Hamilton Proposed Ward Boundary

Appendix "A" to Report CL16009 (b) - Page 1 of 135
City of Hamilton
Ward Boundary Review
Final Report
(Amended)
In association with:
Dr. Robert J. Williams
January 16, 2017
Contents
Page
1.
Study Overview .................................................................................................... 1

1.1
Terms of Reference ................................................................................... 1
1.2
Context ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3
Study Objectives ........................................................................................ 4
1.4
Project Structure and Timeline ................................................................... 5
1.5
The Interim Report ..................................................................................... 6
1.6
Public Consultation .................................................................................... 7
2.
Guiding Principles for Hamiltons Ward Boundary Review ................................... 9

2.1
Overview of Guiding Principles .................................................................. 9
2.2
Relative Weighting of Guiding Principles ................................................... 9
3.
Hamilton A Changing City with Implications for Ward Boundary Design ......... 11
3.1
Origins of a Diverse City .......................................................................... 11
3.2
Population Growth Trends and Population Balance by Ward .................. 14
3.3
Hamiltons Attributes and Considerations for Optimal Ward Design ........ 19
4.
Assessment of the Existing Ward Structure and Preliminary Options ................ 21

4.1
Hamiltons Existing Ward Structure ......................................................... 21
4.2
Preliminary Ward Boundary Options ........................................................ 23
4.3
Observations............................................................................................ 27
5.
Alternative Options ............................................................................................. 27

5.1
Option 1 ................................................................................................... 28
5.2
Option 2 ................................................................................................... 34
5.3
Option 3 ................................................................................................... 40
6.
Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 47
Appendix A Public Consultation ................................................................................A-1

Appendix B Option 1 Proposed Ward Boundaries ....................................................B-1
Appendix C Option 2 Proposed Ward Boundaries ................................................... C-1
Appendix D Option 3 Proposed Ward Boundaries ................................................... D-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

Report Amended.docx
H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final
Page 1
1. Study Overview
1.1
Terms of Reference
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association with Robert J. Williams, Trust
Learning Solutions and ICA Associates Inc., was retained to undertake a
comprehensive Ward Boundary Review (W.B.R.) for the City of Hamilton. The
Consultant Team has operated independently from Council and City staff and has
conferred with residents and stakeholders to evaluate the existing ward structure, and
design possible alternative ward boundary configurations. The final phase of the study
provides Council with a final report and alternative ward boundary structures for their
consideration, as presented herein.
A Final Report for the Hamilton Ward Boundary Review, dated October 11, 2016, was
prepared by the Consultant Team and was referred to the General Issues Committee
(G.I.C.) of Hamilton City Council for consideration on October 27, 2016. The Report
presented two ward boundary options for Councils consideration: a modified 15-ward
Option and a 16-ward Option. The ward designs presented were the responsibility of
the Consultant Team and were not solicited from or vetted or endorsed by elected
officials ahead of publication.
After hearing from delegations and a presentation by the Consultant Team, questions
by Councillors and debate at the October 27, 2016 G.I.C. meeting, members of
Hamilton City Council requested an opportunity to forward to the Consultant Team any
further suggestions that the Council members may have for alternative ward boundary
model options and that the consultants report back to a future meeting of the General
Issues Committee in the form of a consolidated report that includes any additional ward
boundary model options that may be provided by members of Council as well as the
two options included in the City of Hamilton Ward Boundary Review Final Report.1 This
Final Report, as amended, and presented herein, constitutes the response to that
request.
A number of Councillors individually or in collaboration with colleagues responded
with suggestions to the consultants through the City Clerks Office. All but one of these
submissions suggested adjustments to the existing 15-ward configuration. The one
exception included a request to consider a modification to a ward boundary in the
1
Minutes of the Special General Issues Committee meeting, October 27, 2016, page
11.
Report Amended.docx
Page 2
proposed 15-ward option presented in the Final Report dated October 11, 2016. In
addition, close to 100 residents of the present Ward 6 contacted the Clerks Office to
object to a specific provision of the proposed 15-ward Option as it affected the East
Mountain area. No suggestions were submitted in relation to the 16-ward Option.
To comply with Councils request, this amended Final Report presents three alternative
Options: the existing 15-ward system modified in light of submissions made by
Councillors (Option 1), the 15-ward Option included in the Final Report as modified in
light of concerns and suggestions directed to the Consultant Team (Option 2), and the
16-ward Option included in the October 11, 2016 Final Report (Option 3). The
assessment of these three Options is presented in Chapter 5 of this report and is based
on the guiding principles as established at the outset of the Review.
During the G.I.C. meeting, members of Council also identified a couple of discrepancies
and oversights in the Final Report, dated October 11, 2016. These have been reviewed
and corrected in the amended Final Report presented herein.
1.2
Context
The basic requirement for any electoral system in a representative democracy is to

establish measures to determine the people who will constitute the governmental body
that makes decisions on behalf of electors. Representation in Canada is organized
around geographic areas, units referred to as constituencies in the federal and
provincial parliaments and typically as wards at the municipal level, as is the case in the
City of Hamilton. At present, Hamiltons City Council consists of fifteen Councillors
elected in fifteen wards (one Councillor per ward) and a Mayor elected at-large.
A ward boundary review is a task designed to develop such units of representation that
reflect the distribution of the inhabitants of a municipality for electoral purposes. Since
municipalities experience demographic shifts as a result of new residential
development, intensification and changes in the composition of their population,
electoral arrangements need to be reviewed periodically to ensure that representation
remains fair and that electors have an opportunity to elect candidates they feel can truly
represent them and their neighbours.
Hamiltons existing ward boundary structure, as presented in Figure 1, dates from
amalgamation in 2001 15 years ago. Since that time, the City has seen notable
population growth and shifts and changes in its composition and structure, suggesting
that now is an appropriate time to undertake a review of this nature.
Report Amended.docx
Page 3
The 2015-2016 W.B.R. represents the first opportunity that the local electoral needs of
all the residents of the amalgamated City are being considered collectively through the
same terms of reference and guiding principles offering a genuine Made in Hamilton
review. As discussed in the Interim Report, the current ward structure for the City of
Hamilton was assembled from its component parts without the benefit of a
comprehensive local review and without formal local approval.
Prior to amalgamation in 2001, each of the former six municipalities1 that now comprise
the City of Hamilton made their own decisions about how to represent its residents in
the election of their respective local Councils without regard for the broader context.
For example:
One municipality elected its council at-large (the Town of Dundas); all other
councils were elected in wards;
The Town of Ancaster was moving to improve the distribution of electors in its
five wards in 1996. Steps were being taken to develop options that consolidated
most of the rural vote so that rural electors predominate in at least one ward;
In at least one case, deciding ward boundaries was a contentious process. The
City of Stoney Creek was engaged in a redivision of its seven wards in 1996 that
was (a) being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, and (b) then terminated
when a decision was taken in relation to dissolving Hamilton-Wentworth Region
and replacing it with the new City of Hamilton; and
In pre-amalgamation Hamilton, the system of representation had gone through
changes at the end of 1980 related to the elimination of the Board of Control and
a change to the composition of Council (16 members in 8 wards sitting on both
councils). Hamilton had revised its ward boundaries in 1971 and again in 1985;
in both designs, there were five wards in the lower City and three on the
Mountain.
Given the diversity of the amalgamated City, it will require some vision and new
perspectives to achieve an equitable, effective and accurate result. The W.B.R. is
premised on the legitimate democratic expectation that municipal representation in
Hamilton will be effective, equitable and an accurate reflection of the contemporary
distribution of communities and people across the City.
On January 1, 2001, the new City of Hamilton was formed through the amalgamation
of the former city and five other lower-tier municipalities including the City of Stoney
Creek, the Towns of Ancaster, Flamborough and Dundas and the Township of
Glanbrook.
Report Amended.docx
Page 4
Figure 1: City of Hamilton Wards
1.3
Study Objectives
The primary purpose of the W.B.R. is to prepare Hamilton City Council to make a
decision about whether to maintain the existing ward structure or to adopt an alternative
arrangement.1 The project has a number of key objectives in accordance with the
project terms of reference, as follows:
Develop a clear understanding of the present ward system, including its origins
and operations as a system of representation;
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the present ward system on the basis
of the identified guiding principles;
Conduct an appropriate consultation process to ensure community support for

the review and its outcome;
Identify plausible modifications to the present ward structure; and
Municipal councils have the legal right to create, change and even eliminate ward
boundaries for the purpose of electing municipal councillors as per the Municipal Act
(sections 222 and 223).
Report Amended.docx
Page 5
1.4
Deliver a report that will set out recommended alternative ward boundaries to
ensure effective and equitable electoral arrangements for the City of Hamilton,
based on the principles identified.
Project Structure and Timeline
The W.B.R. commenced in October, 2015 and is anticipated to be completed in

October, 2016.
The study encompasses four main phases, of which Phases 1 through 3 have been
completed:
Phase 1 Review background data and technical analysis, develop public engagement
strategy and initiate the consultation process with City staff and elected officials to
gather insights into the present ward system;
Phase 2 Hold public information and engagement sessions concentrating on the
existing ward structure and guiding principles (Round 1 Consultation);
Phase 3 Prepare an interim report on preliminary options and hold public
consultations on preliminary options (Round 2 Consultation); and
Phase 4 Finalize alternatives and prepare a final report with recommendations for
Council.
The study is currently in Phase 4 and this document constitutes the Final Report.
Work completed through Phases 1 through 4 has included:
Research and data compilation;
Development and implementation of a Public Engagement Strategy;

Interviews with Councillors, the Mayor and municipal staff;
Consultation with representatives of school boards;
Population and growth forecasting and data modelling to 2026;
Round 1 of Public Consultation;
Preparation of a Progress Report which was presented to the City of Hamilton

General Issues Committee (G.I.C.) on June 1, 2016;
Development of eight preliminary ward boundary alternatives;
Preparation of an Interim Report, released to the public on June 9, 2016;

Round 2 of Public Consultation;

Report Amended.docx
Page 6
Development of final options and recommendations, and preparation of Final

Report; and
In collaboration with Communications staff at the City:

o A project web page was set up see http://hamilton.ca/wardboundaryreview,
along with a dedicated project email address;
o A video of the research findings and context of the review was recorded
and posted on the website;
o Study reports, maps and findings were posted on the City website;
o Social media comments were tracked; and
o Local media was invited to attend and report.
1.5
The Interim Report
An Interim Report was released to the Hamilton community on June 9, 2016, just ahead
of the second round of Public Consultations (Phase 3 of the study). That report serves
as a platform for the Final Report since it includes:
An explanation of the Terms of Reference and Objectives for the W.B.R.;
An outline of the format and timeline for the project, as well as an explanation of
the purpose and strategies followed in the public consultation component and a
summary of the findings of Round 1 of consultation;
The context for the 2015-2016 Hamilton W.B.R., including the rationale for
utilizing population and not electors to assess parity, and the consideration of
post-secondary students in the Citys total population;
A detailed discussion and explanation of the six Guiding Principles that frame the
study;
An analysis of the distribution of the present (2015) City population and a

forecast of population growth over the 2015-2026 period;
An analysis and evaluation of the present Wards within the context of the six
Guiding Principles; and
Preliminary Alternative Ward Options developed by the Consultant Team around

four models of representation.
The Final Report, as presented herein, does not explore these topics in detail except in
summary form to provide context and assumes that those interested in the
recommendations included herein have reviewed the Interim Report.

Report Amended.docx
Page 7
1.6
Public Consultation
The Hamilton W.B.R. incorporated a comprehensive public engagement component

which included two distinct phases of public consultation Round 1 and Round 2.
Details on the public engagement component are presented in the Public Engagement
Plan which is provided in Appendix A.
The purpose of the public engagement component was twofold:
To engage the people of Hamilton in a manner that provides valuable input to the
evaluation of the existing ward structure and development of alternative ward
boundaries; and
To ensure Council that ward boundary alternatives reflect municipal vision,

principles of the Public Engagement Charter and community input.
The outcomes of the public engagement component include the following:
Citizens learned about the reason for the W.B.R. and the key factors that were
considered in the review;
Citizens provided useful input to the Consultant Team in the evaluation of the
existing system and in developing design alternatives; and
Citizens were given a sense that their input might genuinely influence the review.
Public Consultations in Round 1 and Round 2 are discussed in detail below.

Round 1
In Round 1 of consultation, conducted in February 2016, the views of residents were
sought on the continued suitability of the present ward structure and on the guiding
principles. Through the public consultation meetings and through the project website
online comment/feedback form, participants were invited to provide their input/opinions
with regard to the following:
What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the current ward system?
and
What do the given principles mean to you and which principles should be given
the highest priority in the evaluation of the existing ward structure and
development of ward boundary options?
The feedback and comments received from Round 1 of consultation were reflected in
the analysis included in the Interim Report released to the community in June 2016.
Report Amended.docx
Page 8
Round 2
The second round of public consultations was completed in Phase 3 of the study during
the period June 9 to June 29, 2016. Through the public consultation meetings in Round
2 and the project web page, the public was provided with information and context with
respect to the evaluation of the existing ward structure and was presented eight
preliminary ward boundary alternatives based on four distinct models of representation.
In Round 2 of consultation, residents were asked to evaluate the preliminary alternative
ward models for Hamilton through a series of public outreach initiatives:
Nine public consultation meetings held throughout Hamilton where the

preliminary alternatives were presented, along with the issues being addressed
in each option, through a series of display boards and a PowerPoint
presentation. Attendees were asked to comment on the preliminary options
through a Passport comment form;
Project materials, including all project display boards, a PowerPoint presentation

and the Interim Report, were made available through the project website;
Online comment/feedback form provided through the project web page; and
Dedicated email address for general comments/input from the public.
Round 2 of consultation achieved a moderate level of public engagement, as follows:
Approximately 90 people attended the public meetings;

105 online submissions were received using the feedback/comment form; and
Numerous emails from the public were received.
The feedback and comments received from Rounds 1 and 2 of consultation are
reflected in the analysis presented herein and have helped inform the findings and
recommendations.
Feedback received through both rounds of public consultations is summarized in
Appendix A.

Report Amended.docx
Page 9
2. Guiding Principles for Hamiltons Ward

Boundary Review
2.1
Overview of Guiding Principles
Hamiltons W.B.R. is framed by six guiding principles (presented to the General Issues
Committee (G.I.C.) Clerks Report CM15004, March 30, 2015) established for
evaluating the existing ward boundary structure and potential alternative options. The
principles are guidelines and do not preclude additional contributing factors being
considered. The six principles (discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of the Interim
Report) are:
Representation by Population Ensure that every Councillor generally

represents an equal number of constituents while allowing for some variation;
Population and Electoral Trends Look at future changes in population to
keep wards as balanced as possible;
Means of Communication and Accessibility Group neighbourhoods into

wards that reflect current transportation and communication patterns;
Geographical and Topographical Features Use natural features as ward

boundaries while keeping wards as compact as possible;
Community or Diversity of Interests Draw ward boundary lines around

recognized settlement areas, traditional neighbourhoods, and community
groupings; and
Effective Representation Evaluate the capacity of each ward to give residents

an effective voice in decision-making.
2.2
Relative Weighting of Guiding Principles
No ward system design can uniformly meet all of the guiding principles since some
criteria may work at cross-purposes to one another. As well, the priority attached to
certain principles makes some designs more desirable in the eyes of different
observers.
The public consultation activities during Phase 1 of this Review (Round 1 of public
consultation) were designed to better understand the priorities attached to the six
principles among Hamilton residents. As part of the consultation process, residents
were asked: What principles should be given the highest priority in redesigning the
ward system in Hamilton?
Report Amended.docx
Page 10
While it is important to consider all the guiding principles in the evaluation process,
based on feedback received from the public, the highest priority principles seem to be
Effective Representation, Representation by Population, and Communities of Interest,
as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Relative Priority of Guiding Principles Based on Public Feedback
What principles should be given the highest

priority in redesigning the ward system in
Hamilton?
Communication
and accessibility
6%
Population and
Electoral Trends
11%
Effective
Representation
25%
Geographic And
Topo Features
16%
Representation
by Population
22%
Communities of
Interest
20%
Source:Based on aggregated responses from online submissions and public workshops

through Hamilton Ward Boundary Revi ew Round 1 of public consultation.
Those who participated in Round 2 of public consultation of this review were requested
to rank their preferred Preliminary Options in light of the guiding principles. The
preferences identified were highly influenced by a desire for options that satisfied the
goals of representation by population, effective representation and preserving
communities of interest.
Ultimately, the ward design adopted by Hamilton Council should be the one that best
fulfills as many of the six guiding principles as possible, but it should have regard for the
input received from the public through the consultation process.

Report Amended.docx
Page 11
3. Hamilton A Changing City with

Implications for Ward Boundary Design
3.1
Origins of a Diverse City
As previously discussed, the City of Hamilton was created through provincial legislation
that took effect January 1, 2001. The present-day City is an amalgamation of six
existing lower-tier municipalities (Ancaster, Dundas, Glanbrook, Flamborough, Hamilton
and Stoney Creek) and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, an entity itself
created in the 1970s that embraced both the City of Hamilton and municipalities in the
surrounding Wentworth County, some of which were also amalgamated at that time.
Through Provincial Regulation 448/00, a City Council consisting of a Mayor and 15
Councillors was established. The ward structure implemented maintained the eight
existing wards in the old City of Hamilton.1 Four wards utilized the boundaries of other
pre-amalgamation municipalities and three wards were created in Ancaster and
Flamborough, one of which relied largely on Highway 403 as a ward boundary west of
Shaver Road rather than the historical municipal boundary along Governors Road west
of Middletown Road.
With a land area of 1,138 km and a population of approximately 565,000,2 Hamilton is
one of Ontarios largest municipalities with respect to population and geographic area.
Due to its large geographic size and origins through an amalgamation, Hamilton is a
highly diverse City comprised of numerous urban, suburban and rural communities with
varying population densities. This includes a number of distinct communities with
unique origins and historical settlement patterns including downtown Hamilton and the
upper city, Stoney Creek, Winona, Binbrook, Mount Hope, Ancaster, Dundas and
Waterdown. The varied structure of the City is complicated by the Niagara Escarpment
which dissects the City and has influenced its settlement patterns.
Like virtually every contemporary city, patterns of settlement and density reflect
demographic and socio-economic variations that relate to family size and structure,
occupation and income, commuting patterns and dwelling characteristics (e.g. age and
type). The urban centre of Hamilton is built upon its long and well-earned status as an
1 The boundaries used for Wards 1 through 8 were first been used in the 1985
municipal election and have not been revised since.
2 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. estimate for 2015; includes Census undercount
and non-permanent post-secondary student population.
Report Amended.docx
Page 12
industrial centre with an associated high population density and distinctive residential
pattern that clustered around the historic employment lands, a large portion of which are
located along the Citys waterfront.
The earliest settlement in what is now central Hamilton (the lower City) follows a formal
grid pattern from the waterfront, south towards the base of the escarpment. That area
was largely developed by the end of the nineteenth century. By the early twentieth
century, widespread residential development began on the Mountain and, over the
decades, stretched southward in a similar pattern. Before the time of regional
government and the creation of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth in
1974, the geographic area of the current City of Hamilton contained vast areas of rural
lands and an urban base comprised of the former City of Hamilton with relatively
compact settlement areas in the surrounding municipalities. At the time, Hamiltons
distinct communities were more geographically separated by extensive rural areas than
today, as illustrated in Figure 3. Over the past decades, suburban greenfield
development has filled in most of the rural areas that once separated the various distinct
communities that comprise the City, creating one large contiguous urban area, with the
exception of Waterdown and Binbrook, which are still individual urban nodes. This has
been most apparent in the west Mountain area in Ancaster and in Stoney Creek (upper
and lower) which are now part of a contiguous urban area with the rest of Hamilton.
With future growth, this expansion of the urban area into the periphery of the City is
expected to continue.

Report Amended.docx
Page 13
Figure 3: City of Hamilton Urban Development Trends, 1971 to Present
As Hamilton has grown and evolved, the former municipal boundaries that formed the
pre-amalgamated City have begun to blur in the manner in which residents engage or
associate with their broader community. For example, school attendance boundaries,
Canada Post Forward Sortation Areas (FSAs) and retail trade areas, often cross these
previous municipal boundaries. With the possible exception of the urban nodes in
Waterdown and Binbrook, the urban population clusters in Hamilton today are interconnected and not isolated from one another nor are they free-standing communities.
It is important to recognize that municipalities are in a constant state of change, with
respect to population growth and shifts, as well as demographic and socio-economic
changes which influence the character of the neighbourhoods and communities within
them. While it is recognized that Hamilton is still a City of communities that once
defined the various pre-amalgamated municipalities, the pre-amalgamation municipal
boundaries no longer represent the definitive boundaries of these communities.
Conversely, the present system of representation appears to be built on
compartmentalization: some wards are in the City and the others are in the suburbs.
That is, the model of representation established in 1999-2000 was built on the basis of
what were perceived to be a hard set of lines that perpetuated the boundaries of the
Report Amended.docx
Page 14
pre-existing municipalities, some of which were established in the nineteenth century
and others that were devised only in the 1970s when the Regional Municipality of
Hamilton-Wentworth was created. Beverly Township (dating from 1816) and Saltfleet
Township (dating from the 1780s), for example, were both absorbed by neighbouring
municipalities at that time. The wards established in 1999-2000 kept the preamalgamation borders that amalgamation was intended to overcome or at least blur.
3.2
Population Growth Trends and Population Balance by Ward
Since amalgamation, Hamiltons permanent population has increased by 7%, from

510,000 in 2001 to an estimated 548,000 in 2015.1 Over this period, the City has also
experienced moderate growth in a non-permanent post-secondary student population.
Population growth over the past two decades has been concentrated in suburban
communities including Waterdown, Stoney Creek, Binbrook, Upper Mountain and
Ancaster.
As of 2015, the City has an estimated total population of 565,000, including both
permanent and non-permanent post-secondary student population.2 The City is
expected to experience relatively strong population growth over the next decade, with
the population expected to expand by approximately 68,000 over the 2015-2026 period,
an increase of 12%. Population growth is expected to be concentrated in Stoney Creek,
the Upper Mountain area, Binbrook and Waterdown through greenfield development.
Over the period, the City is expected to also see a moderate amount of residential
intensification, largely within the urban core and along the King Street corridor within the
lower City
Since 2001, population growth has varied widely by ward, with strongest rates of growth
occurring in the suburban wards, including Wards 11, 12, 9, and 15, as presented in
Figure 4. Wards 7 and 8 also saw moderate population growth over the period, while a
number of the lower city wards experienced population declines during the period.
Over the 2015-2026 forecast period, population growth by ward is expected to continue
to vary widely, as shown in Figure 4. The highest population growth is expected in
Ward 11, followed by Wards 9, 15, 12, 2 and 1. Wards 5, 7 and 8 are expected to see
2001 population derived from Statistics Canada Census. 2015 population an estimate
by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Permanent population includes Census
undercount but excludes non-permanent post-secondary student population.
2 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. estimate; includes Census undercount of
approximately 4%.
Report Amended.docx
Page 15
minimal population growth, while Wards 3, 10, 14, 4, 13 and 6 are expected to see
marginal population declines over the period.
Figure 4: City of Hamilton Population Growth by Ward, 2001-2015 and 2015-2026
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1
-20%
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ward
2001-2015
2015-2026
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Since the City is comprised of varying types of residential clusters, its population and
growth trends are not dispersed uniformly across its geographic area. The population
distribution reflected in the present wards demonstrates this. Since 2001, the City has
experienced growth that has increased the disparity in the population of the wards to a
significant extent the widest variation is between Wards 7 and 14, where the
population of the former is more than 3 times larger than that of the latter
(approximately 62,000 vs. 17,000). As presented in Figure 5, several wards in the old
City of Hamilton, including Wards 7 and 8, are well above the optimal population for a
typical ward in Hamilton and others, including Wards 10, 13 and 14, are well below the
optimal population for a typical ward in Hamilton.1 The imbalance in population by ward
is expected to worsen over time, with Ward 11 expected to have a population well
above the optimal range by 2026.
1
Population variations of up to 25% above or below the optimal (average) size will be
considered generally acceptable, a range consistent with legislated federal redistribution
provisions. The optimal (average) population size per ward in Hamilton in 2015 and
2026 is 37,685 and 42,190, respectively.

Report Amended.docx
Page 16
Figure 5: City of Hamilton Population Variance by Ward 2001, 2015 and 2026
2
1.75
Ward 11
(2026)
Wards
7&8
Above Range
Population Variance
1.5
1.25
Within Desired Range of Variation
0.75
Ward 10
0.5
Ward 13
Below Range
Ward 14
0.25
0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ward
2001
2015
2026
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Over the 2001-2015 period, a number of major structural changes have begun to take
shape in Hamilton which are expected to continue over the next decade. These trends
have, and are expected to, perpetuate the population imbalances that exist by ward.
These include:
Former City of Hamilton vs. Suburb Population Balance
At the time of amalgamation in 2001, the former City of Hamilton, represented by Wards
1 through 8, accounted for about two-thirds of the Citys population base, with the
remaining one-third comprised of suburban and rural population within the former
municipalities of Stoney Creek, Glanbrook, Ancaster, Dundas and Flamborough, as
shown in Figure 6. Due to rapid population growth in suburban areas over the past 15
years compared to limited growth in the urban core, the former City of Hamiltons share
of total population declined to 62% by 2015. Despite expected residential intensification
and moderate population growth over the coming decade within the urban core, the
decline in population share is expected to continue, with the former City of Hamilton
expected to account for 56% of total population by 2026. Over the 2015-2026 period,
only about 10% of population growth is expected to occur within the former City of
Hamilton compared to 90% within other areas.
Report Amended.docx
Page 17
Figure 6: City of Hamilton Population Share Former City vs. Other Areas,
2001-2026
Share of Population
100%
80%
33%
38%
44%
67%
62%
56%
2001
2015
Year
2026
60%
40%
20%
0%
Former City Hamilton
Other Areas
Source: 2001 population derived from Statistics Canada Census data. 2015 a nd 2026
population data estimate a nd forecast, respectively by Wa tson & As sociates Economists Ltd.
Popul ation data excludes non-permanent post-secondary s tudent population.
Urban vs. Rural Population Growth Trends

While Hamilton has a diverse urban and rural population base, over the past 15 years
the Citys urban population has expanded significantly while the Citys rural population
has declined. This has resulted in a shift in the Citys population base from rural to
increasingly urban. In 2001, 91% of the Citys population was urban while 9% was
rural, as illustrated in Figure 7. By 2015, the Citys urban share had increased to 92%.
Over the next decade, Hamiltons population is expected to continue to shift increasingly
to a more urban character. By 2026, the Citys urban population is expected to account
for 93% of the total population base.

