After years of complaints and some boundary changes by Centre Wellington Township council this year, the ward population issue is likely put to rest – for at least three years.
The Ontario Municipal Board has supported the ward boundary changes that councillors selected a few months ago. But there is no guarantee the township will not go through the same issue next election term.
Clerk Marion Morris said on Monday night the boundaries are legally in force for the municipal election of 2010, but after that, a citizen could again legally challenge them and force yet another round of public meetings and even another OMB hearing.
The current boundaries have been under attack by a Fergus resident almost since the township was formed in 1999. Keith Fairfield has argued that Fergus is under-represented because the wards in his town have more people than other township wards. His prime examples are Wards 3 and 4 in Fergus, which have 5,276 and 3,973 people respectively, compared to Ward 2, Elora, parts of old Nichol and Pilkington townships, which has 1,544. Fairfield proposed to council his own idea of an ideal ward system – four wards, designated with letters.
However, when the OMB hearing was held two months ago, he presented an entirely new proposal. It consisted of three representatives on council from Fergus, and three more from the townships.
Fairfield was arguing simply numbers, but council decided to consider such things as communities of interest, the Grand River as a natural feature dividing the wards, and that having an urban and rural mix in wards provides more effective representation than just numbers.
OMB Vice-Chairman J.V Zuidema stated in her decision that the board prefers the approach taken by the township council and finds that the municipality of Centre Wellington has achieved effective representation through its preferred option, and having undergone due public process, the wards are based on a proper balance and consideration of relevant factors.
Zuidema noted that at the hearing in October Fairfield testified on his own behalf and did not call any other witnesses. Only three citizens in total attended some of that three-day hearing. The board noted it received a letter from one citizen, but gave it “little weight” because its author did not attend.
Zuidema also noted Fairfield and all of those who signed his petition, which forced the OMB hearing in the first place, were given an opportunity to attend a public meeting called by the township to discuss ward boundary issues, and not one of them attended.
The township sent individual letters to everyone who signed Fairfield’s petition.
“Mr. Fairfield, as well as all those who signed his petition, received specific notice of the public meeting and it was advertised in two local Newspapers. The appellant did not attend this meeting, but submitted his views in writing in advance,” Zuidema wrote.
Morris testified at the hearing that when Fairfield began demanding changes to the ward boundaries or electoral system in January of 1999, council decided to maintain the status quo because of the recent amalgamation.
He continued to ask for changes. In 2005 council held the requisite public meetings, where attendance by citizens was in single digits. Consequently, council kept the wards the same.
So, Fairfield decided to obtain 225 signatures on a petition to force an OMB hearing.
Council did concede that his action caused the one elected in 2006 to reconsider the status quo and offer some changes to the ward boundaries.
Zuidema noted that Fairfield argued the criteria used by the municipality to arrive at the current proposal is not enough to justify the continued deviation in the ward populations.
But, Zuidema stated in her decision, “Both the clerk and the mayor provided unshaken testimony that specific communities of interest were paramount in the analysis and process undertaken by the municipality. They referred to service clubs, Sports and social organizations, churches, shops, schools, and cemeteries as being key considerations in determining the location of the ward boundaries.
“But of these, the board was advised that the Grand River was seen as a focal point in the analysis, and it was an aspect which unified the five former townships and villages,” Zuidema wrote.
She noted the option for boundaries that Fairfield presented at the hearing was new not only to the board, but to township officials, too.
Township lawyer Sarah Jacobs pointed out at the hearing, “The Supreme Court of Canada … considered electoral boundaries and determined that a variance in the size of voter populations among constituencies did not infringe rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
As well, “due weight must be given to voter equity, but other factors like geography, community history, community representation, and minority representation must also be considered.”
The township’s proposed new boundaries are:
– Ward 1, 3,948 population, north of the river, would be bounded by the river, Gerrie Road, the Woolwich Township boundary line, and County Road 17;
– Ward 2, south of the river, population 1,719, would be bound by Woolwich town line, Sideroad 6 North (instead of County Road 7), with a small corner at the northwest side of ward 4, close to the Grand River and the ward 2 boundary, included in ward 2;
– Ward 3, north of the river, would shrink in area, with a population of 3,859, and the boundary would be County Road 17, Gerrie Road, the river, and Highway 6 except for a small portion near the river that would reach to Garafraxa Street and go north to Forfar Street;
– Ward 4, 3,801, would also shrink so its boundaries are Nichol Road 22, Sideroad 6 North, the river, and Jones Baseline and Scotland Street;
– Ward 5, north of the river would have 4,126 people, and have Highway 6 as its western boundary, the river, East and West Garafraxa Townline, and Sideroad 26 of West Garafraxa as its boundaries; and
– Ward 6, with 2,602 people, and boundaries that including the River, East and West Garafraxa Townline, a portion of the Erin and Eramosa Townline, County Road 22, and Jones baseline and Scotland Street.
Ross-Zuj said on Monday night that township staff had done a terrific job in making their presentations. She noted Zuidema called their testimony “unshaken” and said of staff, “They were held to task.”
Some councillors have stated several times they resent a single individual costing the township so much money with continued requests for the same thing.
Ross-Zuj said the township does not yet have a dollar figure on the OMB costs, but noted that people like Morris and staff planner Brett Salmon spent hours preparing the township’s case, and the legal fees are also high.
“OMB hearings are not inexpensive,” she said. “Staff have to put the hours in. We need professional services.”
She added, “When you add all that up, the bill is very large.”
Councillor Walt Visser said he believes councillors would also like to know how much the hearing cost taxpayers.
He said in an interview prior to the meeting, “I’m glad they decided on the side of council. It’s an awful waste of time and money.”
And, he concluded, he, like most councillors, feel they represent everyone, and not just their own wards.
“I’ve always been a councillor in Centre Wellington. I’ve never asked, ‘What ward are you in’?”
Fairfield was not unavailable for comment.
