. varying perspectives on the same Council by offeringsome representational advantages of both at-large and ward systems.


14/34


E7) Ward Boundary Options - Maps & Charts

Page 14

In order to more closely analyze the options previously identified in Sections E2) andE3), reduced Council's with 8 and 6 single ward representatives, we have mapped outpossible ward boundary scenarios to accommodate such changes.The maps and accompanying charts presented on the following pages E7 -1, E7 -2a, E72b, E7-3a and E7-3b provide Members of Council with possible distributions of electorsunder each scenario. Maps with corresponding charts E7-2a) and E7-2b) representpossible ward boundary options of moving to a Council with 8 single-wardrepresentatives, Maps with corresponding charts E7-3a) and E7-3b) represent possibleward boundary options for moving to a Council with 6 single ward representatives.Map with corresponding chart E7-1) outlines the current distribution of voters within theCity's present Ward Boundary structure.These maps are presented for discussion purposes only at this point and represent apossible starting point should Council be desirous of moving forward with significantchange to the current Council and Ward Boundary structure of the Municipality.


15/34

:J

m"'-J 0 1 -f -- 0 Z


16/34

E7-1OPTION #1 - status Q uo

Populat ion & Electors25,000

20,000

15,000T OT ALS

10,000

5,000

oD PopulationII I Eligible Electors

120,26714,607

217,81713,180

316,65212,590W A RD

417,83711,641

517,61711,628

D PopulationII I Eligible Electors


17/34

:1

. .

o'1J -I -oz I\) co . Q. en


18/34


E7-2AOPTION # 2a - 8 W a r d sPopul at i on & El ec t or s

16,00014,00012,00010,000

T O T A L S 8,0006,0004,0002,000

o PopulationII!I Eligible Electors

111,2558,431

26,8095,161

315,13411,244

4 I 51 1 , 0 5 0 1 1 1 , 8 7 66,940 I 8,065

W A R D

67,1455,743

712,4718,827

814,4509,235

I72El PopulationI72El Eligible Electors


19/34

[

olJ - -oZ N OJ

";0


20/34


E1-2BOPTION #2b - 8 WardsPopulation & Electors

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

TOTALS 8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

oD PopulationD Eligible Electors

19,7947,330

210,5938,258

315,13411,268

4 I 513,785111,8768,451 I 8,065W A R D

66,5835,048

710,7107,502

811,7157,724

PopulationEligible Electors


21/34


E7 - OPTION 3A - 6 Wards

ORTH0.__0,=0=::1::,0. . . .2 ..000Metres


22/34


E7-3AOPTION 3a - 6 WardsPopu la t i on & Elec to rs

25 ,000

20,000

15 ,000TOTALS

10,000

5,000

oo Populat ionD EliQible Electors

111 ,2558,431

215 ,95410 ,904

3 I 416 ,652 I 14 ,05212 ,590 I 9,601

WARD

511 ,8768,065

620,40114 ,055

ElS. Populat ionElS. Eligible Electors


23/34

o1) -I -oZ eN OJ

"0CD

CD

C"C

.

0

l.

l

.

"0-.

"0oS:0"(00 o(0, oo.


24/34


E7-3BOPTION # 3b - 6 WardsPopula t ion & Electors

TOTALS

18,00016,00014,00012,00010,0008,0006,0004,0002,000

o 1 2 3 I 4 5 6

IE1] Populat ionIE1] Eligible Electors

IE1] Populat ion Eligible Electors

11,4438,511

17,81713,158

17,416 I 17,0651 3, 16 0 1 11 ,0 71

WARD

17,42911,546

9,0206,200


25/34

I F) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IIn analyzing recent reports and reviews conducted by other municipalities and fromdiscussions with some current Members of Council there appears to be another measurethat might resolve current concerns over Council workload. The establishment of a fulltime administrative support position (servicing Members of the current Council) would bein a position to respond to a number of day to day constituent and ward issues forMembers of Council. Such a position could provide an immediate telephone response toissues raised by constituents on a daily basis and complete other required administrativetasks. Hiring an administrative assistant dedicated solely to City Councillor support mightprovide an immediate solution to the issue of Council workload that has been raisedpreviously.It is estimated that the total annual costs (including benefits) for this type of position wouldbe approximately $ 45,000.Currently, Members of Counc;il obtain required support services from an employee of theCity Clerk's Department who provides these services in addition to their legislativesupport roles within the Clerk's Department. It is estimated that the percentage of timeallotted to these support services equates to approximately .25 of 1 full-time employee.