Report Amended.docx
Page 18
Figure 7: City of Hamilton Population Share Urban vs. Rural, 2001-2026
Share of Population
100%
9.2%
7.7%
6.7%
90.8%
92.3%
93.3%
2001
2015
Year
2026
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Urban
Rural
West vs. East Population Balance

Geographically, the City of Hamilton can be divided east-west by Highway 403, which
dissects the City approximately in the centre. The area to the east of Highway 403 has
historically contained the majority of the Citys population base. At the time of
amalgamation in 2001, approximately 80% of the Citys population resided east of
Highway 403, while 20% were located west of the highway.
Over the past 15 years, population growth has also been concentrated east of Highway
403 and the population base continues to shift gradually to the east. Over the 20012015 period, 88% of the Citys population growth was accommodated east of Highway
403, as shown in Figure 8. This trend is expected to continue, with 86% of population
growth over the 2015-2026 period expected to be accommodated east of Highway 403,
as illustrated in Figure 8.

Report Amended.docx
Page 19
Share of Population Growth
Figure 8: City of Hamilton Population Growth Trends East and

West of Highway 403
100%
80%
60%
88%
86%
12%
14%
2001-2015
2015-2026
40%
20%
0%
Period
West of Highway 403
East of Highway 403
3.3
Hamiltons Attributes and Considerations for Optimal Ward

Design
The analysis in section 3.2, discussing Hamiltons diverse nature, origins and population
growth trends, raises a number of opportunities and challenges with respect to ward
boundary design. Key themes are discussed below.
Achieving Population Parity by Ward within a Municipality without Population Uniformity
The guiding principles are clear: in an ideal scenario, the population of all wards would
be close to parity (the actual principle is stated as: Ensure that every Councillor
generally represents an equal number of constituents while allowing for some
variation). In fact, two of the present wards far exceed the optimal size and three are
smaller than optimal. Theoretically, a ward redivision would be directed towards trying
to bring the larger wards down to the optimal range and the smaller wards up to the
optimal threshold.
Pursuing such a strategy has spatial implications for the entire ward design in the sense
that the overall distribution of population in Hamilton is concentrated in the central and
eastern parts of the City and growth is shifting further south and east. The western
areas of the City (including the communities of Dundas, Ancaster and Flamborough),
Report Amended.docx
Page 20
conversely, are relatively lightly populated and have lower growth prospects than areas
to the east over the next decade. Major growth nodes (with the exception of
Waterdown) are located to the south and east of the present built up area. In other
words, a redivision that adheres strictly to population parity will skew the ward
configuration away from the western side of the City.
Urban-Rural Divide and the Rural Area as a Distinct Precinct
As noted earlier, the stereotypical image of Hamilton is urban. In the immediate preamalgamation decades, the idea that there was still a rural (or agricultural) Hamilton
would have been implausible since the City had virtually no areas of active agriculture.
Amalgamation changed that condition dramatically since, today, approximately 79% of
the present Citys land area is classified as agricultural/rural (i.e. outside the urban
boundary).1
In terms of representation, the ward profiles posted on the City website designate three
as primarily rural, three as urban and rural, one as primarily urban and eight as
urban. It is apparent that there is significant rural territory within present-day Hamilton
and it surrounds the urban area on three sides. Rural and agricultural economic activity
is important in seven of the wards. Rural Hamilton, however, is also diverse in the
sense that it includes a variety of forms of agriculture, as well as numerous conservation
areas, parks and open spaces. Most of the rural territory on the west side of the City is
expected to remain in rural form indefinitely, but rural areas to the south and east are
transitioning into new suburban communities. In the public consultation sessions, the
value of this rural community of interest was asserted consistently.
Rural Hamilton is, however, sparsely populated which makes the application of
population parity a challenge. In this context, it is imperative to take account of an
important decision made by the Ontario Municipal Board in relation to an attempt to
design ward boundaries in another Ontario municipality where a rural perimeter was
added to an urban core; this is the case of the appeal of Osgoode Rural Communities
Association, et al against the City of Ottawa (2003).
In that case, a City of Ottawa ward boundary by-law was based on recommendations
from a Task Force appointed by the City Council that merged rural communities with
suburban communities. It was rejected by the Board on the grounds that the City did
not properly take into consideration the concerns of the rural community and the
protection of the communities of interest that exist within that segment of the City. In
1
Based on share of Citys land area located outside of current urban boundary.

Report Amended.docx
Page 21
addition, the Board found that it was unacceptable for the Task Force to simply see the
rural areas as extensions of the suburban communities and to recommend the
combination of the rural population with the fringe suburban population for the purpose
of achieving higher populations in certain wards. Furthermore, the adoption of the
concept that rural areas no longer enjoyed a distinct character became a convenient
rationale to ignore any obligation to preserve rural communities of interest. The
evidence [heard by the Board] supports the contention that the City of Ottawa does
contain rural communities with historical economic and social differences.
In the Hamilton W.B.R., it is acknowledged and understood that Hamiltons rural area
has a distinct character that must be protected. In this respect (as was the case in
Ottawa), the Carter principles assume significance.1 In a large diverse municipality,
strict application of population principles can lead to untenable wards. The Board has
made it clear that such designs are unacceptable when they ignore a clear community
of interest.
4. Assessment of the Existing Ward

Structure and Preliminary Options
The Interim Report presented a detailed evaluation of the existing ward boundary
structure, and presented eight preliminary ward boundary options based on four models
of representation which were taken to the public for input and comment. Based on the
responses received, the Consultant Team was able to draw some conclusions about
their suitability as candidates for finalized options, and the public responses helped
inform subsequent recommendations. The following section provides a summary of the
existing ward structure evaluation and a summary of the preliminary options, along with
the public input received on them.
4.1
Hamiltons Existing Ward Structure
A detailed evaluation of the existing ward structure in Hamilton is found in section 5 of

the Interim Report. That discussion rigorously applies the six guiding principles to the
individual wards and the overall design.
See the City of Hamilton Ward Boundary Review Interim Report pages 3-4 to 3-6 for
an explanation of the Carter case and the principles that have been applied in the
context of municipal representation.
Report Amended.docx
Page 22
The evaluation suggested that the existing ward boundary configuration does not
successfully meet the expectations for any of the six guiding principles, as illustrated in
Figure 9. In addition, from the perspective of those who participated in the public
consultations, the existing ward boundary structure has some strengths, but the
weaknesses identified are significant and outweigh the identified strengths.
Based on public feedback from Rounds 1 and 2 of consultation, there is a strong desire
for change. There is a strong interest from the public in seeing the ward structure
changed to address identified shortcomings in the current system, while the support
from the few respondents who favoured retaining the current system was lukewarm (for
example, it is acceptable) or counterfactual (population will balance over time as rural
wards expand).
It would be improbable that a ward system review aiming to meet the principles set out
herein would recommend a structure using the existing ward boundaries and, therefore,
it is our conclusion that Council should move to change from the status quo.
Figure 9: Existing City of Hamilton Ward Boundary Configuration Evaluation
Summary
Principle
Representation by Population
Does Existing
Ward Structure
Meet
Requirements
of Principle?
No
Population and Electoral

Trends
Means of Communication and
Accessibility
Partially
successful
Geographical and
Topographical Features
Largely
successful
Community or Diversity of
Interests
Partially
successful
Effective Representation
No

Report Amended.docx
No
Comment
Two wards above acceptable

range, three below range
Three wards above acceptable
Generally clear markers with
minor deficiencies; limited access
highways divide five wards
Two wards include
neighbourhoods above and below
Escarpment
Very few communities of interest
are divided internally, some
groupings questionable (Wards 5
and 11 especially)
Significant dilution of
representation (Wards 7 and 8
and Ward 11 in 2026), lack of
coherence (Ward 11)
Page 23
4.2
Preliminary Ward Boundary Options
As presented in the Interim Report, four preliminary approaches to representation in

Hamilton were derived from the guiding principles, the initial public consultation
meetings (Round 1), and other insight derived from the Consultant Teams experiences
in developing ward boundary systems in other Ontario municipalities. This included:
Preliminary Option 1: Derivative of Federal Constituency Boundaries

based on the recently established federal constituency boundaries;
Preliminary Option 2: Preservation of the Pre-Amalgamation Balance

which works within the balance of representation model found in the present
ward system;
Preliminary Option 3: Post-Amalgamation 15-Ward Model places greater

emphasis on population parity with less regard for previous municipal
boundaries; and
Preliminary Option 4: Post-Amalgamation 16-Ward Model similar to Option

3 except a 16-ward model.
As previously discussed, public input on the preliminary options was solicited through
Round 2 of public consultation via a survey passport circulated at the public open
houses and through an online survey form posted on the project web page. A key
question asked residents to rank their top three choices, selecting from the eight
preliminary options (Preliminary Options 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C) and the
existing ward structure (No Change). The aggregated responses from the public open
houses and the online survey, summarizing the top choice (1st choice), by the four
option themes is presented in Figure 10. As shown, Preliminary Option 4 (16-ward
post-amalgamation option) was chosen as the top choice by 66% of respondents. This
is compared to 14% for Preliminary Option 2 (15-ward pre-amalgamation option), 8%
for Preliminary Option 3 (15-ward post-amalgamation option) and 5% for Preliminary
Option 1 (Derivative of Federal Constituency Boundaries). Of the respondents, only
7% selected the current ward configuration (No Change) as their top choice.

Report Amended.docx
Page 24
Figure 10: Preliminary Options and Preference of Respondents
based on 1st (Top) Choice
Current - No
Change
7%
Option 1
5%
Option 2
14%
Option 3
8%
Option 4
66%
Source: Based on aggregated responses of Rank 1 choices of options from online submissions
and passport feedback from public open houses through Hamilton Ward Boundary Review Round 2 of public
consultation.
A recap of the Preliminary Options, along with a discussion of public reactions to the
Options, is provided below:
Preliminary Option 1 Derivative of Federal Constituency Boundaries
Preliminary Option 1 was developed to create fifteen wards within the five federal
constituency boundaries in response to suggestions made during the first round of
public consultations. One feature was the apparent balance in population of the five
constituencies (i.e. federal ridings) that made the idea initially attractive. It was
acknowledged in the Interim Report, however, that the design actually had a number of
limitations, primarily with respect to the population metrics utilized to generate the five
federal constituencies, which resulted in notable population imbalances in practice: the
figures used were out of date (from the 2011 Census), there was no provision for
population growth and non-permanent post-secondary students were excluded from the
population count.
Public support for this Option ranked near the bottom and no meaningful defence for the
approach was provided in comments submitted to the Consultant Team. Given this
Report Amended.docx
Page 25
assessment, the idea of drawing ward boundaries within the five federal constituencies
is not recommended.
Preliminary Option 2 Preservation of the Pre-Amalgamation Balance
The Interim Report included two Preliminary Options that were developed with regard to
the guiding principles for this Review while still retaining the representative balance
between the old City of Hamilton (eight wards) and the other pre-amalgamation
municipalities (seven wards). See the Interim Report page 6-5.
The most striking observation is that the population distribution in the wards proposed in
these two Preliminary Options continues to be inequitable in 2015 and 2026 and that
includes the distribution within both the wards in the urban subgroup (Wards 1 to 8)
and the wards in the suburban subgroup (Wards 9 to 15), which persists across the
entire ward structure. The positive attributes of the present system that are carried
forward (but related to the least valued principles Communication and Accessibility,
and Geographical and Topographical Features) are maintained and the proposed
modifications to Wards 9 and 11 create a more plausible grouping of communities of
interest. While the proposed Ward 11 is less diverse than the present Ward 11, the
voices of the residents in the proposed Wards 7 and 8 continue to be significantly
diluted. Effective representation may be marginally improved, but the population
imbalances continue to prevent the conclusion that these models are a notable
improvement on the present system.
Public support for this approach was relatively limited and was frequently couched in
terms of negative assessments of incumbent elected officials. Ward Boundary Reviews
are often seen by residents as an invitation to offer critiques of a range of policy (and
political) decisions, but we must point out that this Review is not about incumbent
Councillors, nor is it about those who may wish to seek office in 2018 or later. It is
about determining an acceptable grouping of residents to make those choices at
election time not about who they select.
The insistence that cultural and historical identities must be preserved at the cost of
population parity was widely endorsed, as was an attachment to the theme that
preserving the provincial solution at amalgamation so that the interests of the suburbs
would not be overwhelmed by those of the old city. As one resident put it, a deal is a
deal.
Given that one of the key priorities for the Review was to address population inequities,
these Preliminary Options that preserve the urban/suburban balance simply does not
Report Amended.docx
Page 26
work and would be extremely difficult to defend to the O.M.B. in light of other more
equitable alternatives.
Preliminary Option 3 Post-Amalgamation 15-Ward Model
The guiding principles include an explicit reference to representation by population in
both the present and future. Given the distribution of population across the City (as
discussed in section 3.2), a design that places emphasis on this principle will
undoubtedly include proportionately more wards from the more highly populated areas
of the City, and inevitably fewer from the more sparsely populated parts. Applying this
principle also means overcoming the demonstrated limitations of the balance options
illustrated in Preliminary Option 2 by creating some wards that cross the preamalgamation former City of Hamilton boundary with the goal of achieving better
population parity across the entire City.
At the same time, since the principles also direct the Consultant Team to recognize
settlement patterns, traditional neighbourhoods, and community groupings, any such
wards will have to be designed to preserve local community identities within a new ward
combination.
Preliminary Options 3A and 3B actually received limited public support, mainly because
they were perceived as not having gone far enough to address parity (representation by
population). The two Options demonstrate clearly, however, the challenges of working
with a 15-ward model to maintain communities of interest and to provide effective
representation all the while achieving population parity. The cost required to provide
adequate representation to the areas of higher population in the eastern part of the City
can only be met by a trade-off: the share of 15 wards assigned to less heavily
populated areas in the western part of the City must be reduced. With these
perspectives in mind, the Consultant Team has prepared a final 15-ward Option (Option
2 see Chapter 5) which addresses the parity issue while maximizing effective
representation and preserving communities of interest to the extent possible under a 15ward configuration.
Preliminary Option 4 Post-Amalgamation 16-Ward Model
The idea of simply adding a new ward within the Hamilton Upper Mountain area (and
increasing the number of Councillors to 16) had been frequently floated publicly even
before this Review began, since the adjoining Wards 7 and 8 together amounted to
almost a quarter of the Citys 2015 population. Such a simple modification would have
implications for the larger balance of representation issue (see above) but would
Report Amended.docx
Page 27
sidestep an overdue evaluation of the success of the remaining wards in delivering
effective representation. It is primarily for this reason that the 2015-2016 Ward
Boundary Review is intended to be comprehensive rather than partial in nature.
Therefore, in an attempt to meet the guiding principles and to achieve a better
distribution of population across the City, Preliminary Option 4 proposed a 16-ward
design. Preliminary Options 4A, 4B and 4C proposed an additional ward (or two in the
case of Preliminary Option 4C) to address the high population concentration in the west
Mountain area.
The overall premise of Preliminary Option 4 resonated with respondents largely
because it achieved relatively good overall representation by population, particularly in
the case of Preliminary Option 4C. Those who preferred Preliminary Options 4A and 4B
saw strengths with respect to preserving communities of interest and providing effective
representation while still achieving reasonable population balance by ward.
4.3
Observations
Given the overwhelming preference for Preliminary Option 4, as demonstrated in the

second round of public consultation, the Consultant Team examined more closely the
positive attributes of Preliminary Options 4A, 4B and 4C, as the basis for the
development of final options. This included the manner in which these three Preliminary
Options reached, in varying degrees, population balance (parity) while achieving
effective representation and preserving communities of interest. The Consultant Team
also concluded from the feedback received that a 16-ward option should be one of the
ward designs recommended to Council.
These perspectives were applied to both a 15-ward and 16-ward design as represented
in Options 2 and 3, respectively in Chapter 5 of this report.
5. Alternative Options
The goal of this Review is to design a system of effective representation that seeks
relative parity in the population of the wards, with some degree of variation acceptable
in light of population densities and demographic realities across the City. The design of
suitable ward alternatives, however, is not dependent only on relative parity since it
involves applying all six principles established for this Review. The challenge is that
sometimes a structure that best serves one principle cannot fulfill another with similar
success. Therefore, ward design alternatives need to be assessed in terms of meeting
Report Amended.docx
Page 28
as many of the six principles as possible and in terms of which principles are best
realized.
Based on public feedback on the Preliminary Options, and Council and public feedback
on the Final Report dated October 11, 2016, three ward boundary alternatives (Options)
are presented herein. This includes:
Option 1 a modified version of the existing ward structure based on Council

feedback provided by members of Council after the G.I.C. meeting of October 27,
2016;
Option 2 a 15-ward Option which strives to optimize population parity

(representation by population). This Option manages to create better parity
through allocation of four wards in the Mountain area. This configuration involves
shifting the distribution of the wards to capture the high concentration and
growing population on the eastern side of the City. This option is a modified
version of the 15-ward Option presented in the Final Report dated October 11,
2016; and
Option 3 16-ward Option that, through the addition of one ward, achieves a
reasonable population balance by ward and preserves communities of interest
while finding better effective representation than a 15-ward Option. The Option
has virtually the same configuration as the 16-ward Option presented in the Final
Report dated October 11, 2016.1
5.1
Option 1
As previously discussed, Councillors voted at the October 27, 2017 G.I.C. meeting to
request the Consultant Team to consider further suggestions that the Council members
may have for alternative ward boundary model options. With two exceptions (to be
addressed below), the suggestions addressed particulars of the existing 15-ward
design. In accordance with Councils request, all of the suggestions have been applied
to the existing ward boundaries; the modified design is presented as Option 1 herein
and has been subject to the guiding principles for this Review.
The specific modifications, based on direction from members of Council, reflect
relatively minor refinements to the existing ward structure, as outlined below:
One minor adjustment was made from the previous 16-ward design: the boundary
between Wards 6 and 9 utilizes Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway between Red Hill Valley
Parkway and Rymal Road.
Report Amended.docx
Page 29
The boundary between Ward 5 and Ward 9 modified to follow the centre of
Centennial Parkway from King Street to Queenston Road and the centre of
Queenston Road between Centennial Parkway and Grays Road;
The boundary between Ward 5 and Ward 10 changed to follow the centre of
Grays Road from Queenston Road to Lake Ontario. At the northern terminus of
the boundary between Wards 5 and 10, boundary adjusted so that residential cul
de sac (Lakepointe Place) located on the west side of Grays Road adjacent to
Confederation Park, is included in Ward 10;
The eastern boundary of Ward 6 adjusted to follow the Red Hill Valley Parkway
and Trinity Church Road from the southern boundary of Ward 5 at the
Escarpment. The residential area located north of Mud Road, east of Red Hill
Valley Parkway and west of Upper Mount Albion Drive, currently located in Ward
6, placed into Ward 9. Between Red Hill Valley Parkway and Rymal Road, the
boundary between Wards 5 and 9 adjusted to follow Upper Red Hill Valley
Parkway;
An area bounded by Mohawk Rd. E., Upper Gage Avenue, Rymal Road E. and
Upper Sherman Avenue moved to Ward 6 from Ward 7;
The boundary between Ward 8 and Ward 12 adjusted to follow Stone Church Rd.
west from Omni Blvd. to where the current boundary is closest to Stone Church
Rd. Westridge Drive and Copperhill Court removed from Ward 12 and placed in
Ward 8;
The area bounded by Rymal Road, the hydro corridor, Trinity Church Road and
Highway #56/Upper Centennial Parkway moved from Ward 11 to Ward 9;
The boundary between Ward 10 and Ward 11 shifted further east to follow the
centre of Jones Road from Lake Ontario to the Escarpment and adjusted slightly
at the southeast corner to follow the Escarpment instead of Ridge Road; and
An area south of Highway 6, bound by Concession Rd. 6 to Moffat Road, Moffat

Road to Concession Road 5, Ofield Road to the current Ward 13/15 boundary to
the west and bound by Valley Road, Rock Chapel Road, Highway No. 5,
Millgrove Sideroad and Concession Road 4 to the east, moved from Ward 15
and included in Ward 14.
The modified ward boundary configuration is presented in Figure 11 with more detailed
mapping and description provided in Appendix B.

Report Amended.docx
Page 30
Figure 11: Option 1
H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final Report Amended.docx
Page 31
An important consideration in evaluating the proposed changes to the existing ward
structure is understanding how it alters the assessment of the existing ward system as
summarized in section 4.1. Key observations include:
The proposed changes aim to mitigate the most problematic population

imbalances that have been identified, such as those in Wards 7,10 and 11, and
would improve the population balance by ward marginally. The most significant
population change involves the addition of population to Ward 6 from Ward 7. In
three other areas, moderate population shifts between wards would occur
(moving population from Ward 11 to Ward 9, from Ward 11 to Ward 10 and from
Ward 15 to Ward 14);
Despite the refinements, the net impact is that eight wards fall within 25% of that
optimal size (as opposed to ten under the current ward structure), as shown in
Figure 12. Seven wards are outside the acceptable range of variation (as
opposed to five under the existing ward structure): three (Wards 6, 7 and 8) are
above and four (Wards 10, 13, 14 and 15) are below. The modified ward system
(i.e. Option 1), therefore, fails to meet the principle of representation by
population.
Figure 12: 2015 Population by Ward - Existing Ward Structure vs. Option 1
Ward
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Ward 9
Ward 10
Ward 11
Ward 12
Ward 13
Ward 14
Ward 15
Optimal Ward
Population
Existing Ward Structure

1
Population
41,340
40,635
40,365
36,040
39,835
41,025
62,435
53,875
29,980
25,130
43,690
39,510
25,310
16,640
29,460
37,685
Variance
1.10
WR
1.08
WR
1.07
WR
0.96
WR
1.06
WR
1.09
WR
1.66
OR+
1.43
OR+
0.80
WR
0.67
OR1.16
WR
1.05
WR
0.67
OR0.44
OR0.78
WR
1.00
Option 1
1
Population
41,340
40,635
40,365
36,040
41,260
50,480
52,555
53,960
33,030
25,425
39,345
39,425
25,310
18,135
27,970
37,685
Variance 2
1.10
WR
1.08
WR
1.07
WR
0.96
WR
1.09
WR
1.34
OR+
1.39
OR+
1.43
OR+
0.88
WR
0.67
OR1.04
WR
1.05
WR
0.67
OR0.48
OR0.74
OR1.00
1. Reflects permanent population including Census undercount of approximately 3.8% as w ell as non-permanent postsecondary student population.
2. Variance from average w ard size. Variance w ithin +/- 25% is considered w ithin acceptable range (WR) w hile that
above/below threshold is out of range OR+ and OR-, respectively.

Report Amended.docx
Page 32
Comparing the ward population balance in future year 2026 under the existing
ward structure and Option 1, some of the most extreme population figures are
moderated (that is, Wards 7 and 11 at the upper end and Wards 10 and 14 at the
lower end), as illustrated in Figure 13;
As shown in Figure 13, under Option 1, six wards would be outside the
acceptable range of variation (the same number as in the existing system): two
(Wards 7, 8 and 11) above and three (Wards 10, 13 and 14) below. Option 1,
therefore, fails to meet the principle of Population and Electoral Trends;
The majority of ward boundaries in Hamilton are based on clear and wellunderstood markers. Some illogical boundaries have been cleared up around
pre-amalgamation municipal boundaries (in particular associated with the
existing Ward 9, but also those for Wards 8 and 12 and Wards 5 and10
boundaries) by utilizing major roadways as boundaries instead of parcel
boundaries. Six wards cross over significant transportation corridors (Red Hill
Valley Parkway, Lincoln Alexander Parkway and Highway 403 east of Shaver
Road). The modified existing wards generally meet the principle of Means of
Communication and Accessibility but maintain some of the deficiencies of the
existing system;
The modified Wards 9 and 11 include communities that are isolated from one
another since both wards include neighbourhoods above and below the
Escarpment. The modified wards generally meet the principle of Geographic and
Topographic Features with the two important exceptions just noted;
The modified Wards 5, 9 and 11 consist of neighbourhoods and communities that

are isolated from one another. The other wards generally meet the principle of
Community or Diversity of Interests with the three exceptions just noted; and
The obvious population discrepancy among the modified wards would mean that,
by 2026, the population of the modified Ward 11 (70,000 people) would have one
representative at the Council table, while the combined population of the
modified Wards 10, 13 and 14 (also 70,000 people) would have three. The
modified existing ward system, therefore, fails to meet the Effective
Representation principle.

Report Amended.docx
Page 33
Figure 13: 2026 Population by Ward Existing Ward Structure vs. Option 1
Ward
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Ward 9
Ward 10
Ward 11
Ward 12
Ward 13
Ward 14
Ward 15
Optimal Ward
Population
Existing Ward Structure

1
Population
43,900
45,225
40,125
35,325
40,625
38,850
63,000
55,100
41,700
24,825
78,850
45,075
24,350
16,075
39,850
42,190
Variance
1.04
WR
1.07
WR
0.95
WR
0.84
WR
0.96
WR
0.92
WR
1.49
OR+
1.31
OR+
0.99
WR
0.59
OR1.87
OR+
1.07
WR
0.58
OR0.38
OR0.94
WR
1.00
Option 1
1
Population
43,900
45,225
40,125
35,325
42,090
48,160
53,300
55,180
46,080
28,240
70,000
44,980
24,345
17,480
38,440
42,190
Variance 2
1.04
WR
1.07
WR
0.95
WR
0.84
WR
1.00
WR
1.14
WR
1.26
OR+
1.31
OR+
1.09
WR
0.67
OR1.66
OR+
1.07
WR
0.58
OR0.41
OR0.91
WR
1.00
The overall evaluation of Option 1 is summarized in Figure 14.

The Consultant Team identified a number of locations along the existing ward
boundaries that could be improved (such as along Grays Road or in the Old Mud StreetWinterberry Drive area: see Interim Report p. 5-4) that have been addressed through
Option 1. While the refinements to the existing ward design does expand the use of
logical features such as major roadways as ward boundaries and enhances
communities of interest, as identified in the Interim Report (page 5-8), minor
adjustments of this kind do not address the fundamental inequities of the overall
system. Proposed changes as presented in Option 1 do not address the structural
imbalance that exists between the urban subgroup (Wards 1 to 8) and the wards in the
suburban subgroup (Wards 9 to 15). Under Option 1, the population distribution in the
wards continues to be inequitable in the existing and future year (2026) context. The
positive attributes of the present system that are carried forward (but related to the least
valued principles Communication and Accessibility, and Geographical and
Topographical Features) are maintained and the proposed modifications to Wards 9
and 11 create a more plausible grouping of communities of interest and improves the
Report Amended.docx
Page 34
population imbalance. While the proposed Ward 11 is less diverse than the current
Ward 11, the voices of Mountain residents (in Wards 6, 7 and 8) continue to be
understated. Effective representation may be marginally improved, but the population
imbalances continue to prevent the conclusion that this Option is a notable improvement
on the present system.
Figure 14: Option 1 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Representation by
Population
Trends
Means of Communication
and Accessibility
Geographical and
Interests
5.2
Does Existing
Ward Structure
Meet
Requirements of
Principle?
No
No
Partially successful
Largely successful
No
Comment

range, four below range
Improved markers (e.g. Grays
Road/Queenston Road); limited
access highways divide six wards
Two wards include neighbourhoods
above and below Escarpment
Very few communities of interest not
divided internally, some groupings
questionable (Wards 5 and 11
especially)
Significant dilution of representation
(Wards 7 and 8 in 2015, Ward 11 in
2026), lack of coherence (Ward 11)
Option 2
A number of scenarios to elect fifteen City Councillors were developed and presented in
the Interim Report. Many helpful perspectives on them were gathered from the public in
the consultations held in June, 2016.
Two Preliminary Options worked with the representative balance model that underpins
the existing ward system; that is, they retained eight wards within the former City of
Hamilton boundary and seven wards within the other pre-amalgamation municipalities.
In recognition, however, of the explicit reference in the guiding principles to
representation by population and the data analyzing the distribution of population
across the City since amalgamation and into the future, three designs that placed
emphasis on the population principles were also developed and presented in the Interim
Report. In contrast to the designs just noted, the pre-amalgamation balance was set
Report Amended.docx
Page 35
aside to include proportionately more wards from the more highly populated areas of
Hamilton and inevitably fewer from the more sparsely populated parts.
Both the balance options and the population options received limited public support,
mainly for failing to address successfully the goal of population parity (a high priority
among the principles for those participating in the public consultations). Further
reflection and testing led to the development of the 15-ward Option that appeared in the
Final Report dated October 11, 2016 to Council, that addressed the parity issue while
maximizing effective representation and preserving communities of interest to the extent
possible under a 15-ward configuration.
Some residents and some Councillors did not concur with the 15-ward Option presented
in the October 11, 2016 Final Report and, in particular, pointed out the incongruity of
grouping established East Mountain neighbourhoods with communities beyond Albion
Falls in the former Stoney Creek and Glanbrook. This is a concern that the Consultant
Team sought to address; to do so, however, required an adjustment of the entire
proposed ward configuration on the Mountain. The Consultant Team also received a
specific suggestion that the southern boundary of the proposed Ward 9 be moved south
from Rymal Road East to the hydro utility corridor extending from the end of Twenty
Road east to the City boundary, thereby removing territory from the proposed Ward 11.
These two suggestions were reviewed and have been addressed in a revised 15-ward
Option included herein as Option 2.
The major changes involve:
Re-aligning the proposed Wards 6, 7, 8 and 14 so that all four now run from the
Mountain brow south to the hydro utility corridor south of Rymal Road (similar to
the current southern ward boundary for the existing Wards 6, 7 and 8). The 15ward Option proposed in the Final Report used the Lincoln M. Alexander
Parkway as a boundary but the idea that the Linc necessarily serves as a
natural boundary was not universally endorsed, so it has been set aside in favour
of better realizing the population and community of interest principles;
Adjusting the eastern boundary of the proposed Ward 6 along Trinity Church
Road and Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway as suggested in the modified design for
the existing wards (Option 1 see above);
Placing an area south of the Linc between Upper Gage Avenue and Upper
Sherman Avenue in the proposed Ward 6 to improve the population distribution
across the four Mountain wards. Because of the high population density in the
existing (and proposed) Ward 7, it is still the largest by population but only

Report Amended.docx
Page 36
exceeds the acceptable population range by about 2,000 residents in 2015. It
drops well within the acceptable range of variation over the next three elections;
Including a proposed fourth ward for the western portion of the Mountain in the
north-south alignment (labeled Ward 14) that results in a domino effect: where
Upper James Street has traditionally served as a boundary, in this Option it
would serve as a focal point or main street for the proposed Ward 8;
Shifting boundary between the proposed Wards 9 and 11 further south to the
hydro utility corridor from Rymal Road East. Entire northern boundary of Ward
11 runs along the hydro utility corridor; and
Returning the western boundary of the proposed Ward 11 to its existing location
in order to accommodate the significant population growth forecast in the Elfrida
area and to better address population concentration in the proposed wards along
the Mountain brow.
Option 2 is illustrated in Figure 15 with more detailed mapping and description provided
in Appendix C.1 Key features of this Option include:
Maintains present Wards 1 to 3 with minor modifications;

Modifies present Wards 4 and 5 by using the Red Hill Valley Parkway as a
boundary. Downtown Stoney Creek is also included in Ward 5;
Proposed Ward 10 to include area from Grays Road to the Town of Grimsby
municipal boundary below the Escarpment;
Four wards on the Mountain extending between Red Hill Valley Parkway and
Highway 403, extending north-south from the Escarpment to the east-west hydro
utility corridor south of Rymal Road;
Proposed Ward 9 from Red Hill Valley Parkway east to the municipal boundary
above the Escarpment and north of the east-west hydro utility corridor;
Proposed southeast Ward 11 below the east-west hydro utility corridor extending
west to Glancaster Road;
Proposed southern Ward 12 anchored in Ancaster bound by Glancaster Road to

the east and Highway 8 and the former Dundas/Ancaster municipal boundary to
the north;
Proposed western Ward 13 to include Dundas and Greensville and rural areas to
the west; and
Proposed northern ward similar to present Ward 15.
In the Options included herein, ward numbers that correspond to the present wards
are used wherever possible. It would be appropriate for wards in a revised system to be
re-numbered (or named) to reflect a City-wide system.
Report Amended.docx
Page 37
With the changes discussed above, Option 2 represents an even stronger alternative
than the 15-ward Option presented in the October 11, 2016 Final Report. Key
observations include:
The current year (2015) population distribution, as illustrated in Figure 16, shows
that two wards are outside the acceptable range of variation: one (Ward 7) is
above and one (Ward 11) is below. Option 2 is close to meeting the
Representation by Population principle for 2015;
As illustrated in Figure 16, by 2026 all proposed wards are within 25% of optimal
size with respect to population with no wards outside the acceptable range of
variation. Option 2 meets the population and electoral trends principle;
The majority of ward boundaries in Option 2 are based on clear and wellunderstood markers. Six wards cross over significant transportation corridors
(Red Hill Valley Parkway, Lincoln Alexander Parkway and Highway 403 east of
Shaver Road) but these exceptions have all been deliberately given a low priority
in this design. Option 2 generally meets the Means of Communication and
Accessibility principle;
The proposed Wards 12 and 13 include communities and neighbourhoods above
and below the Escarpment. Option 2 generally meets the Geographical and
Topographical Features principle with the two exceptions just noted;
The six proposed wards around the periphery of the City (i.e. Wards 9, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 15) each consist of a collection of adjacent neighbourhoods and
communities, albeit in the largest wards by geographic area. The communities
grouped in the proposed wards, though, are historically related to one another
(as in the proposed Ward 11 that closely parallels the former Glanbrook
Township) or are naturally connected by such factors as roads, schools and
commercial activities. This is evident even in the two cases (the proposed Wards
12 and 13) which include areas above and below the Escarpment. The existing
wards generally meet the Community or Diversity of Interests principle with the
two exceptions just noted; and
The population discrepancy among the proposed wards has been significantly
reduced from that apparent under the current ward structure. As has been noted
several times in this report, various configurations place greater weight on certain
principles: in this case, the goal of population parity in the urban area has been
successfully met in conjunction with the explicit need to capture the rural
community of interest, primarily on the west side. Option 2, therefore, can be
said to meet the Effective Representation principle.

Report Amended.docx
Page 38
Figure 15: Option 2
Page 39
Figure 16: Option 2 Population by Proposed Ward
Ward
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Ward 9
Ward 10
Ward 11
Ward 12
Ward 13
Ward 14
Ward 15
Optimal Ward
Population
2015
1
Population
41,340
37,220
43,780
40,235
44,070
39,500
49,170
35,730
28,390
38,175
24,230
43,755
36,795
34,585
28,295
37,685
2026
2
Variance
1.10
WR
0.99
WR
1.16
WR
1.07
WR
1.17
WR
1.05
WR
1.30
OR+
0.95
WR
0.75
WR
1.01
WR
0.64
OR1.16
WR
0.98
WR
0.92
WR
0.75
WR
1.00
Population
43,900
41,855
43,485
39,395
44,620
37,880
48,770
38,180
43,530
48,085
46,105
49,140
35,425
33,740
38,755
42,190
Variance 2
1.04
WR
0.99
WR
1.03
WR
0.93
WR
1.06
WR
0.90
WR
1.16
WR
0.90
WR
1.03
WR
1.14
WR
1.09
WR
1.16
WR
0.84
WR
0.80
WR
0.92
WR
1.00
The overall evaluation of Option 2 is summarized in Figure 17. This Option has
successfully addressed the two population principles and the community of interest
principle, while only proposing two wards that include areas above and below the
Escarpment (in the Ancaster and Dundas-Greensville area). The Lincoln M. Alexander
Parkway cuts through the Mountain area wards and portions of Highway 403 cut
through two wards, but other boundaries use plausible easily identified markers. The
coherence and population distribution of the proposed wards contributes to effective
representation even though significant population growth is expected in two wards with
large areas. On the whole, Option 2 could be defended to the O.M.B. as more equitable
than the present system over the time period envisioned for a new ward system (three
election cycles) even though it may not realize its full potential until after the first
election (2018).

Report Amended.docx
Page 40
Figure 17: Evaluation Summary of Option 2
Principle
Representation by
Population

Trends
and Accessibility
Does Proposed
Ward Boundary
Structure Meet
Requirements of
Principle?
Largely successful
Yes
Geographical and
Largely successful
Interests
Largely successful
Yes
5.3
Comment
Thirteen wards within desired

range of variation and two
outside of the range (one
above, one below)
All wards within acceptable
range
Generally clear markers;
limited access highways cut
through six wards
Two wards on the western
side include neighbourhoods
above and below the
Escarpment
Communities of interest not
divided internally but some
groupings include diverse
settlements
No significant population
discrepancy
Option 3
Hamiltons City Council, at present, consists of fifteen Councillors elected in fifteen

wards and a Mayor elected at-large. It is within the powers of a Council to modify the
composition of council (as it is called in the Municipal Act) but the position of Mayor is
not within the powers of Hamilton Council to change, since all municipalities in Ontario
must have a head of council elected at-large.
As previously discussed, a 16-ward model (Preliminary Option 4) was the preferred
choice of the public in the second round of public consultation. Public responses and
further analysis have led to a hybrid 16-ward Option; that is, it incorporates many of the
features of the preliminary designs from the Interim Report that were labelled
Preliminary Option 4 but has addressed some of the shortcomings identified through
the public consultations.
There are merits to a 16-ward model in the context of Hamilton. These include:

Report Amended.docx
Page 41
Making it possible to achieve both a better population balance and more

coherent individual wards if the composition of Council is increased;
The addition of one seat means that the population of an optimal ward and range
of variation are adjusted downward, thereby contributing to the possibility that
some wards can be designed with smaller populations and still be deemed to
deliver parity;
Returning to an even number of Councillors means that when all members of

Council are participating in a decision, the Mayor could cast a tie-breaking vote
rather than voting to create a tie a move that blocks actions but cannot affirm a
decision since a tied vote is deemed to be a lost vote. In other words, it would be
a contribution to better governance for the City; and
The City of Hamilton has seen notable population growth since amalgamation
and the implementation of a 15-ward system. At the time of amalgamation, the
average size of a ward with respect to permanent population was approximately
34,000.1 In 2015, the average size of a ward increased to approximately 36,500
and by 2026 it is forecast to increase to 40,900. In a 16-ward configuration, the
current permanent population per ward (based on 2015 population figures) would
be comparable to the population per ward under the 15-ward structure in 2001.
In other words, over the 2001 to 2015 period, the Citys population has increased
by the equivalent of one ward.
Based on preliminary discussions with City staff, It was estimated that an additional
Councillor would add approximately $230,000 to the Citys annual operating budget.2
This figure would represent about a 0.01% increase to the Citys annual operating
budget.3 At the October 27, 2016, G.I.C. meeting, Council directed the General
Manager of Finance and Corporate Services to review the capital and operating costs of
increasing the composition of Council by one member in more detail and to report back.
The 16-ward Option (Option 3) is presented in Figure 18 with more detailed mapping
and descriptions of proposed ward boundaries provided in Appendix D.
Includes Census undercount of approximately 4% but excludes non-permanent postsecondary student population.
2 This figure reflects the salary of one Councillor and an Administrative Assistant and
discretionary items.
3 City of Hamilton approved 2016 gross operating budget (rate and tax supported) is
$1,643,014,160.
Report Amended.docx
Page 42
The key characteristics of this Option include:
Six wards below the Escarpment aligned north-south from Highway 403 to the
Grimsby boundary;
Five wards on the central and west Mountain from Upper Centennial Parkway to
Highway 403 with two running from the Mountain brow to the Lincoln Alexander
Parkway and two from the Lincoln Alexander Parkway south to Twenty Road.
The fifth ward would run from Upper Ottawa Street to Upper Centennial Parkway
north and from the Mountain brow to Twenty Road-Rymal Road;
A ward consisting of a very large geographic area that includes Upper Stoney
Creek from Upper Centennial Parkway to the Grimsby boundary and the
southeast quadrant of the City below Twenty Road-Rymal Road and over beyond
the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport;
A proposed ward centred on Ancaster;
A proposed ward to include Dundas and Greensville;

A proposed rural ward that circles the western suburban communities; and
A proposed ward based on Waterdown.

Report Amended.docx
Page 43
Figure 18: Option 3
Page 44
With an additional ward to consider, this Option uses a lower optimal size for a ward
(35,330 in 2015 as opposed to 37,685 in a 15-ward design) and a range of variation in
which smaller ward populations are judged acceptable, as shown in Figure 19. As can
be expected, areas in the City where population is concentrated fall closer to the top of
the range (including one outside the range) and wards in areas of lower population
density tend towards the lower end of the range or outside it. While proposed Wards 11
and 15 are moderately below the minimum population threshold in 2015, based on
recent development activity and forecast growth, Ward 11 is expected to be above the
minimum threshold by the election in 2018, while Ward 15 will approach the threshold
by that year and is expected to surpasses the minimum threshold in time for the 2022
election. Wards 13 and 14, however, are on the western and northern fringes of the
City where growth is not forecast, and are expected to continue to be at the lower end of
the population range throughout the forecast period. In comparison, proposed Ward 16
will remain marginally above the maximum desired population variance through 2026.
Figure 19: Option 3 Population by Proposed Ward
Ward
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Ward 9
Ward 10
Ward 11
Ward 12
Ward 13
Ward 14
Ward 15
Ward 16
Optimal Ward
Population
2015
1
Population
41,340
40,635
40,360
40,235
44,070
39,500
33,460
38,225
28,390
38,175
24,230
39,425
28,815
19,500
23,100
45,810
35,330
2026
2
Variance
1.17
WR
1.15
WR
1.14
WR
1.14
WR
1.25
WR
1.12
WR
0.95
WR
1.08
WR
0.80
WR
1.08
WR
0.69
OR1.12
WR
0.82
WR
0.55
OR0.65
OR1.30
OR+
Population
43,900
45,225
40,120
39,395
44,620
37,880
31,285
36,785
43,530
48,085
46,105
44,980
27,775
18,910
33,580
50,695
Variance 2
1.11
1.14
1.01
1.00
1.13
0.96
0.79
0.93
1.10
1.22
1.17
1.14
0.70
0.48
0.85
1.28
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
ORORWR
OR+
39,555
1. Reflects permanent population including Census undercount of approximately 3.8% as w ell as non-permanent post-secondary
student population.

Report Amended.docx
Page 45
There is a better capacity to group together communities of interest into units of
representation in a 16-ward system. In contrast to Option 2, for example, the four
southern and western wards (Wards 11, 12, 13 and 14) are each a coherent entity built
upon long-standing and well-understood inter-connections of economic and social
networks. As a result, the reservations expressed by the O.M.B. in relation to the
representation of the fringes of the municipality in the 2002 Ottawa ward by-law are not
applicable.
The overall evaluation of Option 3 is summarized in Figure 20. Key observations
include:
Based on the Citys estimated population in 2015, four wards are outside the
acceptable range of variation: one (Ward 16) is above and three (Wards 11, 14
and 15) are below, as illustrated in Figure 19. Option 3 falls just short of meeting
the Representation by Population principle;
By 2026, 13 wards would fall within 25% of that optimal size. Three wards are
outside the acceptable range of variation: one (Ward 16) is above and two
(Wards 13 and 14) are below. Option 3 falls just short of meeting the Population
and Electoral Trends principle;
The majority of ward boundaries in Option 3 are based on clear and wellunderstood markers, including portions of the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway and
Highway 403. The 16-ward Option generally meets the Means of
Communication and Accessibility principle;
The proposed Wards 12, 13 and 14 include communities and neighbourhoods

above and below the Escarpment. Option 3 generally meets the Geographical
and Topographical Features principle with the exceptions just noted;
The proposed Ward 15 is concentrated on Waterdown, an area expected to grow

significantly, while the proposed Ward 14 remains predominantly rural. The
proposed Ward 13 includes neighbourhoods above and below the Escarpment
since it extends from Dundas to include Greensville and West Flamborough.
Four other wards around the periphery of the City (Wards 9, 10, 11 and 12) are
large geographic areas but each consists of a collection of adjacent and naturally
connected neighbourhoods and communities. Option 3 meets the Community or
Diversity of Interests principle; and
The population discrepancy among the proposed wards in Option 3 will be

significantly reduced over the next three elections, with the exception of the
proposed Ward 14. That area will continue to remain a distinctive community of
interest within Hamilton deserving of some accommodation in the representation

Report Amended.docx
Page 46
system. Option 3, therefore, can be said to meet the Effective Representation
principle.
Figure 20: Evaluation Summary of Option 3
Principle
Representation by
Population
Trends
and Accessibility
Geographical and
Does Proposed
Ward Boundary
Structure Meet
Requirements of
Principle?
Largely successful
Largely successful
Largely successful
Interests
Yes
Largely successful
Comment
One ward above the top of the

range, three below the range
One ward just above the top of
the range, two below the range
Generally clear markers; limited
access highways cut through
two wards
Two wards include
neighbourhoods above and
below Escarpment
Communities of interest not
divided internally but some new
groupings to experience are
proposed
No significant dilution of
representation and all wards are
coherent collections of
communities
Option 3 can provide residents of all areas of Hamilton with equitable and effective
representation over the next three elections. Despite the wide variations in population
density and forecast population growth, the population principles are largely met for
2015 and 2026. Only two wards include areas above and below the Escarpment (in the
Ancaster and Dundas-Greensville area). Portions of Highway 403 cut through two
wards but other boundaries use plausible easily identified markers. The coherence and
population distribution of the proposed wards contributes to effective representation,
since higher population wards are comparatively small in area and the major rural
community of interest is preserved despite its low population.
As discussed, it's within the powers of Council to modify the composition of council. In
essence, an enlarged Council would mean working with a reduced optimal population
range for wards, a better decision-making model for Council and a recognition that the
Citys population has grown roughly by the equivalent of one ward since amalgamation.
Report Amended.docx
Page 47
6. Conclusions
This report has evaluated the existing ward structure in terms of the principles
established for the 2015-16 Ward Boundary Review and the public input received.
Based on extensive technical analysis, public consultation and feedback received from
members of Council, three alternative options to the existing ward structure were
prepared. The extent to which the existing ward structure and the three alternative
options meet the guiding principles adopted for this review and offer the City of Hamilton
an effective and equitable system to electing members of Council, is summarized in
Figure 21.
This evaluation suggests strongly that the existing ward boundary configuration does
not meet the expectations of three of the guiding principles representation by
population, population and electoral trends, and effective representation. This includes
two guiding principles effective representation and representation by population that
were identified as high priorities in a ward design through the feedback received in the
public consultations. This suggests highly that Hamilton would be better served by an
alternative ward boundary configuration.
While Option 1 represents a marginal improvement to the status quo, the option doesnt
address the structural deficiencies present in the existing ward structure, which prevents
the conclusion that this option is a viable alternative.
Option 2 (15-ward configuration) and Option 3 (16-ward configuration) both successfully
address shortcomings identified in the present system. Options 2 and 3 provide wards
that are better balanced in population now and over the next three elections while
accommodating a significant geographic community of interest (rural Hamilton) and the
various emerging neighbourhoods across the City. Option 2 or Option 3 are
recommended as viable ward boundary options for the City to ensure effective and
equitable representation for the residents of Hamilton both today and over the next
decade.

Report Amended.docx
Page 48
Figure 21: Summary of Evaluations Existing Ward Structure and Options
Existing Ward
Structure
Option 1
(modified existing
ward structure)
Option 2
(15-ward Option)
Geographical
and
Topographical
Features
Geographical
and
Topographical
Features
Means of
Communication
and Accessibility
Community or
Diversity of
Interests
Representation
by Population
Population and
Electoral Trends
Effective
Representation

Report Amended.docx
Means of
Communication
and Accessibility
Community or
Diversity of
Interests
Representation
by Population
Population and
Electoral Trends
Effective
Representation
Option 3
(16-ward Option)
Population and
Electoral Trends
Effective
Representation
Community or
Diversity of
Interests
Representation
by Population
Geographical
and
Topographical
Features
Community or
Diversity of
Interests
Means of
Communication
and Accessibility
Effective
Representation
Representation
by Population
Population and
Electoral Trends
Geographical
and
Topographical
Features
Means of
Communication
and Accessibility
Page A-1
Appendix A Public Consultation

Report Amended.docx
Appendix A-1
Public Engagement Plan

Report.docx
CityofHamiltonWardBoundaryReviewProcess
CommunityEngagementPlan
Contents:
Contents: ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Context ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Outcome of the Ward Boundary Review .......................................................................................2

Decision Maker .............................................................................................................................. 2

Purpose of this Citizen Engagement Plan ......................................................................................2

Outcomes of this Citizen Engagement Plan ...................................................................................2

Goals of Round One Consultations................................................................................................ 2

Goals of Round Two Consultations ............................................................................................... 2

Roles in This Citizen Engagement ................................................................................................. 3

Alignment with City Policy............................................................................................................ 3

Meeting Locations of Round One Consultations ...........................................................................5

Round One Consultation Meeting Process.....................................................................................5

Round One Consultation Agenda................................................................................................... 5

Materials for Round One Consultation Events ..............................................................................6

Meeting Locations of Round Two Consultations ..........................................................................7

Round Two Consultation Meeting Process....................................................................................7

Round Two Agenda ....................................................................................................................... 7

Materials for Round Two Consultations ........................................................................................7

Community Engagement Plan City of Hamilton Ward Boundary Review process.
Context
The City of Hamilton commissioned Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association with
ICA Associates Inc., Trust Learning Solutions and Robert J. Williams (the Consultant Team), to
conduct a comprehensive review of the municipal ward system. The Request for Proposal and
resultant Terms of Reference for the project specified two rounds of public consultation and
engagement in the process. The City is in the midst of raising the standard for citizen engagement
based on a Public Engagement Charter. The Consultant Team has endeavoured to live up to this
high standard even though the Charter has not yet been converted into policy. This document
embodies the Citys principles and converts them into procedures.
OutcomeoftheWardBoundaryReview
The Ward Boundary Review process will develop and present to the City of Hamilton some
alternative ways to ensure effective and equitable arrangement of the City of Hamiltons electoral
wards.
DecisionMaker
Ultimately, the Council of the City of Hamilton will decide which ward design alternative to
adopt, including the option of staying with the status quo. The Ward Boundary Review Study
provides expert input into their decision.
PurposeofthisCitizenEngagementPlan
To engage the people of Hamilton in a manner that provides valuable input to the
evaluation of the existing ward structure and development of alternative ward boundaries.
To ensure Council that ward boundary alternatives reflect municipal vision, principles of
the Public Engagement Charter, and community input.
OutcomesofthisCitizenEngagementPlan
Citizens will learn about the reason for the Ward Boundary Review and the key factors that
will be considered in the review.
Citizens will provide useful input to the Consultant Team in the evaluation of the existing
system and researching design alternatives on behalf of Council.
Citizens will have a sense that their input might genuinely influence the review.
GoalsofRoundOneConsultations
Interested citizens of Hamilton will learn about the review process and the design principles given
in the Terms of Reference for the project. They will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the
current ward boundary structure, then rank the design principles in order of importance for
consideration in the development of alternatives. This ranking of design principles is important
because it will inform the Consultant Team on how to narrow the range of alternatives for
development and exploration.
GoalsofRoundTwoConsultations
Interested citizens of Hamilton will learn about the alternative ward boundary options, assess the
trade-offs among them using the adopted design principles, indicate their preferences, and provide
thoughtful feedback to the Consultant Team that informs the development of recommended
options.
For Report Appendix Watson & Associates, October 2016
RolesinThisCitizenEngagement
The City and the Consultant Team will be collaborating throughout the Review.
The City will use its expertise in communications and logistics for:
Website hosting, design, and maintenance;
Communications using: social media, traditional media, posters, and mailings;
Promotional materials publication and distribution;
Media relations;
Advertising;
Venue logistics: find, book, equip, and provide refreshments as needed;
Outreach to community groups;
Branding; and
Added forms of engagement not contained in the original terms of reference.
The Consultant Team will use its subject matter expertise for:
Informing participating citizens about the subject of ward boundary reviews;
Group process design and facilitation;
Content for communications, such as descriptive text added to a website;
Key messages advice to the City;
Capturing and documenting the basic components of the citizen input for future reference;
and
Reviewing any citizen input captured by the City from their social media and web-based
sources.
AlignmentwithCityPolicy
An engagement plan is essential to the Ward Boundary Review because it upholds two
overarching pillars of the City:
The existing Vision for the City of Hamilton: To be the best place in Canada to raise a
child, promote innovation, engage citizens and provide diverse economic opportunities.
The Core Principles of the Citys new Public Engagement Charter expand on the
elements of the vision:
o Transparency and trust;
o Accountability and action;
o Inclusion and diversity;
o Create opportunities for active participation;
o Collaboration, co-operation and shared purpose;
o Ongoing engagement and open communication;
o Learning, reflection and evaluation; and
o Capacity for engagement.
The public engagement plan of the Ward Boundary Review process seeks to align itself with the
Citys Core Principles of Public Engagement:
Core Principles of Public

Engagement
1. Trust and transparency
2. Accountability and
action
3. Inclusion and diversity
4. Create opportunities for

active participation
5. Collaboration, cooperation and shared

purpose
6. Ongoing engagement
and open
communication
7. Learning, reflection and
evaluation
8. Capacity for
engagement
Ward Boundary Review Design Implication

A website is being created by City staff to share all background
information, reports and location of public consultations. City staff will
monitor social media comments. Consultant Team will provide content for
the City in a timely fashion to use in updating the project web page.
Products/outputs of each round of engagement will be reviewed by the
Consultant Team and referenced in their analysis, design, and
recommendations.
Public meetings will be held in different parts of the City scheduled at
different times of the day and days of the week.
City staff will book functional meeting rooms that are wheelchair
accessible, with ample space to move around during interactive sessions.
Consultant Team will ensure that materials shared in public meetings will
use both visual and auditory processes.
Facilitators will ensure that the interactive components of the meeting will
engage different ways of learning and communicating: kinesthetic through
body movement and making tangible products, interpersonal through small
and large group discussions, etc.
Language of the public meetings will be English.
Group process design begins with reframing the objectives in terms of what
the participants need to know, learn, decide or produce.
Face-to-face meetings with the public will include interactive components
that encourage participants to meet new people and ideas without
unnecessary criticism.
Small group discussions invite participants to record their own ideas.
Sharing key insights will be through the use of index cards, push-pins,
sticky notes and lists projected on an overhead screen.
Large display boards will contain the key information and be available for
review at the beginning of the event.
Questions will be organized to build one on the other and reveal deeper
insights, not just opinions and positions.
The City will be taking the lead role in public communications.
Communication and outreach will be through a number of media vehicles.
City staff will invite Councillors to reach out through their networks, the
media will be asked to play a role, local community groups will be engaged
directly in soliciting participation from their membership.
A set of participation guidelines will be reviewed with participants at
public meetings in order to set an inclusive, collaborative tone.
The City will set up, manage and monitor a website which will be changing
throughout the life of the review.
The Citys own social media outlets will be receiving and encouraging
community conversations.
The design of the engagement process was refined after consulting with
elected representatives and City staff.
The design of the second round of consultations will reflect some of the
lessons learned from the first round.
Public meetings will end with a short reflective dialogue on the event.
The first round is partly educational about the topic and the process.
Questions of clarification will be asked and answered. Participants will be
asked the deeper questions after the informational ones.
MeetingsforRoundOneConsultations
Nine 3-hour meetings to be held at locations throughout the City of Hamilton.
RoundOneConsultationMeetingProcess
Purpose: Interested citizens of Hamilton will learn about the review process and the design
principles given in the terms of reference for the project. They will assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the current ward boundary structure after ranking the design principles in order of
importance for the future. This ranking of design principles is important because it will inform the
Consultant Team on how to narrow the range of alternatives for development and exploration.
RoundOneConsultationAgenda
1) Brief Open House
Purpose: To introduce the topic and understand the participants perspectives.