I G) SUMMARY OF REPORT FINDINGS I


26/34


G4) Any significant change to City of Brantford Ward Boundaries should involve adetailed and well defined public review and consultation process and might bemore appropriate in conjunction with any future municipal boundary adjustments. Acomprehensive ward boundary review should leave approximately 24 months forconsultation and completion.G5) Based upon Brantford's current ratio of residents to Council Members (9,019 perCouncillor), an argument can be advanced that a smaller number of Municipal

Councillors could be warranted. A move from 10 to 8 Councillors would placeBrantford more in line with current ratios in other Ontario municipalities.G6) Any move to reduce the size of Brantford City Council will bring with it the need tocarefully consider whether Council needs to establish full time administrativesupport for Council Members. Based on current workloads, it could be argued thatCouncil already requires at least one dedicated full time employee to helpadminister ward issues and inquiries. Any move to reduce the size of Council and

move to single-ward representatives will certainly bring with it the need to considerthe establishment of full-time resources to assist Council.G7) It is important that Council consider the potential role of a Council RemunerationReview Committee as it relates to the potential governing costs of any of the


27/34


9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Page 27

Based upon the assumptions made in the costing analysis contained in this Report, asmaller Council with single-ward representatives has the potential to slightly increaseoverall costs of the Legislative function within the Municipality. This is based uponestimates of future levels of remuneration for Members of Council and the potential costsof dedicated administrative support for Members of Council.Actual costing impacts are very difficult to estimate however, given unknowns such as thenumber of Committee meetings which could be held during the day and their impact onstaff overtime costs, the potential need for changes to current office accommodations forCouncillors and what future remuneration levels would be for Members of Council.Appendix "c" to this Report outlines the anticipated general costing impacts of moving toa 9 or 7 Member Council.

10.0 CONCLUSIONReport CM2009-001 presents an overview of various options to potentially alter thestructure of City Council and the City's Ward Boundaries. These options are presented to


28/34


In adopting this report, is a by-law or a[lrCell1ent require d? If so, i t should be referenced in the recommendation section.By-Jaw requiredAgreement(s) or other documents to be s ig ne d by Mayor and/or City ClerkIs the necessary b y ~ l a w or agreement being sent concurrently to Council?

] yes1yes1yes

[ x ] no[ x ] no[ x ]110


29/34


APPENDIX "A" to Report CM2009001LOGISTICS FOR CHANGES TOWARD BOUNDARY & COUNCIL STRUCTURE2010 MUNICIPAL ELECTION

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ACT S.O. 2001, c. 25PART II GENERAL MUNICIPAL POWERS

Page 29

8 (1) Scope of PowersThe powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be interpreted broadly so asto confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairsas it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality's ability to respond tomunicipal issues. 2006, c.32, Sch. A, s. 8 Part.10 (2) By-lawsA single tier municipality may pass By-laws respecting the following matters:(1) Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards.(7) Services and things that the municipality is authorized to provide undersubsection (1)


30/34


217 (4) Council- composition - By-law - electionThe regular election held immediately before the coming into force of a By-law describedin this section shall be conducted as if the By-law was already in force. 2001, c. 25, s.217 (4); 2006, c. 32, Sch. A, s. 92 (3)PART V-WARDS222 (1) Wards - establishmentWithout limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to divide orre-divide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards. 2006, c. 32, Sch.A, s. 96 (1), part.(2 ) ConflictIn the event of a conflict between a By-law described in subsection (1) and any provisionof this Act, other than this section or section 223, any provision of any other Act or aregulation made under any other Act, the By-law prevails. 2006, c. 32, Sch. A, s. 96 (1),part.(3) Wards - By-law - noticeWithin 15 days after a By-law described in subsection (1) is passed, the municipality shallgive notice of the passing of the By-law to the public specifically the last date for filing a


31/34


(8) Wards - By-law - coming into forceA By-law of a municipality described in this section comes into force on the day the newcouncil of the municipality is organized following,(a) the first regular election after the By-law is passed if the By-law is passed beforeJanuary 1 In the year of the regular election and,

(i) no notices of appeal are filed,(ii) notices of appeal are filed and are all withdrawn before January 1 in the year ofthe election, or(iii) notices of appeal are filed and the Board issues an order to affirm or amend theBy-law before January 1 in the year of the election; or(b) the second regular election after the By-law is passed, in all other cases exceptwhere the By-raw is repealed by the Board. 2001, c. 25, s. 222 (8); 2006, c. 32,Sched. A, s. 96 (2). .

(9) Wards - By-law - electionDespite subsection (8), where a By-law comes into force on the day the new council of amunicipality is organized following a regular election, that election snail be conducted as ifthe By-law was already in force. 2001, c. 25, s. 222 (9).Regulations(10) Wards - By-law - public meeting - criteria - regulationsThe Minister may prescribe criteria for the purpose of subsection (2). 2001, c. 25,


32/34


(5) Wards - petition - order by OMBThe Board shall hear the application and may despite any Act, make an order dividing orredividing the municipality Into wards or dissolving the existing wards and subsection 222(6) applies with necessary modifications in respect to the hearing. 2001, c. 25, s. 223 (5).(6) Wards - petition - order by OMB - coming into forceAn order of the Board under this section comes into force on the day the new council ofthe municipality is organized following,(a) the first regular election after the order is made, i f the order is made before January1 in the year of the regular election; or(b) the second regular election after the order is made, if the order is made on or afterJanuary 1 in the year of a regular election but before voting day. 2001, c. 25,

s. 223 (6).(7) Wards - petition - order by OMB - electionDespite subsection (6), if an order comes into force on the day the new council of amunicipality is organized following a regular election, that election shall be conducted as ifthe order was already in force. 2001, c. 25, s. 223 (7).(8) Wards - petition - order by OMB - deemed By-lawOnce an order of the Board is in force, the order shall be deemed to be a By-law of the


33/34

Append i x "B " to Repor t CM2009-001

C I TY OF BRANTFORD - 2008WARD SYSTEM/COUNCIL STRUCTURESURVEY RESULTSCompi led from surveys conducted by Cambr idge,London,Red Lake and Brant ford

Estimated Counci l ResidentsPopulation (inlcudes to Councillors Method of Mayor Deputy CouncillorsMunicipalitv (2006 Mayor & # of # o f Councillor per Wa rd o r Election Full- or Mayor Full- or Deputy Full- or Councillor Dedicated supports taf f for GovernmenCensus) Deouty) Wards Councillors Ratio A t- La rg e f or C o un ci l Par t- t ime Remunera ti on Part-time Remuneration Part-time Remuneration Council m embers System$ 86,095 $ 29,088Barrie 128,430 11 10 10 12843 1 1 1Ward 11FT) (113 tax-free) NIA N/A 10 I PT) (113 tax-free) 1/2 position to Council Sinqle TierMayor -2$ 72,376 $ 23,014 Council - noneBrantford 90,192 11 5 10 9,019 2 2 1Ward 1 (FT) (1/3 tax-free) NIA NIA 10 1PT' (1/3 tax-f ree' Suppbrted bv Clerk 's staf f Sinale Tier$112,565 $ 43,388 No - Clerk & LegislativestaffBurlington 164,415 7 6 6 27,403 1 11 Ward 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) NIA NIA 61FT) (1/3 tax-free) of 3 LowerTier$ 61,044 7 (PT) $ 24,761Cambridge 125,000 7 6 6 20,833 1 11 Ward 1 (FT) (1/3 tax-free) N/A NIA 1113 tax-f ree' Council- 2 Lower Tier

Guelnh 72353 121PT\ $ 26,585 Mayor - 1 Sinole Tier18,000 13 6 12 9,833 2 2 /Wa rd 11FT) (1/3 tax-free NIA N/A 1113 tax:free) Council - noneKinaston $ 70,000 12 (PT\

$ 18,000 No - Mayor/Clerk provide 2118,000 13 12 12 9,833 1 11 Ward 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) NIA NIA (1/3 tax-free) sunnort Single Tier$ 70,5416 IPT)

Mayor -1Kitchener 214,000 7 6 6 35,667 1 11 Ward 11FT) (113 tax-free \ NIA N/A $36,292 Council- 4 LowerT ier$25,848 (Cityllocal)$ 102,84410 'PT \