Process: Individually review informative display boards and indicate (with a pin) on a map where
each participant lives.
2) Welcome, context, overview
Purpose: To equip people to engage with one another comfortably.

Process: Brief presentation describing the agenda and participation guidelines.
3) The Ward Boundary Review Presentation (25 minutes)
Purpose: To equip people to discuss the topic of ward boundary review.

Process: Presentation by an expert, reviewing the maps, history, terms of reference (especially the
design principles), and how the input will influence the work.
4) Clarification Discussion (5 + 10 + 10 = 25 minutes)
Purpose: To ensure people are clear about the topic.

Process: 1) A brief table discussion and note taking and 2) sharing questions with the whole group,
followed by 3) answers to what can be answered by the presenter.
Key question: What questions of clarification do you have?
5) Current Situation Discussion (10 + 10 + 10 = 30 minutes)
Purpose: To better understand and apply the Citys design principles to the current ward
boundaries in order to build up a principled impression of strengths and weaknesses.
Process: 1) Small group discussions of the design principles and note taking about strengths and
weaknesses of the current situation, 2) sharing some key insights from each small group with the
large group, and 3) a short whole-group discussion of their summary.
Key question: What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the current ward system?
6) Ranking of Design Principles for the Future (10 + 10 + 10 + 10 = 40 minutes)
Purpose: To apply the design principles this time for future consideration.
Process: 1) Small groups review the design principles again and discuss which are important for
the ward system to reflect and uphold in the future; 2) individually select the top 3 most important
design principles to apply.
Key question: What principles do we want the ward system to uphold and reflect in Hamilton?
7) Wrap-up and next steps (10 + 10 = 20 minutes)
Purpose: To summarize the event, learn how the results will be used, and how to stay engaged.
Process: One short presentation and one short whole-group discussion.
Key Question: What will we tell people who were not here when they ask what happened?
MaterialsforRoundOneConsultationEvents
Stacking chairs for 35 people, with an additional 75 or more available for a potentially large
crowd.
Folding tables, preferably round, 6 set up with 6 chairs per table, with another 8 tables ready to
be set up if a large crowd arrives.
Large display boards including:
Engagement Charter including vision, mission, and principles diagram (supplied by the
City because it is theirs and they can re-use it);
Where do YOU come from? A large simple B&W map of the current ward boundaries
and major streets on a foam-core panel (so pushpins can be stuck through it);
The Ward Boundary Review Process containing:
o A simple flow chart of the whole process including a you are here marker, next
steps and contact information to add input; and
o Website URL and Twitter hashtag and phone number selected by the City for
Communications
Wall Posters:
Purpose and Agenda;
Participation Guidelines poster posted near the agenda:
o Everyone has wisdom;
o We need everyones wisdom for the wisest results;
o There are no wrong answers;
o The whole is greater than the sum of its parts; and
o Everyone will hear and be heard.
Pre-printed (B&W on plain bond paper) 3x3 tablecloths with questions and places to write
answers during small group discussion.
Pre-printed large vertical strips of paper (maybe 18 to 24 wide by 36 tall) each containing
another of the design principles from the Terms of Reference printed large at the top. When
hung together on an accessible wall space these will be:
o Referred to by the presenter; then
o Used by participants for their coloured sticky notes ranking the top three principles.
Sets of three coloured sticky notes for individuals to use for ranking the principles
Projector and screen.
A small set of chunky marker pens for writing/drawing on every tablecloth.
Sign-in sheets so the City can keep in touch with participants and to send them a thank-you
note.
A registration table near the entrance.
If supplied by the City or a sponsor, a refreshments table.
Sets of small-headed colour pushpins for participants to stick in the map during the open house
(colour coded to help identify where the consultation was located).
Microphone (wireless preferred), amplifier and loudspeaker.
MeetingsforRoundTwoConsultations
Nine 3-hour meetings to be held at locations throughout the City of Hamilton.
The goal is to complete the consultations before the end of June in order to capture as
many participants as possible before the summer vacation season begins and to allow time
for reviewing the input before developing the final options to Council.
RoundTwoConsultationMeetingProcess
Purpose: Interested citizens of Hamilton will learn about the alternative ward boundary
structures, assess the trade-offs among them using the Citys ranked design principles, indicate
their preferences, and provide feedback to the Consultant Team.
Allowance is made for individuals to examine all the alternatives in an informed and informal
manner. Participants will be equipped with a passport to allow them to take notes and keep
track of both the design principles and the various options. The process requires casual 1:1
support and instruction with less group facilitation.
RoundTwoAgenda
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Open house;
Welcome and overview of the event;
Presentation on input from Round One consultations;
Presentation on the draft alternative ward boundaries;
Discussion of the alternatives using the input from the round one consultations (Q&A);
Participations were handed a passport in order to take notes and rank their preferences;
Indication of preferences as walkabout with subject matter experts very accessible;
Discussion of assumptions and reasons behind preferences; and
Wrap-up and next steps.
MaterialsforRoundTwoConsultations
A dozen display board easels for the preliminary options and explanatory posters;
Chairs arranged for a presentation;
Projector and screen for a presentation;
Reception table;
Tables for participants to write their answers at, if they chose; and
Passport booklets for each participant containing information about the overall process,
ranked design principles from Round One consultations, a few defining characteristics of
the ward boundary options, space to express opinions, and some evaluation questions.
Meeting Locations of Round One Consultations:

Nine 3-hour meetings were held between February 3rd and February 27th, 2016,
at locations throughout the City of Hamilton, as summarized below.
This included seven weekday meetings scheduled in the evenings and two
meetings scheduled on Saturday afternoons.
Locations of Round One Consultations

Meeting #
Venue
Harry Howell Arena
Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum
Old Beasley Community Centre
Sackville Seniors Centre
Rockton Fairgrounds
Ancaster Rotary Centre
Stoney Creek Recreation Centre
Bocce Club Chedoke Twin Pad Arena
Dundas Lions Memorial Community Centre
Date/Time
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
5:30-8:30 pm
Thursday, February 11, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
6:00-9:00 pm
Saturday, February 20, 2016
12:30-3:30 pm
Monday, February 22, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
Saturday, February 27, 2016
12:30-3:30 pm
Meeting Locations of Round Two Consultations

Nine 3-hour meetings were held between June 9th and June 29th, 2016, at
locations throughout the City of Hamilton, as summarized below.
This included seven weekday meetings scheduled in the evenings and two
meetings scheduled on Saturday afternoons.
Locations of Round Two Consultations

Meeting #
Venue
Sir Winston Churchill Recreation Centre
Tim Hortons Field
Mountain Arena
Westdale Secondary School
Waterdown Legion Hall
Winona Community Centre
Rosedale Arena
Binbrook Agricultural Hall
Public Meeting Date/Time

Thursday, June 9, 2016
6:00-8:30 pm
Saturday, June 11, 2016
12:30-3:30 pm
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
6:00-9:00 pm
Friday, June 17, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
Monday, June 20, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
6:00-9:00 pm
Saturday, June 25, 2016
12:30-3:30 pm
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
6:00-9:00 pm
Appendix A-2
Round 1 of Public Consultation

Report.docx
City of Hamilton Ward Boundary Review
Public Information and Engagement Workshop Round 1
Comments/Feedback Form
1. What are the key strengths of the current ward boundary system in Hamilton?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
2. What are the key weaknesses of the current ward boundary system in Hamilton?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
3. What issues do you believe are most important to address in the ward boundary
review process?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
4. Additional comments?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your interest and participation.
Please leave your completed form in the Comments Box.
Or return to:
Email: feedback@watson-econ.ca
Return of comments is requested by March 3, 2016.
&
!#'
""#'
'
'

!
#!#

#

#
&

" #&
$"#$
$)"'"#,
###
" #)$#'(#$

"$*"#$)"#*#$$,
"""$*"#$)"#*#$$,
,
$"$#
,)
" "
# %(# ! )
&
!#'
""#'
'
'
-
&
!#'
""#'
'
'
+
$!'#%#
)('$$)"'"*
$
!'#%#
)('$$)"'"*
""()
() "##,
"##,
*
Hamilton Ward Boundary Review
Public Consultation Round 1 Feedback Received via Comment
Sheets Circulated at Public Open Houses
What are some of the STRENGTHS of the current ward boundaries?
Well-established (i.e. they've been around for a long time, people know which ward they
reside in)
Recognizes Geographic Areas
Fits within Historical Boundaries
Suburban and Rural Divide
What are some of the WEAKNESSES of the current ward boundaries?
It is not representative of the population

The Wards vary in size
Maintains interest of rural versus urban interest preventing a sense of overall community
What issues do you believe are most important to address in the ward boundary review
process?
Ensuring equal population per ward, while also ensuring there is no conflict between
urban and rural divide
Community identity - common interest
Geographic and Topographic features
Diversity of Interest
Keeping the Historical Guides
Even Ward Sizes
Separation of Rural Zone
Greenbelt Recognition
Additional Comments
This boundary review needs to be done as population patterns have changed over time
Additional ward on mountain + eliminate rural wards
Hamiltonians from all over must realize we are all in this together and not separate
entities
A community attitude must be maintained
Regardless of rural boundaries, Councillors should represent the ward and work for
good of all

Public Consultation Round 1 Workshop Group Sessions
Tablecloth Responses Summary and Voting Results on Guiding
Principles
What are some of the STRENGTHS of the current ward boundaries?
City-Wide:
Strong geographical features

Contiguous
Preserves Neighbourhoods and shows the uniqueness of each
Diversity and Identity is evident
Ward 14 is the best example of a Ward with multiple small communities that have come
together
Familiarity
Waterdown Area:
Current system reinforces different socio-economic & cultural interests

The Mountain is a good division of wards
Ancaster and Dundas Area:
Dundas is Dundas
Established heritage
Neighbourhood identity and cohesion maintained
Protects suburban Towns character
Reflects the uniqueness of the communities (e.g. rural communities)
Rural Area:
Ward 14 is a great example of effective representation

Stability after amalgamation
Geographically equitable
The current ward system provides for effective representation in the suburban and rural
areas
Inner City:
Preserves neighbourhoods
Legacy Communities
Mountain:
Current system reinforces existing interest of different socio-economic & cultural

interests
Geographically equitable
There is strength is having a balance between rural and urban wards as it creates
balance
East End:
Easy to identify Stoney Creek

Self-contained
Strong sense of community
What are some of the WEAKNESSES of the current ward boundaries?

City-Wide:
Major split/divide between Urban and Rural

Inequitable representation
Ward 11 feels like a hodgepodge
Population imbalance
Urban-Suburban divide
Waterdown Area:
Current system divides us into socio-economic classes with different needs

The Mountain may be an artificial barrier
Some Councillors want to maintain status quo which inhibits decision making for Citywide issues and encourages "fiefdom"
Narrow perspective
City dominates rural areas
the current make-up does not represent natural communities (i.e. Ward 7 is very large)
Rural voice is often left out and does not have representation on committees (e.g. farm &
agriculture)
Rural Area:
City does not understand Rural issues

No services offered in rural area (Bus, Water, Sewer, etc.)
Current system divides us into socio-economic classes with different needs
Inner City:
Too conforming to boundaries of former municipalities

Better to have more wards, fewer residents
New wards should make sure lower income residents have fair representation
Councilors in high density and high needs areas are overwhelmed and under resourced
Urban issues underrepresented (1/3 pop = 1/2 Council)
Some communities of interest that are not adequately represented
Mountain:
Major Split between urban & rural

Population representation is unfairly distributed
Tunnel vision Councilors (worrying on just your ward)

No representation by population
East end:
Winona should be with Stoney Creek (education & ward 10)

The mountain may be an artificial barrier
Amalgamation animosity
Ward 9 & 11 split by the escarpment
Interest pitted against each other
Where and how should the present ward system be changed? (if you have specific
suggestions)
Waterdown Area:
No comments provided
Following the Federal riding boundary, have 3 Ward representatives elected into each
riding (divide each Federal riding into 3 Wards)
Divide Ward 11 into two as it has population growth
Consider larger geographical wards with 2,3,4,5 reps elected at large in the wards
Look again at the idea of having a Regional Municipality, as before
Community nodes (e.g. Copetown/ Lynden) need to be kept together in one ward
If Necessary, Ward 13 west of Highway 6, south of #5 to either Middletown rd. or Hwy 52
to Jerseyville Rd. people who live in Greensville & Glen Drummond survey to Copetown
area already think they are part of Dundas
Propose 3 "at-large" Councillors to represent wards 1-5, wards 6-9, and wards 10-15
Impose 1 or 2-year term limits
benefits: Injects new blood into Council,
creates profile to challenge incumbent in future election,
provides ""apprenticeship"" for new Councillors to lead ward work and duties,
could be springboard for future mayoral candidates"
Extend ward 10 - below mountain / lakefront to east boundary
Extend ward 13 - capture Greenbelt areas below mountain from wards 12 & 14
Use Upper Sherman as east/west boundary for wards 6&7
Use Hwy. 6 as east/west boundary for wards 14&15
Extend ward 5 to Grays Rd. from ward 9 (below mountain)
Rural Area:
Current ward system works well to represent each ward's needs and community interest
Ward 14 could encompass part of Ward 15 west of Highway 6 to increase population of
ward 14
Ward 15 will increase population in Waterdown
Orkney could be added to Ward 14 also to increase population
To increase the population of Ward 14, the only option is to join (partially) with another
Ward. This would increase the size of Ward 14 to a size which would be impossible for
a Councilor to manage
Regrowth of Waterdown - add to Ward 14 section of Ward 15, everything West of
Highway 6
We want No more expense - No more Councillors, No less
We do not want to lose any Rural Councillors
Inner City:
Ancaster could reasonably take in Copetown and Mount Hope. The schools feed into
Ancaster High
Constituents elect trustees as well as City Councillors. Take into consideration the
make-up of school communities
Some communities of interest that are not adequately represented
Mountain:
Reduce to 9-11 Councillors

Create a spoke & wheel ward that includes city to rural for all councilors
Councillors would have to gain a knowledge of city/medium density / rural issues
Start from zero - choose optimal number of wards first
Merge some of the rural wards
Dividing some of the urban wards
Highest population areas
More equitable representation must be implemented
Council changed to ward rep and Regional elected at large
More equitable representation must be implemented
Council changed to ward rep and Regional elected at large
East end:
Escarpment as a boundary for Wards 9 & 11
Hamilton Ward Boundary Review - "Voting" Results on Guiding Principles at Round 1 Public Meeting/Workshops
Location
Harry Howell Arena(Flamborough)
Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum (Mount Hope)
Old Beasley Community Centre
Sackville Hill Seniors Recreation Centre
Rockton Fairgrounds
Stoney Creek
Bocce Club - Chedoke Twin Pad Arena
Dundas Lions Memorial Community Centre
Total Votes
Ranking
Guiding Principles for the Hamilton Ward Boundary Review (2016)

Means of
Geographical and
Representation
Population and
communication
topographical
by Population
electoral trends
and accessibility
features
5
1
3
9
4
1
1
4
10
3
0
2
4
1
2
3
4
0
1
18
5
2
1
2
4
1
2
3
21
0
7
13
5
2
1
11
62
11
18
65
4
Community or
diversity of
interests
13
5
7
6
18
2
6
7
11
75
2
Effective
Representation
Total Votes
14
4
5
2
21
4
2
21
9
82
45
19
27
18
62
16
18
69
39
313
Page 1.
City of Hamilton Ward Boundary Review
Online Comments/Feedback Form Summary of Submissions Received
February 3 March 3, 2016
Received 62 submissions
Respondents were asked about the key strengths/weaknesses in the current Hamilton
ward boundary system:
Key strengths of current system:
o The dominant response was none. Of the few key strengths identified include:
Respects/maintains communities of interest and pre-amalgamated

municipalities
Well established and understood
Gives rural population a voice
Key weaknesses of current system (in order of number of responses highest to

lowest):
o Population imbalance
o Promotes urban vs. suburban/rural divisiveness and us vs. them mindset on
Council
o System based on pre-amalgamated municipality lines which makes it difficult to
move forward as an amalgamated city.
o Boundaries dont follow logical lines.
High share of respondents indicated that Hamiltons ward boundary system should be
redesigned and shown below:

\\10.0.0.41\hdrive\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\PIC\Hamilton WBR
Consultation Round 1 Online Feedback Key Findings.docx
Page 2.
ShouldHamilton's WardBoundarySystembe
Redesigned?
NO
2%
No Res ponse
3%
YES
95%
Of those that responded that Hamiltons ward boundary system should be redesigned,
respondents were asked what issues are most important to address in the redesign
process. Top responses are:
o Redesign should consider representation by population, preserving communities
of interest, effective representation
o Minimize urban vs. suburban/rural divide and us vs. them thinking and creates
a system based on an amalgamated city
o Add additional wards to address population imbalance
Of those that responded that Hamiltons ward boundary system should not be
redesigned, respondents were asked why they believe the system should remain
unchanged. Only one respondent answered: It's okay the way it is.
Respondents were asked what principles should be given the highest priority in
redesigning the ward system in Hamilton. Population and Electoral Trends and
Representation by Population received the highest number of responses, followed
closely by Effective Representation. Communities of Interest received a moderate
number of responses, as illustrated below. Geographic and Topographic Features and
Communications and Accessibility received the lowest number of responses.

Page 3.
Whatprinciples shouldbe giventhe highest

priorityinredesigningthe wardsystemin
Hamilton?
PopulationandElectoralTrends
39
Representationby Population
39
EffectiveRepresentation
34
CommunitiesofInterest
21
Geograph.AndTopoFeatures
12
Communicationand accessibility
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number ofResponses

Appendix A-3
Round 2 of Public Consultation

Report.docx
June 2016
June 2016
The Ward Boundary Review Process
Passport
In October 2015, the Council of the City of Hamilton decided to conduct a

ward boundary review. Consultants were hired and began their research.
In the fall of 2016 Council will decide what they want to do: keep the wards
the same, or change them based on expert recommendations that also
reflect public input.
The study has several phases including two rounds of public input:
STAGE
ACTION
1
Council decided to do
Purpose:
To gather detailed insights and suggestions from the citizens

of Hamilton about what changes to the ward boundaries make
the most sense and WHY.
There are two pages in the middle of this passport for taking notes
about each of the maps around the room.
Walk around the room to look closely at the maps of each option.
Make notes in this passport of what you think are the strengths and
weakness of all the options.
Any questions raised for you can be written on the large Post-It notes
at each location around the room.
After you have looked at all the options, pick up a worksheet marked
Preferences and rank your top 1, 2, or 3 preferred options.
Please say WHY you prefer them.
Before you leave, drop this Passport booklet and your Preferences
worksheet into the big box near the exit.
Passport workbook for citizens to keep track of their ideas while reviewing possible ward boundary changes.
June 2016
Priority Guiding Principles
To learn from the community and to

give direction to the consultants on
Guiding Principles, and issues of
priority and importance
To apply the communitys sense of
guiding principles, and show the
community whats possible
Develop draft options
Public consultation
Round Two June
2016
To learn which options make the

most sense to the community
Refine options July

and August 2016
Present
recommendations to
Council
Council decides what
they want to do with
ward boundaries
October 2016
To develop a short list of

recommendations that reflect
community feedback
Council receives the consultants
recommendations through a committee
of Council, for discussion.
June 2016
Population
Options
(and a few reminder points)
1: Parallel Federal Constituencies
Five Federal constituencies divided into 3 wards
each. Niagara Escarpment as a boundary for
most wards that abut it.
2A: Preserve pre-amalgamation balance
8 wards in the former City and 7 wards outside
the City. Variation A.
Representation by Population;
Population and Electoral Trends;
Means of Communication and Accessibility;
Geographical and Topographical Features;
Community or Diversity of Interests; and
Effective Representation.
2B: Preserve pre-amalgamation balance

8 wards in the former City and 7 wards outside
the City. Variation B.
Participants in Round One of the public consultations (February

2016) ranked the Guiding Principles in order of importance.
Ranked higher were the principles of:
1. Representation by population;
2. Population and electoral trends; and
3. Community or diversity of interests.
Ranked lower were principles of:
4. Means of communication and accessibility; and
5. Geographical and topographical features.
The principle of Effective Representation is an overarching
principle that takes all the others into consideration.
This input from citizens was important because the options offered
for consideration in this second round of consultations attempt to
hold these prioritized principles.
Please consider these principles when thinking about the
strengths and weaknesses of the draft options.
To gain insight from Councilors and

stakeholders
Summary of Options Displayed on Maps
Guiding Principles for the study include:
PURPOSE
a review October
2015
Researched current
situation November
to January
Public consultation
Round One
February 2016
To make an informed decision in the fall

of 2016
3A: Post-amalgamation 15 ward model

7 wards below Escarpment from Dundas to
Winona, 5 wards along the south side of
escarpment from Ancaster to Vinemont.
3B: Post-amalgamation 15 ward model.
6 wards below the Escarpment from Dundas to
Grays Road; 4 wards along the south side of the
escarpment from Ancaster to First Road
4A: Post-amalgamation 16 ward model.
Winona; 5 wards along the Mountain from
Ancaster to Vinemount; 4 wards in the centralwest Mountain area. Variation A
4B: Post-amalgamation 16 ward model.
Winona; 5 wards along the south side of the
escarpment from Ancaster to Vinemount; 4
wards in the central-west Mountain area.
Variation B.
4C: Post-amalgamation 16 ward model.
6 wards below the Escarpment from West
Hamilton to Winona; 5 wards along the south
side of the Escarpment from Ancaster to
Vinemount; 5 wards in the central-west Mountain
area.
Current (Existing) Ward Boundary Structure:
Based on boundaries set in 2001, some
originating in the 1980s and 1990s.
Reflect choices made during amalgamation.
2015
2026
2 wards more than 125%

above the current average
population per ward.
2 wards below 75%.
3 wards below 75%.
3 wards below 75%.
2 wards below 75%.
1 ward more than 125%
1 ward below 75%.
3 wards below 75%.
3 wards more than

125% above the
average.
4 wards below 75%.
2 wards more than
125% above the
average.
2 wards below 75%.
3 wards more than
125% above the
average.
2 wards below 75%.
above the average.
2 wards below 75%.

3 wards below 75%.
0 (zero) wards more

than 125% above the
average.
2 wards below 75%.
0 (zero) wards more than

125% above the current
average population per
ward.
1 ward below 75%.
0 (zero) wards more

than 125% above the
average.
1 ward below 75%.

3 wards below 75%.
3 wards more than

125% above the
average.
3 wards below 75%.
2 wards more than

125% above the
average.
1 ward below 75%.
0 (zero) wards more
than 125% above the
average.
1 ward below 75%.
June 2016
As you look at each of the options, keep track of your ideas and
questions on this page if you wish. This is not an exam. This is a
place to take notes, draw connection lines whatever helps you
keep track of all your ideas.
This is the map of the current (existing) ward boundaries in the City
of Hamilton. It will help you to see the differences marked on the
other maps.
Participants in Round One of the public consultations (February
2016) indicated that the weaknesses of the current boundaries
made it important to consider alternative options.
What do you think about each option?
How do they reflect the PRINCIPLES listed on page 3?
When you look at the other possible options, consider the tradeoffs. It is possible that the current model holds the communitys
sense of priorities.
What are some of the

WEAKNESSES of
an option?
June 2016
CURRENT City of Hamilton Ward Boundaries
Your Notes
STRENGTHS of an
option?
QUESTIONS these
options raises for me?
This option is called the Current option on pages 4 and 8.
June 2016
Please answer the questions on the other side of this page.
Then place the booklet in the big box marked Preferences.
THANKS!
1) Which meeting is THIS one? (Please circle it)

Venue
Thursday, June 9
Tim Hortons Field
Saturday, June 11
Mountain Arena
Tuesday, June 14
6:00-8:30 pm
Preferences
Please provide your best advice with insight.
2) Please note WHY you answered the way you did.