$66,398 (Regional) Mayor - 1Milton 70,000 11 5 10 7,000 2 2/Ward 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) N/A N/ A (113 ta)Hree)- Council- none Lower TierNianara Falls $ 80,834 8 IPT) $19,71982,180 9 N/A 8 10,273 8 At-Laroe 11FT) (113 tax-free) NIA N/A ( 13 tax-free) Mayor - Lower TierMayor - 1Nor th Bav $ 50,000 9 IPT \ $ 16,000 Counci l - assis tance through54,000 11 NIA 9 6,000 9 At-Laroe 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) 1 (PT) $17,600 (1/3 tax-free) Clerk 's staf f Sinale TierMayor - 3

$ 97,000 12 (PT\ $ 41,000 Councl1 : share suppor t f romOakville 168,000 7 6 12 14,000 2 2 1Ward 1 (FT) (Not tax-free) NIA NIA (Not tax-free) Mayor/CAO Lower Tier$ 48,135 (Cityllocal)$ 77,963 $ 48,1357 IPT)

$ 32,090 (Regional) Mayor - 2Oshawa 141,590 9 7 7 20,227 1 11 Ward 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) (113 tax-free) Council - 2 LowerT ier1 (PT)on ly a sneeded to Mayor-:-1$ 60,800 f i ll I n fo r Paid same as 10 (PT) $ 24,895 Council -supported byPeterborough 74,600 11 5 10 7460 2 21 Ward 1 (FT\ (1/3 tax-free) Mayor CouncfJIor (113 tax-free) Clerk's staff Sinqle Tier$ 60,097 (City llocal)

$100,163 $60,097 6 (FT) $ 60,097 (Regional) Mayor - 3Richmond Hill 172,000 8 6 6 28,667 1 1 (FT) (113 tax-free \ 1 (FT) (1/3 tax-free) (113 tax-free) Council- 3 LowerT ier$ 53,4148 IPT \

$ 17,488 Mayor - 1 Countvarnia 71,000 9 NIA 8 8875 8 At-Laroe 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) NIA NIA (113 tax-free\ Council - noneMayor-2

$59,566 $19,142 Council- l imited support f romSault Ste. Ma r ie 74,948 13 6 12 6246 2 2 1 W a rd 1 IFT\ i (1/3 tax-free\ NIA N/A 121PT) (1/3 tax-free\ Clerk's staff S inoleT ier$ 67,835

6 'PT \$ 15,630 Mayor - 1FT & 2 shared staf fSt. Catherines 165,163 8 6 6 27,527 1 11 Ward 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) 1 (PT) $32"521 hr (113 tax-free) Council - none Lower T ier$ 28,770 (base)$ 86,895 $ 46,302 (includes stipends) Mayor - 5Windsor 205,343 11 5 10 20,534 2 21Watd 1 (FT) (113 tax-free) NIA NIA 10 (PT) (113 tax-free) Council - 2 Sinale Tier

AVERAGES 124,270 10 6 9 15,680


34/34

APPENDIX "C" t o ReportCM2009-01

COST COMPONENTS(Based upon 2009 Costs)

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE COST IMPLICATIONSWITH VARIOUS COUNCIL STRUCTUREOPTIONS

(current operating budget)

Mayor 's Of f ice Operat ing BudgetCostsCouncillors Honourariams10 Councillors -$23,014 per annumB Councillors - $30,000 pe r annum6 Councillors - $40,000 pe r annumBenefi t CostsAddi t iona l Counci l OperatingCostsDedicated Suppor t Costs10 Council lo rs = .25 Clerk's FTE8 Councillors = 1 support FTE6 Councillors = 1.5 support FTEOther Potent ial Costing Impactsoff ice accomodat ionupgradesreduction in staff overtime

TOTAL

$219,356

$230,137

$48,861

$65,650$19,150

$583,154

$219,356

$274,176

$45,758

$59,085$45,000

tbdtbd

$643,375

$219,356

$287,714

$44,513

$52,520$67,500

tbdtbd

$671,603

using 2009 budgeted costs

supplies, travel, conferences, overheadadministrative assistance to Council

potential costs could be incurredpotential savings could be realized

2009 boundary-ward report

Documents