You might include the FEATURES you liked of various options.
12:30-3:30 pm
6:00-9:00 pm
Westdale Secondary School Friday, June 17
6:00-9:00 pm
Waterdown Legion Hall
Monday, June 20
6:00-9:00 pm
Thursday, June 23
6:00-9:00 pm
Rosedale Arena
Saturday, June 25
12:30-3:30 pm
Binbrook Agricultural Hall
Wednesday, June 29
Thursday, June 16
June 2016
1 = MOST preferred
2 = second most preferred
3 = third most preferred
Public Meeting Date/Time
Sir Winston Churchill

Recreation Centre
1) Please RANK your top three options. If you only have 1 or 2, thats
helpful too.
While you are at it, please answer these really easy questions too:
Meeting
#
6:00-9:00 pm
6:00-9:00 pm
Options (page 4)
RANK your
1, 2, or 3 MOST
preferred
WHY Do you prefer it?

(What features do you prefer?)
1: Parallel federal
constituency boundaries
2A: Preservation of
pre-amalgamation
balance
2B: Preservation of
pre-amalgamation
balance
3A: Post-amalgamation
15 ward system
2) What did you think about THIS meeting?
3B: Post-amalgamation
15 ward system
Were you provided with enough information? Yes or No

Did you learn something about the ward system? Yes or No
4A: Post-amalgamation
16 ward system
Did you think your own input was valuable? Yes or No

(Your input is on the other side of this page)
4B: Post-amalgamation
16 ward system
Was the passport and posters approach helpful for you? Yes or No
4C: Post-amalgamation
16 ward system
Would you encourage friends to attend one of these consultations? Yes or No
Current (page 4 & 6)

No change
Please drop this passport in the big box marked

Preferences.
Aggregated Responses of Top 3 Choices from Second Round of Consultation

Total Count of Votes (Ranks 1, 2 and 3)
1: Parallel Federal
Constituency
Passport Feedback
Boundaries
Sir Winston Churchill Recreation Centre & Tim Hortons Field
2
Mountain Arena
2
0
Westdale Community Centre
0
Waterdown Legion Branch 551
0
0
Binbrook Agricultural Society
0
Total Votes
4
2A: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
0
2
9
0
2
0
4
17
2B: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
0
2
3
0
0
1
4
10
3A: PostAmalgamation 15
Ward System
1
3
6
1
1
1
5
18
3B: PostAmalgamation 15
Ward System
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
8
Ward System
5
6
4
2
1
2
2
22
Ward System
4
2
5
4
2
1
1
19
4C: PostAmalgamation 16
Ward System
7
7
5
8
1
4
2
34
Current: No Change
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
6
# Times Chosen
1: Parallel Federal
Constituency
Boundaries
23
2A: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
12
2B: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
14
Ward System
13
Ward System
14
Ward System
38
Ward System
42
Ward System
71
Current: No Change
13
Total Votes
1: Parallel Federal
Constituency
Boundaries
27
2A: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
29
2B: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
24
Ward System
31
Ward System
22
Ward System
60
Ward System
61
Ward System
105
Current: No Change
19
Option 1
27
Option 2
53
Option 3
53
Option 4
226
Current - No Change
19
Ranking
Online Feedback
Total Votes by Option:
Option 1
7%
Current - No Change
5%
Option 2
14%
Option 4
60%
Source: Based on aggregated responses of top three choices of options from online submissions
consultation.
Option 3
14%
Aggregated Responses for First Choice from Second Round of Consultation

Total Count of Votes (Rank 1 Only)
1: Parallel Federal
Constituency
Passport Feedback
Boundaries
Sir Winston Churchill Recreation Centre & Tim Hortons Field
0
Mountain Arena
1
0
Westdale Community Centre
0
Waterdown Legion Branch 551
0
0
Binbrook Agricultural Society
0
Total Votes
1
Ranking
Online Feedback
# Times Chosen
Note: Based on number of time chosen 1st
Total Votes
Total Rank 1 Votes by Option:
2A: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
0
2
4
0
2
0
4
12
2B: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Ward System
1
2
1
0
0
1
4
9
Ward System
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ward System
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
4
Ward System
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
Ward System
6
3
3
7
1
2
0
22
Current: No Change
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
1: Parallel Federal
Constituency
Boundaries
7
2A: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
5
2B: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
4
Ward System
1
Ward System
2
Ward System
7
Ward System
4
Ward System
61
Current: No Change
6
1: Parallel Federal
Constituency
Boundaries
8
2A: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
17
2B: Preservation of
Pre-Amalgamation
Balance
5
Ward System
10
Ward System
2
Ward System
11
Ward System
7
Ward System
83
Current: No Change
10
Option 1
8
Option 2
22
Option 3
12
Option 4
101
Current - No Change
10
Option 1
5%
Current - No Change
7%
Option 2
14%
Option 3
8%
Option 4
66%
Source: Based on aggregated responses of Rank 1 choices of options from online submissions
consultation.
Page B-1
Appendix B Option 1 Proposed Ward

Boundaries

Report Amended.docx
Page 1.
Option 1 Proposed Boundaries

Proposed Ward 1
Identical to existing Ward 1.
Proposed Ward 2
Proposed Ward 3
Proposed Ward 4
Proposed Ward 5
Similar to existing Ward 5 except along eastern boundary:

o Boundary follows Centennial Parkway from King Street to Queenston
Road;
o Boundary follows Queenston Road between Centennial Parkway and
Grays Road; and
o Boundary follows Grays Road from Queenston Road to Lake Ontario
except at the northern terminus where the boundary would follow the
eastern boundary of Confederation Park.
Proposed Ward 6
Similar to existing Ward 6 except:

o Bound by Red Hill Valley Parkway, Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway and Trinity
Church Road to the east; and
o Bound by Miles Road and Upper Sherman Avenue to the west.
Proposed Ward 7
Similar to existing Ward 7 except eastern boundary runs along Miles Road and
Upper Sherman Avenue.

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Amended Report
Appendix Material\Option 1 Proposed Boundaries.docx
Page 2.
Proposed Ward 8
Identical to existing Ward 8 except for minor adjustment where boundary follows
Stone Church Road west from Omni Blvd. to the north-south Hydro One
Networks transmission corridor.
Proposed Ward 9
Similar to existing Ward 9 except that bound to the south by the east-west Hydro
One Networks transmission corridor (located south of Rymal Road) and bound
by Red Hill Valley Parkway, Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway and Trinity Church
Road to the west.
Proposed Ward 10
Similar to existing Ward 10 except bound to the east by Jones Road south of the
Q.E.W.
Proposed Ward 11
Similar to existing Ward 11 except that northern boundary between Trinity

Church Road and Regional Road 56 located along the east-west Hydro One
Networks transmission corridor and the north-south boundary with Ward 10 along
Jones Road south of the Q.E.W.
Proposed Ward 12
Identical to existing Ward 12 except for minor adjustment where boundary follows
Stone Church Road west from Omni Blvd. to the north-south Hydro One
Networks transmission corridor.
Proposed Ward 13
Proposed Ward 14
Similar to existing Ward 14 except along the eastern boundary with Ward 15,
boundary follows Valley Road., Highway 5, Millgrove Sideroad and Concession
Road 4.
Proposed Ward 15
Similar to existing Ward 15 except along the western boundary with Ward 14,
boundary follows Valley Road, Highway 5, Millgrove Sideroad and Concession
Road 4.

City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 1
GU
EL
PH
YORK
CH
OA
CK
ER
O
RS
TE
T
PA VA
LL
EY
RO
D
SI
IN
SPR
AP
EL
OL
GG
AR
NS
DE
Lake Ontario
YORK
E
OV
AY
W
GR
GH
HI
.
NO
PLAIN
OL
LL
MI
15
EL
R
YO
GU
PH
BURLINGTON
D
SY
Dundurn
EN
EL
BARTON
t
en
pm
ar
Es
c
ra
MPIC
OLY
Cootes Paradise
N
U
M
O
ES
JA
M
NT
GARTH
N
O
IL
S
LIMERIDGE
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Major Utility Corridors
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Major Commercial Nodes/Corridors
SHERMAN ACCESS
FENNELL
UPPER WENTWORTH
WEST 5TH
UPPER PARADISE
0.6
CHARLTON
MOHAWK
NI
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
MAIN
CONCESSION
E
SC
12
MO
SS
UPPER WELLINGTON
BECKETT
Chedoke Park
Ainslie Wood
VICTORIA
ER
S
R'
UPPER JAMES
RE
LA
E
CC
KING
BELVIDERE
AS
JAMES
ND
ABERDEEN
JOHN
DU
Kirkendall
IN
MA
BAY
ES
RN
OT
HA M
M
AI
N
OS L
E
OV
QUEEN
S
TE
CO
N
SYDE
KING
ES
OT
403MAIN
KING
DUNDURN
CO
O
CO
Westdale
TA
IN
Ni
ag
a
N
KI
WEN TWORTH
EW
JOHN
Strathcona
DUNDURN
L
FA
VI
LS
WELLINGTON
YO
R
JAMES
ST
VICTORIA
13
JOHN
AP
YORK
E
RV
HA
CH
BAY
RO
CK
JAMES
HA
14
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
OL
R
YO
DG
UE
LP H
YORK
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 2
Lake Ontario
R
YO
INDUSTRIAL
BURLINGTON
North End
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
ACCESS
Niagara Escarpment
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
UPPER GAGE
Natural Open Space
SHERMAN
UPPER SHERMAN
Parks
CHARLTON
UPPER WENTWORTH
Ward
ESS
JOLLEY CUT
UPPER WELLINGTON
IN
TA
BELVIDERE
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
UN
AR
O
EM
NT
Stinson
CC
NA
MA
HE R
S
SS
CE
ARKLEDUN
AC
UPPER JAMES
Major Road
ES
O
M
MAIN
WEN TWORTH
CL
WEST 5TH
Km
Highway
JAMES
QUEEN
DUNDURN
C
BE
TT
KE
Corktown
ST. JOSEPH'S ARKLEDUN
ABERDEEN
VICTORIA
JOHN
DUNDURN
PARADISE
Durand
M
JA
0.4
KING
KING
IN
MA
SHERMAN
GAGE
VICTORIA
JAMES
MAIN
DUNDURN
Beasley
JOHN
Central
N
KI
KING
WELLINGTON
403
BAY
YO
R
BARTON
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 3
BE
A
EA
S
TP
O
CH
RT
QEW
Lake Ontario
NS
DE
N
AR
TO
R
SP
G
I NG
BU
LI
Industrial Sector
INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PARKDALE
RED HILL VA
LLEY
PY
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
VALL
E
Niagara Escarpment
Y PY
LAWRENCE
HILL
CCESS
W
BRO
Natural Open Space
ORTH A
TAIN
Parks
KENILW
RED
TA
IN
U
M
O
CE
N
MOU
ES
KING
RE N
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER GAGE
JA
M
LAW
MOU NT ALBION
KENILWORTH
CONCESSION
Ward
Delta
CONCESSION
UPPER SHERMAN
Blakeley
SHERMAN ACCESS
ARKLEDUN
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
St. Clair
UPPER WENTWORTH
Major Road
OTTAWA
S
ES
TT
KE
Highway
GAGE
CC
WEN TWORTH
Km
TA
QUEENSTON
CHARLTON
UPPER WELLINGTON
E
AR
CL
N
MO
BELVIDERE
0.55
VICTORIA
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
QUEEN
SHERMAN
MAIN
PH'S
ST. JOSE
DUNDURN
C
BE
Crown Point
Stipley
KING
KING
MAIN
ABERDEEN
Gibson
Landsdale
VICTORIA
IN
MA
WELLINGTON
DUNDURN
403
N
KI
JOHN
JAMES
YO
R
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
BARTON
BURLINGTON
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 4
EA
S
BE
A
TP
O
CH
RT
Lake Ontario
WO
TO
A RD
OD W
INDUSTRIAL
Parkview
Major Road
LAWRENCE
PY
KING
BROW
King's Forest
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
CCESS
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
KING
MOU NT ALBION
Highway
ORTH A
MOUNTAIN
UPPER GAGE
UPPER SHERMAN
0.5
KENILW
KING
Downtown Area
N
KI
CE
Glenview
RI
DG
RE N
LAKE AVENUE
Delta
CONCESSION
Km
LAW
Niagara Escarpment
CONCESSION
RED HILL VA
LLEY
QUEENSTON
CENTENNIAL
CESS
LLE
HIL
RED
QUEENSTON
MAIN
SHERMAN AC
NASH
OTTAWA
SHERMAN
WEN TWORTH
KING
Bartonville
McQuesten
Normanhurst
BARTON
YP
Y
Homeside
Crown Point
WOODWARD
PARKDALE
KENILWORTH
GAGE
BARTON
SOUTH SERVICE
LAKE
BURLINGTON
L VA
INDUSTRIAL
CENTENNIAL
BU
LI
Industrial Sector
RIDGE
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 5
Lake Ontario
CH
EA
S
TP
O
RT
TO
RED HILL VALLEY PY

PY
RED HILL
VALLEY
GARTH
LAKE
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
TAPLEYTOWN
GREEN MOUNTAIN
MUD
HIGHLAND
SIXTH
JONES
Downtown Area
11
FIFTH
HIGHLAND
MUD
THIRD
NT
RIDGE
TAPLEYTOWN
HIGHWAY NO. 8
Niagara Escarpment
IN
SECOND
OU
AM
MUD
FIRST
Natural Open Space
D
MU
FRUITLAND
UNTA
NEW MO
FIRST
OLD MUD
BARTON
DEW ITT
MILLEN
GREEN MOUNTAIN
R
PA
Parks
IA
10
NORTH SERVICE
GRAY
EN
N
KIN
UPPER CENTENNIAL
O
BR
STONE CHURCH
Ward
CE
NT
NORTH SERVICE
RIDGE
AIN
NT
Vincent
KING
LAKE AVENUE
U
MO
U
M
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
CENTENNIAL
W
BRO
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
KING
Gershome
Red Hill
QUEENSTON
Greenford
Rosedale
TAIN
Major Road
NASH
PARKDALE
UN
MO
GREEN
KENILWORTH
Km
Highway
ESS
UPPER GAGE
Corman
LAWRENCE
UPPER OTTAWA
MOHAWK
WEST 5TH
GARTH
KENILWORTH ACC
CONCESSION
Grayside
Riverdale
Kentley
KING
E NCE
UPPER GAGE
LINCOLN M. ALEXANDER PY
LIMERIDGE
LAWR
UPPER SHERMAN
UPPER JAMES
WEST 5TH
ACCESS
UPPER WENTWORTH
FENNELL
SHERMAN
CONCESSION
UPPER WELLINGTON
T
ET
CK
E
AR
OTTAWA
JOHN
JAMES
BE
CL
NT
S
ES
VICTORIA
BAY
QUEEN
DUNDURN
ABERDEEN
MAIN
C
AC
Lakely
BARTON
KING
KING
MO
GAGE
JOHN
DUNDURN
JAMES
SHERMAN
WEN TWORTH
VICTORIA
WELLINGTON
Nashdale
SERVICE
SOUTH
QEW
GRAYS
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
YO
R
Confederation Park
WOODWARD
INDUSTRIAL
BURLINGTON
FRUITLAND
IN
GRAYS
RL
BU
TAPLEYTOWN
BE
A
TAPLEYTOWN
Hamilton Beach
PY
RED HILL
VALLEY
en
pm
ar
Es
c
ra
N
ia
ga
D
M
U
UPPER SHERMAN
MILES
CHRISTIE
UPPER JAMES
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
U
MO
NT
HIGHLAND
FLETCHER
Major Road
TRINITY CHURCH
Highway
RA
PA
D
MU
Y
VALLEY PARKWA
GLOVER
Km
D
MU
MUD
TWENTY
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
MUD
FIRST
UPPER REDHILL
Hannon
11
0.6
W
BRO
Rymal
NEBO
Broughton
TE
N
TAIN
Templemead
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER WELLINGTON
UPPER WENTWORTH
UPPER GAGE
WEST 5TH
Albion Falls
STONE CHURCH
Eleanor
EN
LIMERIDGE
Trenholme
Quinndale
OLD MUD
RYMAL
King's Forest
Lisgar
Randall
KING
N
MOU
KING
RED HILL VALLEY PY
W
BRO
TAIN
UPPER OTTAWA
WEST 5TH
UPPER JAMES
Berrisfield
MOHAWK
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
LAWRENCE
Huntington
Hampton Heights
Lawfield
Sherwood
UPPER SHERMAN
CCESS
KING
MOU NT ALBION
Sunninghill
ORTH A
N
MOU
UPPER WENTWORTH
Macassa
UPPER GAGE
UPPER WELLINGTON
Raleigh
FENNELL
KENILW
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
KING
CENTENNIAL
CC
CE
NASH
TA
RE N
PARKDALE
ON
LAW
SHERMAN ACCESS
KENILWORTH
M
RE
LA
S
ES
BELVIDERE
CHARLTON
'S
OTTAWA
ST. JOSEPH
GAGE
JOHN
JAMES
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 6
IA
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 7
SS ARKLEDUN
GARTH
TAIN
W
BRO
Thorner
Bruleville
U
MO
LIMERIDGE
O
BR
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
UPPER GAGE
HI
LL
VA
L
LE
PY
STONE CHURCH
HIGHLAND
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER WELLINGTON
Barnstown
UPPER SHERMAN
Crerar
UPPER WENTWORTH
WEST 5TH
GARTH
UPPER PARADISE
Ryckmans
Rushdale
RE
D
Jerome
AIN
NT
UPPER JAMES
UPPER PARADISE
N
MOU
UPPER OTTAWA
MOHAWK
Butler
RYMAL
0.55
Km
Highway
Major Road
Ward
MILES
UPPER JAMES
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
GLOVER
GLANCASTER
Chappel
Allison
NEBO
CHRISTIE
ER
RN
UPPER SHERMAN
WEST 5TH
LIMERIDGE
GA
Burkholme
7
Greeningdon
W
BRO
TAIN
Hill Park
Balfour
LAWRENCE
CCESS
N
MOU
Niagara Escarpment
ORTH A
UPPER GAGE
SCENIC
FENNELL
UPPER WENTWORTH
UPPER WELLINGTON
BECKETT
KENILW
Eastmount
Inch Park
Centremount
CE
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
KING
RED HILL VALLEY PY
CE
KING
AC
RE N
M
U
JAMES
TA
IN
N
U
M
O
ES
JA
M
NT
BELVIDERE
R
LA
O
EM
LAW
SHERMAN ACCESS
KENILWORTH
BAY
DUNDURN
ABERDEEN
QUEEN
403
CHARLTON
JOHN
IN
MA
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 8
MO
OS L
IN
MA
ER
JAMES
JA
M
ES
M
O
TA
IN
E
AR
CL
ACCESS
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
Mohawk
FENNELL
UPPER WENTWORTH
Southam
BECKETT
SHERMAN
SS ARKLEDUN
UPPER WELLINGTON
NT
E
CC
BELVIDERE
ABERDEEN
JOHN
BAY
403
QUEEN
13
DUNDURN
ES
ES
OT
OT
ES
CO
CO
T
OO
Bonnington
GARTH
UPPER PARADISE
NI
IL
S
PE
UP
R
Fessenden
Gilbert
HO
WEST 5TH
12
HC
UT
C
TH
E
0.55
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
MILES
ER
OT
RN
GLANCASTER
U
SO
403
GA
UPPER JAMES
Kennedy
CHRISTIE
OT
RYMAL
Carpenter
Mewburn
Sheldon
Falkirk
STONE CHURCH
UPPER SHERMAN
RC
Kernighan
UPPER WELLINGTON
HU
Gourley
UPPER WENTWORTH
EC
KS
Gilkson
GARTH
NIN
LF
LI N
Gurnett
UPPER PARADISE
OR
KS
RH
IN
ST
ON
SO
FL
NK
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
PE
UP
GO
L
GO
LI
G
IN
MO
W
HA
Yeoville
RN
OL
L
GO
Rolston
MOHAWK
UPPER JAMES
E
SC
Niagara Escarpment
Buchanan
WEST 5TH
Mountview
UPPER SHERMAN
Westcliffe
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 9
TAIN
Parks
Natural Open Space
TAPLEYTOWN
Downtown Area
WOODBURN
Ward
HENDERSHOT
FLETCHER
TRINITY CHURCH
GLOVER
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
WOODBURN
RYMAL
NEBO
MILES
HIGHLAND
REGIONAL RD 20
REGIONAL RD 56
UPPER SHERMAN
TAPLEYTOWN
THIRD
HIGHLAND
SECOND
NT
UPPER CENTENNIAL
U
MO
UPPER OTTAWA
Km
GREEN
D
MU
STONE CHURCH
Major Road
MUD
TAPLEYTOWN
MUD
FIRST
UPPER GAGE
W
BRO
D
MU
FIRST
W
N
MOU
OLD MUD
MUD
11
FIFTH
O
BR
LIMERIDGE
Highway
GREEN MOUNTAIN
RA
PA
0.7
IA
TWENTY
EN
N
AIN
NT
RIDGE
Niagara Escarpment
OUNTAIN
TAPLEYTOWN
PY
L VALLEY
RED HILL VALLEY PY RED H

IL
U
MO
LIMERIDGE
RIDGE
W
BRO
CE
NT
HIGHWAY NO. 8
DEW ITT
TAIN
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER SHERMAN
MOHAWK
KIN
NEW M
MOU NT ALBION
N
MOU
UPPER GAGE
FENNELL
KING
KING
GRAY
LAWRENCE
CCESS
LAKE AVENUE
ORTH A
KING
10
FRUITLAND
KENILW
MILLEN
LAK
CE
CENTENNIAL
RE N
NASH
LAW
QUEENSTON
PARKDALE
CONCESSION
ACCESS
QUEENSTON
KENILWORTH
SHERMAN
G
OTTAWA
GAGE
MAIN
KI
N
WOODBURN
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 10
GLOVER
FRUITLAND
NORTH SERVICE
EN
SOUTH SERVICE
LL
MI
NORTH SERVICE
MILLEN
GRAYS
GREEN
Lake Ontario
RD
OV
ER
S
PA
S
GREEN
JONES
FRUITLAND
GLOVER
MILLEN
GRAY
10
DEW ITT
LAKE
HIGHWAY NO. 8
QUEENSTON
LAKE AVENUE
ar a
Niag
KIN
RIDGE
11
KING
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
FIFTH
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
THIRD
Major Road
SECOND
ENNIA
Km
Highway
IN
FIRST
CENT
0.4
UNTA
TAPLEYTOWN
MO
NEW
RIDGE
GLOVER
GRAYS
BARTON
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
n
rpme
Esca
PY
RED HILL
VALLEY
UPPER PARADISE
GARTH
CHRISTIE
WESTBROOK
WOODBURN
BINBROOK
KIRK
WOODBURN
HENDERSHOT
MILES
MILES
TENTH
NINTH
ELEVENTH
EIGHTH
20
WOODBURN
GLANCASTER
TENTH
ELEVENTH ELEVENTH
TENTH
EIGHTH
ON
EIGHTH
SEVENTH
CHAPEL HIL
ODBURN
WOODBURN WO
WI
LS
FIFTY
LEW IS
WINONA
LEW IS
MCNEILLY
SIXTH
FIFTH
THIRD
VILLE
Downtown Area
WESTBROOK
HALL
BERRY
LL
HA
BELL
IR
SINCLA
Natural Open Space
HIGHLAND
16
TRIMBLE TRIMBLE
Parks
MUD
WOODBURN
GOLF CLUB
TRIMBLE
Ward
REGIONAL RD 20
HENDERSHOT
SECOND
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
BLACKHEATH
Major Road
HARRISON
TRINITY CHURCH
HALL
GREEN MOUNTAIN
TAPLEYTOWN
REGIONAL RD 56
FLETCHER
TYNESIDE
Km
Highway
FIRST
REGIONAL RD 56
FLETCHER
TRIN ITY CHURCH
NEBO
MILES
UPPER CENTENNIAL
FIRST
FLETCHER
GLOVER
BINBROOK
HALDIBROO
K
MUD
WINONA
nt
rpme
Esca
RIDGE
STONEY CREEK
BINBROOK
GLOVER
W
NEBO
GOLF CLUB
JONES
RO
IN B
HIGHLAND
DEW ITT
NTA
D
MU NT
U
MO
RA
RIDGE
ar a
Niag
11GUYATT
MILES
SAWMILL
RIDG
TE
N
N
IA
L
HIGHWAY NO. 8
GREEN MOUNTAIN
CHIPPEWA
FERRIS
LEEMING
FERRIS
GLANCASTER
EN
10
BARTON
MILLEN
NG
GRAY
U
MO
UPPER OTTAWA
N
EE
WHITE CHURCH
GRAYS
NASH
PARKDALE
KENILWORTH
OTTAWA
E
GR
ER
AV
SH
ITY
IN
TR
SAW MILL
HOPE
KI
KING
ENGLISH CHURCH
AIRPORTMOUNT
QUEENSTON
KIN
G
PA
NORTH SERVICE
SOUTH SERVICEQEW
John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport
WHITE CHURCH
UK
DICKENSON
DICKENSON
OT
S
ER
AV
SH
RL
CA
STONE CHURCH
MILES
C
TH
R'
LE
BU
ER
TT
LAWRENCE
LIMERIDGE
RYMAL
TWENTY
CE
UPPER GAGE
U
SO
RE N
UPPER GAGE
12
GAGE
OT
D
FID
ER
AV
SH
O
BO
UPPER SHERMAN
GLANCASTER
C
TH
U
SO
GA
403
R
NE
SHERMAN
CH
WEST 5TH
MOHAWK
LAW
GARTH
UR
UPPER PARADISE
CH
FENNELL
WEST 5TH
MAIN
SHERMAN ACCESS
UPPER JAMES
NI
F
OL
K
LI N
ST
ON
TT
KE
WEN TWORTH
C
BE
E
SC
MO
W
HA
ABERDEEN
JAMES
ER
BAY
JOHN
R'
KING
VICTORIA
BAY
HA
VE
O
RN
IN
MA
QUEEN
EN
GO
O
CO
OS L
DUNDURN
SYD
KING
JOHN
KING
S
TE
YO
R
WOODWARD
R
YO
HA
BARTON
N
TO
EAST TOWNLINE
PH
EN
13
403
BU
BURLINGTON
NG
WINONA
EL
I
RL
FIFTY
GU
R
YO
Lake Ontario
RT
TAPLEYTOWN
TP
O
GREEN
PLA
IN
OL
Y
VALLE
D
SY
G
HI
AY
HW
EA
S
.5
NO
LAKE
MOUNT ALBION
BE
A
O.
UPPER JAMES
HW
AY
N
HIGHWAY NO. 6
HIG
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 11
IRVINE
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 12
BELVIDERE
OT
E
GLANCASTER
T
BU
R
TE
AIRPORT
WHITE CHURCH
WHITE CHURCH
D
FID
R'
LE
SAWMILL
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
CHIPPEWA
HIGHWAY NO. 6
GLANCASTER
Downtown Area
N
EE
Natural Open Space
GR
Parks
UK
Ward
UPPER JAMES
C
TH
ER
AV
SH
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
RL
CA
ER
AV
SH
N
TO
ER
SO
LD
GE
GU
B
AL
R
FE
DG
NA
ITY
IN
TR
RI
SO
NA
Major Road
11
ENGLISH CHURCH
R
TE
NY
R
PA
RO
Highway
DICKENSON
HOMESTEAD
ON
WI
LS
ON
WI
LS
U
SO
T
BU
N
TO
ER
IA
N
ANCASTER
B
AL
N
SU
IN
D
OT
ON
SAW MILL
1.5
GLANCASTER
C
TH
N
EE
52
N
TO
ER
DU
TWENTY
ALBERTON
K
ER
ER
AV
SH
O.
B
AL
L
FIE
ILS
RN
U
SO
GR
12
YN
WA
403
AR
NM
CHRISTIE
RYMAL
ER
AV
SH
GH
HI
L
FIE
ER
AV
SH
ILL
LL
JERSEYVILLE
GARTH
UPPER PARADISE
KS
R'
LE
DH
I
YV
LIMERIDGE
UPPER WENTWORTH
IN
STONE CHURCH
CH
UPPER WENTWORTH
FL
D
FID
TE
52
O
SL
O.
OO
UR
GA
O
BO
LE
CH
OT
L
GO
UPPER WELLINGTON
INGS
ST
ON
C
TH
R SPR
AW
U
SO
U
SULPH
H
MO
UPPER WELLINGTON
ROUSSEAU
GS
EN
TE
YN
WA
ILL
ND
LY
VI
EY
SE
LL
MOHAWK
WEST 5TH
n
rpme
Esca
O
SL
GH
HI
EY
DH
R
JE
VI
EY
UPPER JAMES
GS
SPRIN
GARTH
IN
RA L
MINE
ar a
Niag
CONCESSION
FENNELL
WEST 5TH
R
SP
EY
.5
KN
OO
'S
BAY
UR
KL
NO
OR
OR
TT
KE
PH
N
BI
ER
TT
SE
ILL
AY
W
DH
N
ER
RS
JE
ES
L
SU
K
IN
OO
GH
HI
COPETOWN
Km
C
BE
ABERDEEN
SCENIC
ON
R
JE
ER
OW
ET
I
SS
CE
14
LYNDEN
MIS
E NE
OS L
IN
MA
DL
EY
.5
ORKNEY
GO
ER
403
OT
13
8
O.
ES
D
MI
KN
NO
AY
HW
CO
W
PO
OT
R
EI
ER
OR
G
HI
LI N
CO
CO
KING
N
AI
M
AY
W
HA M
GREENSVILLE
KIN
GH
HI
CK
N
SYDE
E
AM
.5
V
TO
ES
.8
NO
OW
ET
HIGHWAY NO
AY
W
GH
HI
DL
ER
ROCKTON
CR
D
MI
ON
SODOM
V
TO
ES
EN
SI
ES
L
VA
C
ON
BR
O
HALDIBROO
K
LEEMING
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 13
6
15
GU
EL
PLA
I
AP
L
VA
EL
GU
EL
RD
S
EN
Lake Ontario
PH
BURLINGTON
OLYM
PIC
GARTH
UPPER PARADISE
OT
WILSON
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
CHRISTIE
C
TH
GA
LIMERIDGE
UPPER WELLINGTON
RYMAL
R
NE
S
ES
UPPER WELLINGTON
STONE CHURCH
CC
MOHAWK
UPPER JAMES
KS
WEST 5TH
IN
GARTH
RC
FL
ON
Natural Open Space
HU
U
SO
LS
HA
Parks
EC
UPPER PARADISE
GS
Ward
ST
ON
NIN
IN
TE
Niagara Escarpment
3
KS
OR
R
SP
O
SL
L
GO
403
Railways
LI N
RH
UR
EY
Major Road
L
GO
VICTORIA
PH
KL
.5
Km
Highway
TA
FENNELL
PE
UP
L
SU
N
BI
NO
12
AW
N
MO
UPPER JAMES
AY
W
TT
KE
E
AR
WEST 5TH
OW
ET
H
MO
INGS
CL
JOHN
C
BE
'S
GH
HI
COPETOWN
SPR
ABERDEEN
SCENIC
ROUSSEAU
L
ERA
MIN
JOHN
ER
JAMES
OS L
IN
MA
BAY
DL
ER
TT
SE
NC
ON
K
IN
CO
SI
ES
KING
KING
MAIN
QUEEN
OR
S
DA
DUNDURN
c
Es
RN
PARADISE
R
EI
D
MI
ra
ga
Nia
en
E
OV
N
DU
ES
N
KI
MAIN
ES
GREENSVILLE
.8
m
ar p
KING
OT
S
OT E
OT
AY
W
N
KI
CO
CO
CO
GH
HI
NO
CK
13
HA M
E
AM
SODOM
N
SYDE
CR
BR
O
EW
LD
O CK
IE
OF
OLD BR
ES
RV
HA
I
SV
DUNDURN
LD
OW
ET
LL
FA
JAMES
IE
OF
DL
YO
R
WELLINGTON
BARTON
D
MI
N
LI
SO
JOHN
BAY
LE
ES
RV
HA
JAMES
L
PE
YORK
GA
HA
CH
SP
G
RI N
R
YO
LE
EN
CK
PLAINS
YORK
CH
OL
D
SY
LD
X
MO
RO
NS
PH
CK
OA
RO
ER
G
HI
NO
IE
OF
ON
RK
D
SI
CK
E
OV
OL
GR
O
BR
14
CO
NC
SI
ES
AY
HW
.5
403
YORK
ON
OLD YO
I
SS
LL
MI
CO
E
NC
ON
SO
I
SS
PA
TT
ER
CO
E
NC
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 14
N7
MAIN
SNA
K
KS
I DE
MIL
L
PA
R
NC
CO
KING
HIG
N5
RE
ES
SIO
CE
NT
NS
LL
MI
GR
R
YO
YO
YORK
GARTH
ON
WI
LS
UPPER JAMES
DICKENSON
AIRPORT
HOMESTEA
R
TE
R'
LE
UK
N
EE
ITY
IN
TR
RL
CA
GLANCASTER
GR
IA
N
WEST 5TH
TWENTY
T
BU
D
FID
R
TE
ER
AV
SH
IN
D
JAMES
BAY
11
RYMAL
OT
SAW MILL
Employment Areas
C
TH
ANCASTER
Other Built Up Area
JOHN
U
SO
12
GLANCASTER
ER
N
TO
ER
SO
GU
DG
GE
RC
GARTH
O
BO
T
BU
B
AL
RI
R
FE
NY
NA
Downtown Area
HU
OT
.5
K ALBERTON
EC
C
TH
NO
ILS
403
RN
ER
AV
SH
AY
W
ON
GA
QUEEN
ST
ON
U
SO
ER
AV
SH
GH
HI
LL
LL
VI
EY
DUNDURN
EY
N
SU
DU
AR
NM
LF
KL
GO
K
LI N
MOHAWK
NI
N
BI
GS
E
SC
IN
MO
t
en
W
HA
FENNELL
SP
R
m
ar p
BARTON
ABERDEEN
R
EI
52
LL
SO
Natural Open Space
g
Nia
c
Es
ON
BURLINGT
VICTORIA
RK
IN
MA
O.
I
YV
N
TO
ER
VI
EY
E
RS
RS
JE
B
AL
L
FIE
R
PA
LD
UR
YN
WA
JE
JERSEYVILLE
NA
PH
GH
HI
ER
LI N
R
JE
RO
SU
L
ar a
BAY
GREENSVILLE
ES
OT
CO
OSLER
13
NHA
KING
Lake Ontario
KING
E
SYD
PH
T
ES
RV
W
IE
HA
V
S
LL
FA
KIN
403
LE
APEL
HA
E
AM
EN
LD
CR
O.
D
SY
IE
OF
ES
RV
HA
PLA
IN
EL
L
VA
K CH
.5
GU
OA
R OC
ER
D
SI
OL
E
OV
LD
AY
W
NO
TE
L
FIE
Parks
KE
R
BS
ON
O.
N6
ES
SIO
CO
NC
RO
HW
AY
N
ES
SIO
NC
ES
SIO
NC
CO
O
SL
ILL
Ward
O.
IE
OF
LE
DH
R
EI
LI
GH
HI
N
SO
.5
OO
R'
ER
LI N
COPETOWN
R
EI
EL
HW
AY
N
OW
ET
NO
ORKNEY
EY
ILL
O
RN
W
PO
NE
ON
ER
TT
SE
AY
W
ON
KN
DH
SI
ES
OR
OO
EN
W
PO
R
BU
TH
BE
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
TH
FLAMBOROUGH CENTRE
DL
K
IN
GH
HI
EY
C
ON
V
GO
LYNDEN
IS
Major Road
EN
X
MO
KN
ILL
.5
ND
LY
TROY
RR
HA
Km
Highway
FO
R
D
MI
OR
DH
NO
ER
CO
NC
CO
PA
TR
I
ES
SIO
OO
NC
ER
EN
CK
EW
OW
ET
CO
SI
ES
V
TO
ES
L
VA
ON
5
O.
2
CONCESSION
ON
YN
WA
GH
HI
OO
SI
ES
EN
I
SS
SODOM
AY
W
GH
HI
AY
W
CO
E
NC
ROCKTON
ND
LY
GH
HI
RD
MILLGROVE
L
CO
C
ON
LD
G
SA
EL
GA
HIG
14
IE
FF
W
HO
I
SS
DL
AL
KW
EN
ON
E
SH
I
SS
CE
D
MI
EN
ON
R
KI
NC
ND
LY
ER
CO
O
SI
ES
NC
SI
ES
L
TT
SE
ER
CO
N
CO
WESTOVER
L
VA
CO
E
NC
RE
BE
E
R
FA
SA
ER
S
ES
CE
NT
ON
FLAMBOROUGH
OP
NC
WY
ATT
EN
KIRKWALL
HIGHWAY NO.
G
SA
CO
N
IO
ER
L
VA
OLD HIGHWAY NO. 8
SHEFFIELD
O
SI
ES
CO
ON
AT
SE
DUNDAS
R
FA
SA
EN
N
CO
ON
OW
ET
V
TO
ES
L
VA
NO
7
.9
SI
ES
DL
ER
NC
EN
OP
CO
O
SI
ES
C
ON
8
D
MI
L
VA
AN
CO
O
GI
RE
D
LR
NA
ISL
CA
RL
CK
EM
NC
R
FO
CO
SI
ES
10
ON
G
ED
O
BR
ON
STRABANE
EN
RE
15
N8
N1
FREELTON
NN
LE
L
VA
GO
ES
SIO
ELT
ON
CO
UG
10
ON
NC
DA
I
SS
CE
FRE
N7
D
MA
ON
CARLISLE
WI
LL I
AM
CHIPPEWA
City of Hamilton
Option 1 - Ward 15
GH
LV
IL
N1
ES
SIO
NC
E
ISL
GH
5
O.
NT
AIN
BR
O
HW
AY
N
HIG
KS
I DE
E
SNA
K
ent
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
GU E
I NG
GA
RD
S
EN
JOHN
Downtown Area
OL D
SPR
LP H
BAY
Natural Open Space
403
RK
Parks
NS
YO
Ward
PLA
I
KING
R
YO
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
YORK
Major Road
Km
Highway
PH
LE
1.5
EL
L
VA
EL
HA
LE
NS
GU
.5
AP
NO
EN
LD
X
MO
EN
OW
ET
G
HI
AY
HW
CH
SI
ES
D
SY
DL
L
VA
WESTOVER
NC
IE
OF
D
MI
CO
CK
RO
OW
ET
PLA
I
DL
ER
EN
NC
O
SI
ES
ON
OL
OA
D
MI
V
TO
ES
L
VA
CO
PA
R
CLAPPISON
ER
NC
CO
MI
LL
D
SI
CO
ON
ON
E
OV
SI
ES
I
SS
CE
GR
14
8
R
FA
SA
PA
R
NC
MILLGROVE
I
NS
HOWARD
LL
MI
EN
NC
MAIN
ON
ER
L
VA
CO
O
SI
ES
RE
PA
TT
ER
S
OW
ET
V
TO
ES
R
FA
SA
GH
KE
R
BS
ON
CO
N5
CO
8
DL
NC
CE
NT
OU
KS
I DE
ES
SIO
N6
ES
SIO
NC
D
MI
CO
O
SI
ES
RO
FLAMBOROUGH CENTRE
ES
SIO
OO
O.
EN
CONCESSION 5 E AND CENTRE ROAD
CO
HW
AY
N
RD
NC
EW
CK
G
ED
ON
HIG
TH
UR
Niagara Esca
rpm
NC
ES
SIO
N7
GA
CO
NC
CO
RE
FO
R
N5
CO
NC
MIL
B
BE
E
MO
U
ES
SIO
WY
ATT
N8
ES
SIO
E
ISL
OU
CE
NT
STRABANE
UR
N7
PR
IN
GR
NC
CO
NC
EE
NS
PR
O
ES
SIO
15
CA
RL
.9
O
BR
NN
LE
O
GI
RE
L
NA
NO
GR
ES
TO
N
0
N1
WI
LL I
AM
FREELTON
RD
MIL
B
CA
RL
ES
SIO
NC
CARLISLE
CO
N1
1
10
ELT
ON
CO
I
SS
FRE
ES
SIO
UG
E
NC
ON
CO
N1
1
RE
G
NT
SB
ER
DA
E
OR
CO
N1
NC
CO
ES
SIO
NC
CO
CE
NT
MO
U
D
MA
ES
SIO
2
N1
MO
U
NT
SB
ER
N1
1
CA
MP
BE
L
ES
SIO
NC
CO
I NE
4
NL
N1
TO
W
ES
SIO
CH
NC
LI N
OU
CO
PU
S
UR
LE
MIL
B
Page C-1
Appendix C Option 2 Proposed Ward

Boundaries

Report Amended.docx
Page 1.

Proposed Ward 1
Proposed Ward 2
Identical to existing Ward 2 except that the southeastern part of the ward bound
by Wellington Street and Claremont Access (Stinson neighbourhood is in
proposed Ward 3).
Proposed Ward 3
Identical to existing Ward 3 except that the southwestern part of the ward bound
by Wellington Street and Claremont Access (Stinson neighbourhood is in
proposed Ward 3).
Proposed Ward 4
Similar to existing Ward 4 except that the southern part of the ward bound by
Niagara Escarpment instead of Lawrence Road and bound to the east by the
Red Hill Valley Parkway (Rosedale neighbourhood is in proposed Ward 4).
Proposed Ward 5
Bound to the north by Lake Ontario (and includes Hamilton Beach

neighbourhood);
Bound to the east by Grays Road except north of the Q.E.W. where the boundary
would follow the eastern boundary of Confederation Park;
Bound to the south by the Niagara Escarpment; and
South of the Q.E.W., bound to the west by the Red Hill Valley Parkway.
Proposed Ward 6
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north and east, Red Hill Valley
Parkway, Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway and Trinity Church Road to the east,
Hydro One Networks transmission corridor to the south, and Miles Road, Upper
Sherman Avenue and Upper Gage Avenue to the west.

Page 2.
Proposed Ward 7
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north, Miles Road, Upper Sherman
Avenue and Upper Gage Avenue to the east, Hydro One Networks transmission
corridor to the south, and Upper Wellington Street to the west.
Proposed Ward 8
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north, Upper Wellington Street to the
east, Hydro One Networks transmission corridor to the south, and Garth Street to
the west.
Proposed Ward 9
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north, the City of Hamilton municipal
boundary to the east, the east-west Hydro One Networks transmission corridor to
the south, and Red Hill Valley Parkway, Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway and
Trinity Church Road to the west.
Proposed Ward 10
Bound by Lake Ontario to the north, the City of Hamilton municipal boundary to
the east and the Niagara Escarpment to the south; and
The ward is bound by Grays Road to the west, except north of the Q.E.W. where
the boundary follows the eastern edge of Confederation Park.
Proposed Ward 11
Bound by the east-west Hydro One Networks transmission corridor to the north,
the City of Hamilton municipal boundary to the east and south, and Glancaster
Road to the west.
Proposed Ward 12
Bound by Highway 8, Middletown Road and the Ancaster-Dundas Community

boundary to the north, Highway 403 and the north-south Hydro One Networks
transmission corridor and Glancaster Road to the east, and the City of Hamilton
municipal boundary to the south and west.

Page 3.
Proposed Ward 13
Bound by Highway 6, Millgrove Sideroad, Highway 5, Rock Chapel Road and the
Niagara Escarpment to the north and east;1
Bound by the Dundas-Lower Hamilton Community boundary to the east;
Bound by the Ancaster-Dundas Community boundary, Highway 8, and

Middletown Road to the south; and
Bound by the City of Hamilton municipal boundary to the west.
Proposed Ward 14
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north, Garth Street to the east and the
east-west Hydro One Networks transmission corridor to the south; and
Glancaster Road and the north-south Hydro One Networks transmission corridor
serve as the western boundary south of the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway.
North of the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway extends west to Highway 403.
Proposed Ward 15
Bound to the south and east by Highway 6, Millgrove Sideroad, Highway 5, Rock
Chapel Road and the Niagara Escarpment;1 and
Bound by the City of Hamilton municipal boundary to the west, north and
northeast.
Hamlet of Millgrove entirely within proposed Ward 15 with boundary between

proposed Wards 13 and 15 following hydro corridor immediately west of Millgrove.
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 1
PH
D
SI
EL
E
OV
SPR
AP
EL
LE
OL
I NG
GA
RD
S
EN
Lake Ontario
YORK
YORK
VA
L
CH
AY
W
CK
OA
RO
ER
GH
HI
.
NO
403
GU
GR
PLAIN
PAT
TER
15
NS
OL
LL
MI
SO
PLA
I
EL
PH
R
YO
GU
BURLINGTON
D
SY
Dundurn
EN
JOHN
YORK
CK
EL
BAY
VICTORIA
RO
AP
JAMES
HA
13
CH
BARTON
MPIC
OLY
TA
IN
N
E
AR
JA
M
ES
M
O
AS
CL
N
MO
GARTH
MAIN
N
W
IL
S
MOHAWK
NI
0.6
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
CONCESSION
FENNELL
UPPER WENTWORTH
WEST 5TH
E
SC
403
ent
UPPER PARADISE
14
S
ES
UPPER WELLINGTON
m
Escarp
Niagara
12
BECKETT
Chedoke Park
Ainslie Wood
CC
UPPER JAMES
ER
S
R'
TA
CHARLTON
SHERMAN ACCESS
BELVIDERE
ND
KING
MAIN
JOHN
DU
ABERDEEN
JAMES
Kirkendall
BAY
RN
QUEEN
M
AI
N
OS L
E
OV
ES
HA M
KING
S
TE
OT
ES
CO
N
SYDE
N
KI
CO
OT
MAIN
KING
DUNDURN
CO
GREENSVILLE
Westdale
Cootes Paradise
WEN TWORTH
N
KI
WELLINGTON
EW
K
JOHN
I
SV
Strathcona
DUNDURN
LL
FA
JAMES
ES
RV
HA
YO
R
YORK
YORK
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 2
OL
EL
403
R
YO
PH
R
YO
GU
Lake Ontario
INDUSTRIAL
BURLINGTON
North End
WELLINGTON
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
13
MAIN
JAMES
PH
ST. JOSE
'S
O
M
SHERMAN
Niagara Escarpment
ACCESS
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
UPPER GAGE
SS
CE ARKLEDUN
UPPER SHERMAN
WEST 5TH
BECKETT
UPPER JAMES
403
AC
CHARLTON
UPPER WENTWORTH
ES
NT
UPPER WELLINGTON
M
JA
N
AI
NT
R
LA
O
EM
BELVIDERE
DUNDURN
ABERDEEN
VICTORIA
JOHN
BAY
QUEEN
Durand
Corktown
WEN TWORTH
IN
MA
SHERMAN
KING
KING
DUNDURN
PARADISE
MAIN
JAMES
KING
DUNDURN
N
KI
Beasley
JOHN
Central
GAGE
VICTORIA
YO
R
BARTON
FENNELL
0.4
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 3
QEW
EA
S
BE
A
TP
O
CH
RT
Lake Ontario
IN
SPR
GG
A RD
ENS
Industrial Sector
INDUSTRIAL
R
YO
INDUSTRIAL
BURLINGTON
K
PARKDALE
JOHN
CE
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
KENILW
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
LAWRENCE
W
BRO
Niagara Escarpment
3
CCESS
TAIN
ORTH A
N
MOU
KING
LLEY PY
TA
IN
RE N
UPPER OTTAWA
ES
LAW
UPPER GAGE
JA
M
Delta West
SHERMAN ACCESS
UPPER SHERMAN
M
O
KENILWORTH
OTTAWA
Blakeley
FENNELL
Railways
SHERMAN
AC
St. Clair
UPPER WENTWORTH
Major Road
NT
SS ARKLEDUN
CE
QUEENSTON
Niagara Escarpment
UPPER WELLINGTON
Km
Highway
MO
UPPER JAMES
0.6
WEST 5TH
CHARLTON
BELVIDERE
RE
LA
WEN TWORTH
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
QUEEN
DUNDURN
BECKETT
Stinson
PH'S
ST. JOSE
ABERDEEN
MAIN
JAMES
Crown Point
Stipley
KING
KING
Gibson
Landsdale
VICTORIA
MAIN
PARADISE
IN
MA
JOHN
KING
DUNDURN
N
KI
WELLINGTON
YO
R
GAGE
BARTON
RED HILL
VA
JAMES
BAY
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 4
TP
O
RT
QEW
BE
A
Industrial Sector
Lake Ontario
CH
BU
I
RL
NG
TA
IN
N
U
M
O
ES
JA
M
LLEY PY
RED HILL
VA
LAKE
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
THIRD
NT
MUD
SECOND
W
BRO
OU
AM
FIRST
TAIN
Natural Open Space
R
PA
MILLEN
W
N
MOU
PY
UD
DM
MU
UPPER CENTENNIAL
O
BR
Parks
RIDGE
TAIN
FIRST
AIN
NT
Ward
LE
IA
OLD MUD
UN
NEW MO
GREEN MOUNTAIN
U
MO
VA
L
EN
N
KIN
RIDGE
W
BRO
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
HI
LL
GREEN
TAIN
Major Road
RE
D
MUD
KING
CE
NT
King's Forest
MOHAWK
LIMERIDGE
MOU NT ALBION
Rosedale
KING
10
GRAY
LAWRENCE
CCESS
N
MOU
Highway
KING
UPPER OTTAWA
LIMERIDGE
GRAYS
ORTH A
Glenview
LAKE AVENUE
KENILW
SOUTH SERVICE
HIGHWAY NO. 8
QUEENSTON
QUEENSTON
CENTENNIAL
CE
Bartonville
Delta East
NASH
UPPER GAGE
Km
RE N
UPPER GAGE
FENNELL
UPPER SHERMAN
0.8
WOODWARD
Niagara Escarpment
WEST 5TH
LAW
CONCESSION
UPPER WENTWORTH
UPPER JAMES
ACCESS
CONCESSION
UPPER WELLINGTON
SHERMAN
McQuesten
Normanhurst
PARKDALE
KENILWORTH
NT
Homeside
Crown Point
OTTAWA
MO
BELVIDERE
RE
LA
CC
S
ES
BARTON
KING
VICTORIA
JAMES
JOHN
WEST 5TH
LIMERIDGE
MAIN
BAY
QUEEN
GAGE
SHERMAN
WELLINGTON
2 KING
VICTORIA
JOHN
JAMES
WEN TWORTH
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
YO
R
NORTH SERVICE
QEW
Parkview
BURLINGTON
BARTON
MILLEN
INDUSTRIAL
TO
GREEN
EA
S
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 5
BE
A
Lake Ontario
CH
Hamilton Beach
EA
S
TP
O
RT
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
TAPLEYTOWN
RED HILL VALLEY PY

PY
GREEN MOUNTAIN
MUD
SIXTH
RIDGE
FIFTH
Downtown Area
THIRD
RED HILL
VALLEY
HIGHWAY NO. 8
Niagara Escarpment
IN
MOUNTA
SECOND
Natural Open Space
FIRST
D
MU
PARAMOUNT
OLD MUD
MUD
JONES
NEW
GREEN MOUNTAIN
King's Forest
FRUITLAND
O
BR
Parks
MILLEN
DEW ITT
GREEN
IA
BARTON
UPPER CENTENNIAL
AIN
NT
Ward
EN
N
KIN
FIRST
U
MO
Vincent
CE
NT
10
NORTH SERVICE
GRAY
W
BRO
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Gershome
KING
NORTH SERVICE
RIDGE
TAIN
U
M
GRAYS
N
MOU
UPPER OTTAWA
Major Road
Greenford
KING
Red Hill
LIMERIDGE
Highway
ACCESS
UPPER GAGE
MOHAWK
Corman
KING
LAWRENCE
QUEENSTON
LAKE AVENUE
CONCESSION
E NCE
KENILWORTH
Grayside
SOUTH SERVICE
Riverdale
CENTENNIAL
LAWR
UPPER SHERMAN
Km
UPPER WENTWORTH
ACCESS
NASH
CONCESSION
UPPER WELLINGTON
UPPER JAMES
WEST 5TH
SHERMAN
Lakely
Kentley
PARKDALE
SS
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
KENILWORTH
CE
FENNELL
OTTAWA
ON
C
TA
VICTORIA
JAMES
JOHN
GAGE
JOHN
MAIN
BAY
QUEEN
E
AR
KING
KING
CL
SHERMAN
VICTORIA
WELLINGTON
JAMES
WEN TWORTH
JOHN
BAY
JAMES
YOR
BARTON
Nashdale
QEW
LAKE
BURLINGTON
Confederation Park
WOODWARD
INDUSTRIAL
GLOVER
TO
FRUITLAND
GRAYS
R
BU
N
LI
TAPLEYTOWN
QEW
TAPLEYTOWN
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 6
ra
Es
c
ar
pm
en
RED HILL VALLEY PY
RED HILL
VALLEY PY
N
ia
ga
D
MU
D
MU
NT
OU
AM
R
PA
HIGHLAND
0.65
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
REGIONAL RD 56
MILES
GOLF CLUB
GREEN MOUNTAIN
FLETCHER
TRINITY CHURCH
11
TWENTY
GLOVER
UPPER JAMES
UPPER REDHILL VALLEY PARKWAY
UPPER SHERMAN
JAMES
CHRISTIE
Hannon
NN
IA
L
NEBO
Broughton
Rymal
CE
NT
E
UPPER CENTENNIAL
UPPER OTTAWA
Templemead
GE
RID
MUD
OLD MUD
Albion Falls
STONE CHURCH
KING
FIRST
Trenholme
G
KIN
RIDGE
LIMERIDGE
CENTENNIAL
MOUNT ALBION
OW
BR
King's Forest
Lisgar
ROW
IN B
NTA
MOU
IN
TA
UN
MO
UPPER OTTAWA
MOHAWK
Quinndale
RYMAL
D
MU
UPPER GAGE
UPPER WENTWORTH
UPPER WELLINGTON
WEST 5TH
Eleanor
ROW
IN B
NTA
MOU
UPPER GAGE
Berrisfield
Randall
KING
Huntington
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
Sherwood
Hampton Heights
UPPER SHERMAN
TO
UPPER WELLING
UPPER JAMES
LAWRENCE
KENILW
ORTH A
CCESS
Sunninghill
WEST 5TH
KING
KING
NASH
CONCESSION
UPPER WENTWORTH
BELVIDERE
FENNELL
LAW
RENC
E
ACCESS
OTTAWA
JOHN
BAY
CHARLTON
SHERMAN
SS
CE
AC
T
ON
CONCESSION
EM
AR
CL
GOLF CLUB
UPPER SHERMAN
GARTH
PY
MILES
Natural Open Space
RED HILL
VALLEY
RED HILL VALLEY PY
TA
IN
N
U
M
O
ES
JA
M
UPPER JAMES
Parks
Downtown Area
TRINITY CHURCH
GLOVER
Ward
TWENTY
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
U
MO
NT
D
MU
BROW
CHRISTIE
MOUNTAIN
NEBO
Niagara Escarpment
3
MOU NT ALBION
W
BRO
11
Railways
OLD MUD
MUD
HIGHLAND
Chappel
RA
PA
STONE CHURCH
UPPER OTTAWA
Major Road
TAIN
UPPER WENTWORTH
UPPER WELLINGTON
Km
Highway
R
PA
Butler
Barnstown
KING
N
MOU
UPPER GAGE
Rushdale
Crerar
PARKDALE
W
BRO
TAIN
LIMERIDGE
WEST 5TH
GARTH
0.6
LIMERIDGE
RYMAL
MOHAWK
Lawfield
Thorner
Bruleville
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER JAMES
Macassa
UPPER SHERMAN
Burkholme
WEST 5TH
LAWRENCE
CCESS
N
MOU
FENNELL
ORTH A
KING
Raleigh
Eastmount
Inch Park
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
KENILW
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
Hill Park
CE
KENILWORTH
CC
RE N
KI
N
UPPER GAGE
sc
aE
TA
UPPER WENTWORTH
SCENIC
ar
ag
Ni
nt
ON
SHERMAN ACCESS
S
ES ARKLEDUN
UPPER WELLINGTON
BECKETT
me
rp
'S
LAW
OTTAWA
M
RE
LA
GAGE
ST. JOSEPH
CHARLTON
BELVIDERE
ABERDEEN
JOHN
DUNDURN
BAY
QUEEN
JAMES
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 7
OU
AM
D
MU
NT
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 8
JAMES
TA
IN
N
U
M
O
ES
JA
M
GARTH
UPPER PARADISE
Rolston
LIMERIDGE
HO
RN
Km
Ryckmans
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
CHRISTIE
Natural Open Space
MILES
ER
Allison
UPPER JAMES
RN
GLANCASTER
GA
0.6
Mewburn
STONE CHURCH
RYMAL
Kennedy
Jerome
NEBO
12
Kernighan
UPPER OTTAWA
Sheldon
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
UPPER WELLINGTON
RC
UPPER PARADISE
HU
KENILWORTH ACCESS
TAIN
BRO
W
Greeningdon
UPPER WENTWORTH
NIN
EC
LIMERIDGE
WEST 5TH
OR
GARTH
RH
ST
ON
Gourley
UPPER GAGE
PE
UP
G
IN
LI
Yeoville
UPPER JAMES
PE
UP
LF
KS
MOHAWK
WEST 5TH
14
MOU
N
CE
UPPER OTTAWA
Buchanan
OL
Balfour
Bonnington
NI
FENNELL
UPPER SHERMAN
nt
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
RE N
UPPER GAGE
Mohawk
E
SC
L
GO
K
LI N
GO
S
ES ARKLEDUN
UPPER SHERMAN
me
ar p
CC
UPPER WENTWORTH
r
ga
Nia
sc
aE
TA
UPPER WELLINGTON
403
N
MO
LAW
SHERMAN ACCESS
KI
N
Centremount
Southam
BECKETT
'S
BELVIDERE
E
AR
CL
CHARLTON
OTTAWA
ST. JOSEPH
GAGE
JOHN
ABERDEEN
BAY
ES
DUNDURN
OT
IN
MA
QUEEN
CO
11
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 9
WESTBROOK
LAKE
TAPLEYTOWN
TAPLEYTOWN
WESTBROOK
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
EAST TOWNLINE
RED HILL VALLEY PY

PY
REGIONAL RD 56
ELEVENTH
EL HIL
20
ELEVENTH
YOUNG
CHAP
WOODBURN
SMITH KEMP
ELEVENTH
NINTH
TENTH
EIGHTH
HIGHLAND
ELEVENTH
RED HILL VAL

LEY
FIFTY
TENTH
SEVENTH
FIFTH
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
MUD
WOODBURN
Major Road
WOODBURN
Highway
HENDERSHOT
FLETCHER
TRINITY CHURCH
GLOVER
DICKENSON
Km
GOLF CLUB
11
GOLF CLUB
THIRD
SECOND
REGIONAL RD 20
RYMAL
TAPLEYTOWN
TAPLEYTOWN
FIRST
W
BRO
HIGHLAND
GREEN MOUNTAIN
SIXTH
MUD
UPPER CENTENNIAL
TAIN
NT
TENTH
W
N
MOU
FIRST
O
BR
U
MO
WINONA
AIN
NT
STONE CHURCH
RA
PA
D
MU
STONEY CREEK
EIGHTH
U
MO
D
MU
RIDGE
IN
MOUNTA
GREEN MOUNTAIN
OLD MUD
Niagara Escarpment
EIGHTH
LEW IS
RIDGE
NEW
IA
LEW IS
MAIN
EIGHTH
KIN
RIDGE
EN
N
MCNEILLY
MOU NT ALBION
CE
NT
GLOVER
KING
GLOVER
KING
FRUITLAND
MILLEN
LAWRENCE
TWENTY
DEW ITT
GREEN
KING
LAKE AVENUE
HIGHWAY NO. 8
GRAY
QUEENSTON
CENTENNIAL
NASH
QUEENSTON
PARKDALE
MAIN
10
JONES
GRAYS
BARTON
BARTON
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 10
Lake Ontario
GREEN
FIFTY
LEW IS
LEW IS
LAKE
FIFTY
MCNEILLY
WINONA
MAIN
Niagara Escarpment
EIGHTH
RIDGE
TAIN
TAPLEYTOWN
THIRD
ELEVENTH
EIGHTH
TENTH
FIFTH
SECOND
WINONA
RIDGE
FIRST
IA
RIDGE
EN
N
GLOVER
UN
NEW MO
CE
NT
JONES
FRUITLAND
MILLEN
KIN
GRAY
LAKE AVENUE
KING
10
GLOVER
DEW ITT
GREEN
BARTON
HIGHWAY NO. 8
QUEENSTON
NORTH SERVICE
QEW
GRAYS
WINONA
GLOVER
FRUITLAND
SOUTH SERVICE
MILLEN
GRAYS
NORTH SERVICE
SMITH
STONEY CREEK
GREEN MOUNTAIN
0.65
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 11
UPPER SHERMAN
MILES
WESTBROOK
MILES
HOMESTEAD
MILES
Y
BERRY BERR
WESTBROOK
HALL
SINCLAIRVILLE
LL
HA
BELL
56
WOODBURN
TRIMBLE
R
AL
HALDIBROO
K
WOODBURN
TRIMBLE
ON
GI
RE
BLACKHEATH
HARRISON
TRINITY CHURCH
MILES
FERRIS
TRINITY CHURCH
FERRIS
WOODBURN
TYNESIDE
FERRIS
HALL
WESTBROOK
KIRK
TRIMBLE
N
EE
GLANCASTER
GR
SAWMILL
WOODBURN
HENDERSHOT
FLETCHER
ER
AV
SH
HIGHWAY NO. 6
CHRISTIE
EL HIL
UPPER JAMES
CHAP
GLANCASTER
SEVENTH
SIXTH
FIFTH
BINBROOK
CHIPPEWA
LEEMING
WOODBURN
HENDERSHOT
REGIONAL RD 56
WHITE CHURCH
MILES
R'
LE
FERRIS
D
FID
RL
CA
E
UK
BINBROOK
BINBROOK
WHITE CHURCH
WHITE CHURCH
11
FLETCHER
MOUNT
HOPE
TRIN ITY CHURCH
ER
TT
AIRPORT
NEBO
BU
R
TE
20
16

T
BU
WOODBURN
GUYATT
ENGLISH CHURCH
HIGHLAND
WOODBURN
GOLF CLUB
WOODBURN
HENDERSHOT
GOLF CLUB
TAPLEYTOWN
REGIONAL RD 20
REGIONAL RD 56
DICKENSON
FLETCHER
OT
TRIN ITY CHURCH
GLANCASTER
C
TH
O
BO
DICKENSON
GLOVER
TWENTY
HIGHLAND
THIRD
R
PA
TAPLEYTOWN
SECOND
RYMAL
PY
FIRST
EY
STONE CHURCH
N
OU
AM
FIRST
D
MU
D
MU
NEBO
ER
U
SO
12
VAL
L
UPPER OTTAWA
CH
UPPER GAGE
14
UPPER WELLINGTON
UR
WEST 5TH
RN
CH
GARTH
GA
UPPER PARADISE
ST
ON
ILL
UPPER CENTENNIAL
RE
DH
IRVINE
1
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 12
en
pm
ar
GARTH
Es
c
ra
N
ia
ga
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
SAWMILL
11
DICKENSON
AIRPORT
GLANCASTER
Parks
E
UK
RL
CA
ER
AV
SH
Ward
GLANCASTER
WI
LS
ON
W
ILS
ON
N
EE
GR
ER
AV
SH
ITY
IN
TR
GLANCASTER
52
O
RT
BE
AL
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
TWENTY
E
OT
HC
UT
SO
.
NO
Major Road
'S
ER
DL
FID
ER
AV
SH
OK
BO
ER
TT
BU
MOHAWK
RYMAL
ANCASTER
O
RT
BE
AL
ON
US
RG
FE
Km
Highway
ABERDEEN
14
E
OT
HC
UT
SO
ER
AV
SH
403
Y
WA
GH
HI
EXANDER PY
LINCOLN M. AL
ER
RN
GA
SAWMILL
IN
MA
KING
GARTH
S
NG
RI
SP
Y
LE
NK
BI
E
ILL
YV
E
RS
ON
ILS
W
O
CO
OSL
ER
IC
EN
SC
R
HU
LP
SU
JE
O
RT
BE
AL
ALBERTON
K
AR
NM
DU
GE
ID
YR
NN
SU
LD
NA
RO
E
AG
ON
RS
PA
IN
DI
A
KING
S
TE
K
W
HA
MO
KS
L IN
LF
O
G
TE
LO
ES
OT
SL
. 52
NO
AY
HW
HIG
PA
TR
IC
K
RS
EI
W
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
52
E
LL
VI
EY
S
R
JE
JERSEYVILLE
403
DUNDURN
G
KIN
GREENSVILLE
RK
YO
T
ES
RV
HA
T
ES
RV
EW
HA
VI
LS
L
FA
PH
EL
GU
E
AM
CR
PLA
INS
D
OL
.5
LD
IE
OF
EY
XL
MO
.
NO
NO
RK
YO
AM
NH
DE
SY
LD
IE
OF
K
OC
BR
AY
HW
.
NO
E
LL
VI
EY
S
R
JE
LD
FIE
E
LIN
Y
VALLE
COPETOWN
12
R
EI
W
CH
UR
CH
LIN
EY
KN
OR
'S
OR
RN
R
WE
PO
R
WE
PO
R
TE
ET
KS
IN
Y
WA
GH
HI
2
N ORKNEY
LD
FIE
R
EI
W
EL
TH
BE
'S
OR
RN
E
V
GO
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
IL L
DH
OO
W
E
OV
LYNDEN G
HARRISBURG
R
VE
TROY
2
CONCESSION
G
HI
Y
WA
GH
HI
ON
NS
SODOM
EY
KN
OR
.
NO
IL L
DH
OO
W
.
NO
EN
ND
LY
Y
WA
GH
HI
Y
WA
GH
HI
R
GE
SA
L
EL
W
HO
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
LL
CO
IL L
DH
OO
W
M
SODO
ROCKTON
EN
ND
LY
LD
FIE
EF
SH
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
EN
ND
LY
R
GE
SA
SI
ES
NC
O
C
ON
HIGHWAY NO.
SHEFFIELD
TO
ES
W
L
WA
RK
KI
RS
LE
TT
SE
N
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
NS
LE
VA
ER
OP
CO
ON
AT
SE
LD
FIE
EF
SH
DUNDAS
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
RI
FA
SA
13
WESTOVER
NS
LE
VA
NS
LE
VA
ER
OP
CO
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
8
ON
SI
ES
C
KIRKWALL
N
CO
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
HIG
HW
AY
NO
.
5
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
PA
RK
SID
E
SNA
KE
PA
RK
SID
E
YO
RK
ABERDEEN
GARTH
IN
MA
KING
WI
LS
ON
c
Es
nt
K
W
HA
MO
KS
L IN
F
L
403
GO
14
FENNELL
MOHAWK
EXANDER PY
LINCOLN M. AL
GARTH
ra
me
ar p
GA
ER
RN
QUEEN
O
CO
OSL
E
DUNDURN
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
RK
YO
S
TE
IC
EN
SC
S
NG
RI
SP
ga
Nia
Lake Ontario
403
'S
OR
RN
E
V
GO
R
HU
LP
SU
Y
LE
NK
BI
Downtown Area
KING
PH
EL
GU
AM
NH
DE
SY
G
KIN
GREENSVILLE
RK
YO
PLA
INS
T
ES
RV
EW
HA
VI
LS
L
FA
COPETOWN
.
NO
Y
VALLE
KING
MI
LL
D
OL
AD
RO
DE
SI
LD
IE
OF
EY
XL
MO
T
ES
RV
A
H
RS
EI
W
AY
HW
MAIN
KE
RN
S
BAY BAY
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
10
CA
RL
IS
CA
RL
PR
ISL
OG
E
RE
ST
CO
ON
NC
ES
SIO
N8
11
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
CE
NT
RE
E
OV
GR
LL
MI
LD
IE
OF
E
AM
CR
Natural Open Space
N
SO
IN
.
NO
E
OT
SL
Parks
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
Y
WA
GH
I
H
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
ORKNEY
EY
XL
MO
PA
TR
ICK
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
Ward
SODOM
EY
KN
OR
IL L
DH
OO
W
OO
W
GE
ED
K
OC
BR
IL L
DH
OO
W
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
12
.
NO
AY
W
GH
HI
BE
EF
O
RT
H
CE
RO
NT
BS
RE
ON
GA
RD
EN FLAMBOROUGH CENTRE
G
HI
EY
KN
OR
EN
ND
LY
Major Road
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
R
VE
Highway
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
TO
ES
W
NS
LE
VA
L
WA
RK
KI
EN
ND
LY
LD
FIE
EF
SH
LL
CO
M
SODO
ROCKTON
RS
LE
TT
SE
R
GE
SA
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
2
Km
15
R
VE
ER
OP
CO
ON
AT
SE
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
HIGHWAY NO.
FLAMBOROUGH
WY
ATT
MILLGROVE
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
WESTOVER
ON
MIL
BU
RO
UG
H
HIG
HW
AY
NO
.
RI
FA
SA
NS
LE
VA
RI
FA
SA
LD
FIE
EF
SH
E
NC
CO
13
SI
ES
NC
O
C
OLD HIGHWAY NO. 8

SHEFFIELD
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
TO
ES
W
8
ON
SI
S
E
NC KIRKWALL
CO
LE
H
UG
ON
97
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
NS
LE
VA
SI
ES
NC
O
C
RD
.
NO
NS
LE
VA
ER
OP
CO
AL
ON
GI
E
R
IO
SS
STRABANE
NS
LE
VA
10
N
MA
RE
FO
SI
ES
NC
O
C
ON
FREELTON
ON
NN
LE
NS
LE
VA
RE
GO
FRE
ELT
ON
10
CARLISLE
WI
LLI
AM
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
A
DD
MA
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
CE
NT
RE
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
CA
MP
BE
LLV
MO
IL L
UN
E
TS
BE
RG
14
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 13
RYMAL
City of Hamilton
Final Option 2 - Ward 14
1
13
403
FENNELL
MAIN
UPPER PARADISE
N
O
IL
S
W
PE
UP
GILBERT
FESSENDEN
RC
STONE CHURCH
403
UPPER JAMES
MOH A
W
WEST 5TH
HU
OMNI
EC
UPPER PARADISE
ST
ON
ROUSSEAUX
GARTH
GILKSON
GURNETT
GO
KS
NIN
LI
OR
AW
IN
LF
RH
H
MO
L
LF
OL
GO
S
NK
PE
UP
G
IN
c
Es
nt
RN
ra
LIMERIDGE
HO
a
ag
Ni
e
pm
ar
MOHAWK
UPPER JAMES
14
WEST 5TH
WESTCLIFFE
MOUNTVIEW
GARTH
SCENIC
FALKIRK
12
RYMAL
LS
HA
CHRISTIE
KS
OT
LI N
HC
UT
LF
SO
GO
ON
RN
ER
C
TH
OT
GLANCASTER
U
SO
GA
0.4
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
CARPENTER
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 2 - Ward 15
11
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
HIG
HW
AY
NO
.5
PA
RK
SID
E
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
ent
rpm
Y
VALLE
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
RK
YO
PLA
INS
403
ENS
RD
GA
G
IN
SPR
RK
YO
Parks
aE
sca
PH
EL
GU
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
KING
MI
LL
D
OL
Ward
LD
IE
OF
MAIN
Nia
gar
AD
RO
DE
SI
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
N
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
R
VE
Major Road
6
ON
SI
S
E
NC
CO
WESTOVER
E
OV
GR
LL
MI
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
TO
ES
W
Highway
13
HIG
HW
AY
NO
.
CONCESSION 5 E AND CENTRE ROAD CEN

TR
E
MILLGROVE
PA
RK
SID
E
FLAMBOROUGH CENTRE
KE
RN
S
RO
BS
ON
SNA
KE
7
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
LE
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
GA
RD
EN
RT
H
MIL
BU
RO
UG
H
RI
FA
SA
HIG
HW
AY
NO
.
BE
EF
O
WY
ATT
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
CA
RL
IS
PR
OG
RE
ST
ON
10
OO
W
GE
ED
K
OC
BR
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
LE
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
10
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
11
STRABANE
R
VE
1.5
Km
97
RI
FA
SA
NS
LE
VA
CA
RL
IS
.
NO
CE
NT
RE
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
D
LR
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
TO
ES
W
15
FREELTON
A
ON
GI
RE
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
10
MIL
BU
RO
UG
H
GR
EE
NS
PR
ING
CARLISLE
WI
LLI
AM
OO
W
GE
ED
ON
NN
LE
NS
LE
VA
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
12
SS
ION
FRE
ELT
ON
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
11
CO
NC
E
MO
UN
TS
BE
RG
H
UG
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
CE
NT
RE
A
DD
MA
RE
GO
MO
UN
TS
BE
RG
PU
SL
INC
HT
OW
CO
NC
NL
INE
ES
SIO
N1
4
CON
CES
SIO
N
14
CA
MP
BE
LLV
IL L
MIL
BU
RO
UG
H
Page D-1
Appendix D Option 3 Proposed Ward

Boundaries

Report Amended.docx
Page 1.

Proposed Ward 1
Proposed Ward 2
Proposed Ward 3
Proposed Ward 4
Similar to existing Ward 4 except that the southern part of the ward bound by
Niagara Escarpment instead of Lawrence Road and bound to the east by the
Red Hill Valley Parkway (Rosedale neighbourhood is in proposed Ward 4).
Proposed Ward 5
Bound to the north by Lake Ontario (and includes Hamilton Beach

neighbourhood);
Bound to the east by Grays Road except north of the Q.E.W. where the boundary
would follow the eastern boundary of Confederation Park;
Bound to the south by the Niagara Escarpment; and
South of the Q.E.W., bound to the west by the Red Hill Valley Parkway.
Proposed Ward 6
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north, Red Hill Valley Parkway, Upper
Red Hill Valley Parkway and Trinity Church Road to the east, Hydro One
Networks transmission corridor to the south, and Miles Road, Upper Sherman
Avenue and Upper Gage Avenue to the west.
Proposed Ward 7
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north, Upper Gage Avenue to the east,
Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway to the south and Upper Wellington Street to the
west.

Page 2.
Proposed Ward 8
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north, Upper Wellington Street to the
east, Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway to the south, and a Hydro One Networks
transmission corridor to the west.
Proposed Ward 9
Bound by the Niagara Escarpment to the north, the City of Hamilton municipal
boundary to the east, Regional Road 20 and a Hydro One Networks transmission
corridor to the south and Red Hill Valley Parkway, Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway
and Trinity Church Road to the west.
Proposed Ward 10
Bound by Lake Ontario to the north, the City of Hamilton municipal boundary to
the east and the Niagara Escarpment to the south; and
The ward is bound by Grays Road to the west, except north of the Q.E.W. where
the boundary follows the eastern edge of Confederation Park.
Proposed Ward 11
Bound by Hydro One Networks transmission corridor and Regional Road 20 to

the north, the City of Hamilton municipal boundary to the east and south, and
Glancaster Road to the west
Proposed Ward 12
Bound by the Ancaster-Dundas Community boundary to the north, Hydro One

Networks transmission corridor and Glancaster Road the east, the City of
Hamilton municipal boundary to the south, and Highway 403 to the west.
Proposed Ward 13
Bound by Highway 5, Rock Chapel Road and the Niagara Escarpment to the
north, the Dundas-Lower Hamilton Community boundary to the east, the
Ancaster-Dundas Community boundary to the south and Middletown Road to the
west.

Page 3.
Proposed Ward 14
Bound by the City of Hamilton municipal boundary to the south, west and north;
and
Bound to the east by Concession 7, Concession 6, Ofield Road, Moffat Road,
Highway 5, Middletown Road, and Highway 403.
Proposed Ward 15
Bound by the City of Hamilton municipal boundary to the north and east, the
Niagara Escarpment, Rock Chapel Road and Highway 5 to the south, and Ofield
Road, Moffat Road, Concession 6 and Concession 7 to the west.
Proposed Ward 16
Bound by the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway to the north, Upper Sherman

Avenue and Miles Road to the east, and the Hydro One Networks transmission
corridor to the south and west.

City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 1
ar PATTE
RSO
pm
N
en
t
S
PLAIN
ING
SPR
GU
EL
PH
Lake Ontario
RK
YO
Y
LLE
VA
OL
D
ENS
RD
GA
YORK
EL
AP
CH
N
ia
ga
ra
Es
c
YORK
NS
PH
EL
GU
CK
RO
AD
RO
DE
SI
.
NO
D
OL
E
OV
GR
LL
MI
15
Y
WA
GH
HI
PLA
I
BURLINGTON
403
JOHN
JAMES
13
YORK
CK
RO
EL
AP
H
C
BAY
AM
NH
DE
SY
Dundurn
N
JA
M
ES
M
O
U
N
TA
I
OLY
MPIC
MAIN
GARTH
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
FENNELL
UPPER WENTWORTH
Downtown Area
WENTWORTH
Natural Open Space
UPPER WELLINGTON
Parks
BELVIDERE
Ward
UPPER JAMES
JOHN
Km
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
WEST 5TH
UPPER PARADISE
IC
EN
SC
403
MAIN
CHARLTON
SHERMAN ACCESS
S
S
CE
AC
NT
O
CONCESSION
EM
AR
CL
JAMES
Chedoke Park
Ainslie Wood
Major Road
T
ET
CK
E
B
ON
ILS
W
Highway
ABERDEEN
BAY
OSL
E
KING
KING
QUEEN
Kirkendall
ES
AS
ND
DU
S
R'
NO
R
VE
GO
0.65
OT
CO
N
AI
M
NHAM
SYDE
KING
O
CO
S
TE
Cootes Paradise
MAIN
DUNDURN
S
OT E
CO
Westdale
WELLINGTON
NG
KI
JAMES
EW
VI
LS
Strathcona
DUNDURN
L
FA
YO
RK
JOHN
T
ES
RV
HA
VICTORIA
BARTON
MOHAWK
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 2
OL
D
YORK
YORK
403
Lake Ontario
INDUSTRIAL
RK
YO
GU
EL
PH
RK
YO
INDUSTRIAL
JAMES
BAY
JOHN
North End
MAIN
N
U
N
TA
I
M
O
JA
M
ES
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
UPPER GAGE
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
UPPER SHERMAN
Major Road
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
FENNELL
LAW
REN
CE
SHERMAN ACCESS
UPPER WENTWORTH
Km
Highway
CHARLTON
ARKLEDUN
UPPER WELLINGTON
0.45
UPPER JAMES
BELVIDERE
A
CL
SS
CE
AC
T
N
MO
RE
WENTWORTH
PH'S
ST. JOSE
WEST 5TH
IC
EN
SC
SCENIC
GARTH
Niag
T
ET
CK
E
B
t
m en
sca r p
ar a E
VICTORIA
JOHN
ABERDEEN
Stinson
Corktown
JAMES
QUEEN
Durand
SHERMAN
KING
MAIN
DUNDURN
403
KING
IN
MA
GAGE
VICTORIA
JOHN
BAY
PARADISE
KING
DUNDURN
NG
KI
Beasley
JAMES
Central
BARTON
WELLINGTON
YO
RK
BURLINGTON
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 3
QEWE
BE
AC
H
AS
TP
OR
T
Lake Ontario
TO
NG
LI
R
BU
Industrial Sector
INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL
BURLINGTON
PARKDALE
JOHN
OTTAWA
Crown Point
KENILWORTH
GAGE
Stipley
KING
MAIN
QUEENSTON
SHERMAN ACCESS
CONCESSION
LAW
RENC
E
KING
KENILW
ORTH A
CCESS
LAWRENCE
MOU
NTAIN
BRO
W
RE
D
Niagara Escarpment
Delta
PY
Blakeley
EY
St. Clair
VA
LL
VICTORIA
JOHN
JAMES
A
CL
SS
CE
AC
T
N
CONCESSION
MO
RE
WENTWORTH
JAMES
BAY
QUEEN
DUNDURN
ABERDEEN
SHERMAN
KING
VICTORIA
WELLINGTON
JOHN
DUNDURN
Gibson
Landsdale
HI
LL
JAMES
BAY
RK
YO
BARTON
0.55
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 4
BE
AC
H
QEW
EA
ST
PO
RT
Lake Ontario
Industrial Sector
INDUSTRIAL
RED HILL VALLEY PY
RIDGE
LAKE
UNTAIN
NEW MO
Niagara Escarpment
GREEN MOUNTAIN
MUD
Downtown Area
HIGHLAND
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
TAPLEYTOWN
HIGHLAND
THIRD
NT
OU
AM
R
PA
SECOND
D
MU
MUD
UPPER CENTENNIAL
RED HILL
VALLEY PY
G
KIN
FIRST
GARTH
MILLEN
NN
IA
L
HIGHWAY NO. 8
RIDGE
CE
NT
E
GRAY
KING
LAKE AVENUE
KING
FIRST
Natural Open Space
QUEENSTON
CENTENNIAL
Parks
GREEN
NASH
Ward
MOUNT ALBION
GRAYS
WOODWARD
PARKDALE
UPPER OTTAWA
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
D
U
M
STONE CHURCH
10
King's Forest
LIMERIDGE
UPPER GAGE
Major Road
UPPER SHERMAN
Highway
BARTON
Bartonville
ROW
IN B
NTA
MOU
UPPER GAGE
H
UPPER WENTWORT
Km
UPPER WELLINGTON
McQuesten
Glenview West
LAWR
Delta
ENCE
KING
KENILWORTH AC
LAWRENCE
CESS
LIMERIDGE
UPPER JAMES
WEST 5TH
GARTH
UPPER JAMES
WEST 5TH
Rosedale
MOHAWK
LIMERIDGE
Homeside Normanhurst
OTTAWA
SHERMAN
S
ACCESS
ES
CC
TA
CONCESSION
N
SION
CONCES
MO
RE
FENNELL
GAGE
JOHN
JAMES
A
CL
Crown Point
VICTORIA
BAY
QUEEN
DUNDURN
T
ET
CK
E
B
KING
MAIN
KING
ABERDEEN
SHERMAN
WENTWORTH
VICTORIA
WELLINGTON
JOHN
JAMES
KENILWORTH
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
DUNDURN
YO
RK
NORTH SERVICE SOUTH SERVICE QEW
Parkview
BURLINGTON
BARTON
MILLEN
ON
GT
IN
L
R
BU
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 5
QEW
Lake Ontario
RT
GREEN
LAKE
LEY P
Y
RED
HILL
VAL
GLOVER
RED HILL VALLEY PY
GLOVER
JONES
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
MUD
SIXTH
GREEN MOUNTAIN
FIFTH
Downtown Area
FRUITLAND
HIGHLAND
STONEY CREEK
TAPLEYTOWN
Natural Open Space
HIGHWAY NO. 8
TAPLEYTOWN
THIRD
Parks
MILLEN
Ward
MUD
SECOND
T
UN
MO
RA
A
P
FIRST
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Niagara Escarpment
GREEN MOUNTAIN
MUD
OLD MUD MUD
BARTON
RIDGE
NN
IA
L
King's Forest
NORTH SERVICE
G
KIN
UPPER CENTENNIAL
Major Road
10
RIDGE
Km
Highway
Vincent
CE
NT
E
FIRST
Gershome
Red Hill
KING
OW
BR
D
MU
STONE CHURCH
Greenford
QUEENSTON
LAKE AVENUE
IN
TA
UN
MO
LIMERIDGE
GARTH
Corman
KING
NASH
ROW
IN B
NTA
MOU
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER GAGE
UPPER SHERMAN
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
UPPER WENTWORTH
UPPER WELLINGTON
GARTH
UPPER JAMES
WEST 5TH
MOHAWK
LAWRENCE
Riverdale
CENTENNIAL
SHERMAN ACCESS
SS
CE
KENILWORTH AC
AC
CESS
CONCESSION
SSION
T
CONCE
N
ABERDEEN
MO
E
AR
L
C
TT
KE
C
BE
FENNELL
Kentley
QUEENSTON
Grayside
GRAY
PARKDALE
KENILWORTH
OTTAWA
GAGE
SHERMAN
WENTWORTH
MAIN
VICTORIA
JAMES
JOHN
BAY
QUEEN
VICTORIA
WELLINGTON
JOHN
JAMES
KING
Lakely
DEWITT
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
YO
RK
BARTON
Nashdale
NORTH SERVICE
SOUTH SERVICE QEW
FRUITLAND
BURLINGTON
Confederation Park
GRAYS
WOODWARD
INDUSTRIAL
GRAYS
N
TO
NG
I
RL
BU
TAPLEYTOWN
BE
AC
H
EA
ST
PO
TAPLEYTOWN
Hamilton Beach
HIGHLAND
Hannon
RYMAL
Hannon West
MILES
3
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
FLETCHER
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
TRINITY CHURCH
GLOVER
Km
Major Road
RED HILL VALLEY PY RED H

ILL VALL
EY PY
M
UD
UPPER SHERMAN
Rymal
NEBO
CHRISTIE
HIGHLAND
11
Highway
NT
OU
AM
R
PA
Albion Falls
MUD
FIRST
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER WENTWORTH
UPPER WELLINGTON
0.6
MUD
UD
D M
MU
STONE CHURCH
Templemead
Eleanor
KING
OW
BR
Trenholme
Quinndale
KING
LIMERIDGE
OLD MUD
UPPER GAGE
WEST 5TH
UPPER JAMES
IN
TA
UN
MO
King's Forest
Lisgar
LIMERIDGE
TWENTY
MOHAWK
Broughton
Huntington
Hampton Heights
Randall
16
LAWRENCE
CENTENNIAL
Sherwood
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER JAMES
LIMERIDGE
KENILW
ORTH A
CCESS
Sunninghill
Berrisfield
KING
MOUNT ALBION
UPPER SHERMAN
CONCESSION
KING
ROW
IN B
NTA
MOU
FENNELL
LAW
RENC
E
SHERMAN ACCESS
UPPER GAGE
UPPER WENTWORTH
UPPER WELLINGTON
BELVIDERE
A
CL
S
ES
CC
TA
Niagara Escarpment
N
MO
CONCESSION
RE
NASH
JAMES
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 6
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 7
Niagara Escarpment
Macassa
Burkholme
UPPER OTTAWA
UPPER SHERMAN
UPPER JAMES
UPPER GAGE
WEST 5TH
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
UPPER OTTAWA
16
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
Lawfield
Thorner
Bruleville
LIMERIDGE
Km
KENILW
ORTH A
CCESS
UPPER GAGE
UPPER WENTWORTH
WEST 5TH
UPPER WELLINGTON
FENNELL
Hill Park
Major Road
KING
Raleigh
Eastmount
Inch Park
Highway
OW
MOUNTAIN BR
LIMERIDGE
0.35
LAW
RENC
E
CONCESSION
MOHAWK
SS
KI
NG
KENILWORTH
BELVIDERE
SHERMAN
ACCE
OTTAWA
SS
CE ARKLEDUN
AC
T
ON
EM
AR
CL
CONCESSION
GAGE
BAY
QUEEN
O
M
I
TA
UN
SHERMAN
VICTORIA
JOHN
CHARLTON
PH'S
ST. JOSE
ABERDEEN
ES
M
JA
JAMES
A
CL
SS
CE
AC
T
N
MO
RE
JA
M
ES
M
O
U
N
TA
I
PH'S
ST. JOSE
Buchanan
MOHAWK
Gilbert
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
UPPER WELLINGTON
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
UPPER JAMES
Major Road
16
WEST 5TH
Km
Highway
GARTH
0.4
OMNI
ST
ON
EC
HU
RC
UPPER PARADISE
KS
L IN
G
NIN
OR
RH
PE
UP
KS
LIN
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
G
IN
RN
HO
LF
GO
Fessenden
Greeningdon
STONE CHURCH
UPPER WENTWORTH
R
PE
UP
D
OL
F
OL
Yeoville
Rolston
UPPER JAMES
IC
EN
SC
12
GARTH
Mountview
FENNELL
Balfour
Bonnington
Westcliffe
CONCESSION
UPPER WENTWORTH
ARKLEDUN
UPPER WELLINGTON
en
rpm
Mohawk
UPPER PARADISE
a
Esc
gar a
Nia
Southam
WEST 5TH
403
CHARLTON
SHERMAN ACCESS
Centremount
TT
KE
C
BE
BELVIDERE
ABERDEEN
JOHN
BAY
IN
MA
QUEEN
ES
DUNDURN
OT
CO
JAMES
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 8
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 9
LAKE
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
REGIONAL RD 56
EAST TOWNLINE
TAPLEYTOWN
ELEVENTH
Downtown Area
ELEVENTH
TENTH
NINTH
Natural Open Space
SMITH
ELEVENTH
TENTH
EIGHTH
L
EL HIL
CHAP
YOUNG
WOODBURN
Parks
ELEVENTH
TENTH
EIGHTH
SEVENTH
HIGHLAND
N
GREEN MOUNTAI
MUD
SIXTH
FIFTH
Ward
EIGHTH
TAPLEYTOWN
LEY P
Y
EIGHTH
RED
HILL
VAL
LEWIS
GLOVER
RED HILL VALLEY PY
FIFTY
WINONA
LEWIS
MCNEILLY
GLOVER
JONES
RIDGE
WOODBURN
WOODBURN
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
TAPLEYTOWN
Major Road
THIRD
Km
Highway
11
HENDERSHOT
FLETCHER
TRINITY CHURCH
GLOVER
0.95
TAPLEYTOWN
REGIONAL RD 20
RYMAL
FRUITLAND
MILLEN
HIGHLAND
MUD
SECOND
FIRST
T
UN
MO
A
R
PA
STONEY CREEK
9
FIRST
MUD
MAIN
UNTAIN
NEW MO
UPPER CENTENNIAL
D
MU
WINONA
GRAY
NN
IA
L
10
m ent
Escarp
Niagara
RIDGE
G
KIN
RIDGE
MOUNT ALBION
CE
NT
E
BARTON
HIGHWAY NO. 8
GREEN MOUNTAIN
OLD MUD
MUD
KING
LAKE AVENUE
LAWRENCE
QUEENSTON
CENTENNIAL
KING
NASH
PARKDALE
MAIN
QEW
DEWITT
BARTON
GREEN
GRAYS
WOODWARD
NORTH SERVICE SOUTH SERVICE
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 10
LAKE
TAPLEYTOWN
ELEVENTH
THIRD
FIFTY
Ward
FIFTY
STONEY CREEK
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
MAIN
RIDGE
TENTH
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
EIGHTH
Major Road
FIFTH
Km
Highway
SECOND
0.65
WINONA
RIDGE
FIRST
WINONA
EIGHTH
en
rpm
WINONA
LEWIS
GLOVER
FRUITLAND
a
Esc
gar a
Nia
UNTAIN
NEW MO
NN
IA
L
LEWIS
10
MCNEILLY
GLOVER
BARTON
GRAY
G
KIN
RIDGE
CE
NT
E
LAKE AVENUE
KING
MILLEN
HIGHWAY NO. 8
QUEENSTON
NORTH SERVICE
QEW
JONES
DEWITT
GREEN
GRAYS
GLOVER
NORTH SERVICE
FRUITLAND
SOUTH SERVICE
MILLEN
GRAYS
GREEN
Lake Ontario
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
SMITH KEMP
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 11
UPPER SHERMAN
MILES
UPPER JAMES
20
16
TRIMBLE
WESTBROOK
BERRY BERRY
TRINITY CHURCH
WESTBROOK
HALL
MILES
56
WOODBURN
LL
HA
BELL
SINCLAIRVILLE
WOODBURN
TRIMBLE
RD
AL
ON
GI
RE
BLACKHEATH
HARRISON
TRINITY CHURCH
MILES
FERRIS
HALL
KIRK
WOODBURN
TRIMBLE
TYNESIDE
FERRIS FERRIS
HALDIBROOK
WOODBURN
MILES
WOODBURN
HOMESTEAD
WESTBROOK
WOODBURN
HENDERSHOT
HIGHWAY NO. 6
EIGHTH
L
EL HIL
CHAP
WOODBURN
CHRISTIE
SIXTH
FIFTH
TAPLEYTOWN
YOUNG
BINBROOK
BINBROOK
FLETCHER
MILES
FERRIS
GLANCASTER
SAWMILL
THIRD
REGIONAL RD 56
FLETCHER
TRINITY CHURCH
11
CHIPPEWA
LEEMING
WOODBURN
HENDERSHOT
STONEY CREEK
WHITE CHURCH
WHITE CHURCH
WHITE CHURCH
GOLF CLUB
HIGHLAND
WINONA
GUYATT
NEBO
E
OT
HC
UT
SO
HENDERSHOT
E
OT
HC
UT
SO
AIRPORT
REGIONAL RD 20
REGIONAL RD 56
FLETCHER
TRINITY CHURCH
DICKENSON
ENGLISH CHURCH
ER
TT
BU
E
UK
RL
A
C
GLOVER
NEBO
GLANCASTER
GOLF CLUB
DICKENSON
TAPLEYTOWN
SECOND
TWENTY
OK
BO
HIGHLAND
FIRST
STONE CHURCH
D
MU
T
UN
O
AM
R
PA
UPPER CENTENNIAL
UPPER OTTAWA
RYMAL
UPPER GAGE
ER
RN
GA
UPPER WELLINGTON
WEST 5TH
GARTH
UPPER PARADISE
16
D
MU
FIRST
IRVINE
1
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 12
MILES
CHRISTIE
UPPER SHERMAN
GARTH
UPPER PARADISE
UPPER JAMES
HIGHWAY NO. 6
Employment Areas
MILES
HALDIBRO
OK
Other Built Up Area
MILES
FERRIS
Downtown Area
MILES
MILES
HOMESTEAD
GLANCASTER
WI
LS
ON
WI
LS
ON
UPPER GAGE
UPPER SHERMAN
Natural Open Space
CHIPPEWA
FERRIS FERRIS
Parks
WHITE CHURCH
FERRIS
Ward
11
LEEMING
SAWMILL
DICKENSON
DICKENSON
URCH
E CH
WHIT
N
EE
GR
ER
AV
SH
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
AIRPORT
GLANCASTER
'S
ER
DL
FID
E
UK
RL
A
C
ER
AV
SH
ITY
IN
TR
Major Road
WEST 5TH
ER
TT
BU
Km
Highway
GLANCASTER
E
OT
HC
UT
SO
ER
AV
SH
ANCASTER
O
RT
BE
AL
RYMAL
STONE CHURCH
ENGLISH CHURCH
ER
TT
BU
OK
BO
SAWMILL
16
ON
US
RG
FE
GE
ID
YR
NN
SU
ALBERTON
K
AR
NM
DU
12
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
TWENTY
E
OT
HC
UT
SO
ER
AV
SH
52
ON
ILS
W
N
EE
GR
ER
AV
SH
ER
RN
GA
O
RT
BE
AL
JERSEYVILLE
.
NO
LL
VI
EY
RS
O
RT
BE
AL
LD
FIE
JE
ILL
YV
SE
R
JE
Y
WA
GH
HI
403
GARTH
52
LIN
'S
ER
DL
FID
.
NO
ILL
YV
SE
R
JE
KS
RINGS
UR SP
L IN
SULPH
LF
O
G
E
OT
SL
Y
WA
GH
HI
LIN
CH
UR
C
E
OT
HC
UT
SO
52
EY
KN
OR
ER
W
PO
R
WE
PO
ga
Nia
GS
PRIN
ent
rpm
ROUSSEAU
X
MOHAWK
UPPER PARADISE
S
NG
RI
SP
Y
LE
NK
BI
R
TE
ET
KS
IN
.
NO
14
S
RAL
MINE
sca
ra E
ST
ON
E
K
W
HA
MO
FENNELL
SCENIC
UPPER WELLINGTON
R
HU
LP
SU
COPETOWN
'S
OR
RN
E
V
GO
T
KET
BEC
403
UPPER JAMES
13
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
Y
WA
GH
HI
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
OSLER
GREENSVILLE
WEST 5TH
R
VE
Y
WA
GH
HI
.8
NO
RS
EI
W
TO
ES
W
G
HI
.5
NO
AY
W
H
MAIN
OM
SOD
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 13
CLAPPISON
HIG
HW
AY
NO
.
JOHN
GARTH
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
16
STONE CHURCH
UPPER JAMES
OLYM
PIC
UPPER JAMES
Downtown Area
ST
ON
EC
HU
RC
JOHN
LIM
ER
IDG
WEST 5TH
403
L
GO
KS
IN
FL
JOHN
MOHAWK
K
W
HA
O
M
ROUSSEAU
X
JAMES
Natural Open Space
ON
ILS
W
FENNELL
WEST 5TH
Parks
JAMES
Ward
ent
MAIN
BAY
BAY
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
T
ET
CK
E
B
GARTH
S
NG
RI
SP
Major Road
ga
Nia
rpm
sca
ra E
KING
ABERDEEN
IN
MA
UPPER PARADISE
R
HU
LP
SU
Km
Highway
12
Y
LE
NK
BI
JAMES
52
OSL
E
NG
KI
A
M IN
BARTON
SCENIC
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
.
NO
COPETOWN
ES
'S
OR
RN
E
V
GO
R
TE
ET
KS
IN
Y
WA
GH
HI
N
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
ON
INGT
BURL
QUEEN
RS
EI
W
Y
WA
GH
HI
.
NO
Lake Ontario
DUNDURN
GREENSVILLE
AS
ND
DU
OT
CO
S
OT E
CO
PARADISE
KING
OM
SOD
13
W
IE
SV
ES
E
AM
CR
G
KIN
ENS
RD
GA
G
IN
SPR
YO
RK
OT
CO
CK
NS
EL
AP
CH
AM
ENH
SYD
OLD BR
O
T
ES
RV
A
H
LL
FA
LD
IE
OF
RK
YO
LL
O
C
SO
IN
PLA
I
403
YORK
LD
IE
OF
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
T
ES
RV
HA
NS
PH
EL
GU
AM
NH
DE
SY
EY
XL
MO
CK
RO
PLA
I
LEY
VAL
G
HI
EL
AP
CH
NO
CK
RO
AD
RO
DE
SI
LD
IE
OF
K
OC
BR
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
AY
HW
D
OL
E
OV
GR
LL
MI
14
.5
BELVIDERE
15
UPPER PARADISE
I
SS
CE
N
CO
ON
YOR
K
YORK
PAT
TE
RS
ON
E
NC
CO
IO
SS
PA
RK
SID
E
MILLGROVE
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 14
CE
NT
RE
LE
KE
RN
RO
S
CE
BS
NT
ON
RE
KING
FLAMBOROUGH CENTRE
C
CONCESSION 5 E AND CENTRE ROAD ENT
RE
STRABANE
MAIN M
IL L
8
HIG
N
H
O
I
WA
S
I
YN
R
ES
O.
FA
NC
6
SA
MILLGROVE
6
CO
N
O
I
FLAMBOROUGH
S
S
E
5
N
NC
IO
CO
SS
E
NC
CO
4
N
6
IO
N
SS
IO
E
S
BURLINGTON
NC
ES
CO
NC WESTOVER
O
403
C
BARTON
ST
VE IEW
R
5
KING
.
MAIN
HA LSV
NO
L
FA
AY
W
CONCESSION
GH
KING
HI
TT
OSLER
OM
KE
SOD
C
GREENSVILLE
FENNELL
BE
ROCKTON
HIGHWAY NO.
8
MOHAWK
PA
RK
SID
E
MAIN
DUNDURN
MILES
TWENTY
DICKENSON
AIRPORT
11
WHITE CHURCH
CHIPPEWA
FERRIS
GLANCASTER
E
UK
RL
CA
RYMAL
MILES
ER
TT
BU
16
UPPER JAMES
GARTH
GLANCASTER
E
OT
HC
UT
SO
WI
LS
ON
GARTH
YORK
IC
EN
SC
W
ILS
ON
SHERMAN
S
TE
ER
AV
SH
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
STONE CHURCH
OK 6
BO
ER
TT
BU
JOHN
BAY
O
CO
ER
RN
GA
BAY
H
LP
UE
CK
EY
rpm
ANCASTER
ITY
IN
TR
ent
K
W
HA
O
M
KS
L IN
F
L
GO
a
Esc
ER
AV
SH
Downtown Area
AM
ENH
SYD
403
LL
VA
AD
RO
DE
SI
PA
TR
I
LD
O
E
OV
GR
LL
MI
LD
IE
OF
.5
ALBERTON
gar a
Nia
Y
LE
NK
BI
Natural Open Space
RS
EI
W
Parks
EY
XL
MO
ER
AM
CR
Ward
EY
XL
MO
13
ILL
YV
SE
R
JE
ON
ILS
W
ON
RT
BE
ON
AL
US
RG
FE
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
E
LL
VI
EY
S
R
JE
GE
ID
YR
NN
SU
JERSEYVILLE
Major Road
E
NO
OT
AY
SL
W
GH
HI
R
WE
PO
AG
ON
RS
PA
Km
Highway
52
COPETOWN
'S
OR
RN
E
V
GO
E
LIN
TER
INKSET
LD
FIE
R
EI
W
SNAKE
EN
ND
LY
R
EI
W
LYNDEN
.
NO
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
R'S
NO
R
N
VE
E
IA
GO
D
LIN
R
IN
E
M
ISE
W
NE
PO
R
OO
W
GE
ED
LD
FIE
G
UR
SB
RI
AR
RH
GE
SA
TROY
Y
WA
GH
HI
.
NO
Y
WA
GH
HI
EY
KN
OR
EY
KN
OR
SI
ES
NC
O
C
ON
R
VE
TO
ES
W
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
EN
ND
LY
R
GE
SA
LD
RS
LE
FIE
TT
EF
SE
SH
N
IO
SS SHEFFIELD
CE
N
CO
NS
LE
VA
HIGHWAY NO.
14
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
NS
LE
VA
RI
FA
SA
ER
OP
CO
N
ATO
SE
LD
FIE
EF
SH
15
R
VE
NS
LE
VA
L
WA
RK
KI
KIRKWALL
TO
ES
W
97
NS
LE
VA
.
NO
K
OC
BR
ON
NN
LE
10
NS
LE
VA
ER
OP
CO
A
ON
GI
E
R
D
LR
CA
RL
IS
FREELTON
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
WY
ATT
CARLISLE
FRE
ELT
ON
RE
GO
MIL
BU
RO
UG
H
CA
RL
PR
ISL
OG
E
R
CO
ES
NC
TO
ES
N
SIO
N8
MO
CA
UN
MP
TSB
BE
ER
LLV
G
IL L
MO
E
UN
TS
CO
BE
NC
R
ES
G
SIO
CO
N1
NC
2
ES
SIO
N1
1
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
14
MIL
BU
RO
UG
H
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area
KING
BARTON
KING
MAIN
SHERMAN
Ward
YO
RK
VICTORIA
WELLINGTON
BURLINGTON
403
BAY
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
ENS
RD
GA
JOHN
JAMES
Major Road
13
ING
SPR
JOHN
JAMES
BAY
Km
Highway
RK
YO
Lake Ontario
NS
QUEEN
Y
VALLE
PLA
I
RK
YO
LD
IE
OF
T
ES
RV
A
H
W
IE
SV
LL
A
F
GREENSVILLE GREENSVILLE
5
AM
NH
DE
SY
LD
IE
OF
EY
XL
MO
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
Y
WA
GH
HI
.
NO
PA
TT
ER
SO
N
NS
PH
EL
GU
D
OL
AD
RO
DE
SI
W
TO
LE
DD
MI
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
PLA
I
DUNDURN
Niagara Escarpment
CLAPPISON
5
E
OV
GR
LL
MI
IO
SS
CE
N
CO
BR
OW
HOWARD
MILLGROVE
O
SI
ES
NC
O
C
MIL
L
MO
UN
TAI
N
MAIN
KING
SNA
KE
PA
RK
SID
E
HIG
HW
AY
NO
.
CE
NT
RE
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
15
CONCESSION 5 E AND CENTRE ROAD
KE
RN
S
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
RO
BS
ON
PA
RK
SID
E
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
HIG
HW
AY
NO
.
RT
H
MIL
BU
RO
UG
H
FLAMBOROUGH CENTRE
K
OC
BR
RI
FA
SA
OO
W
GE
ED
14
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
GA
RD
EN
CA
RL
IS
8
ON
SI
ES
C
N
CO
STRABANE
BE
EF
O
CE
NT
RE
LE
FREELTON
WY
ATT
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
AM
GR
EE
NS
PR
ING
10
CARLISLE
WI
LLI
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
MIL
BU
RO
UG
H
LE
CA
RL
IS
CE
NT
RE
PR
OG
RE
ST
ON
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
11
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
10
CO
NC
ES
SIO
N
11
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 15
City of Hamilton
Option 3 - Ward 16
ent
UPPER PARADISE
UPPER GAGE
UPPER SHERMAN
H
UPPER WENTWORT
TON
UPPER WELLING
Ryckmans
Mewburn
UPPER GAGE
UPPER WENTWORTH
Sheldon
Falkirk
16
Rushdale
Crerar
Jerome
Kernighan
UPPER WELLINGTON
Gourley
WEST 5TH
UPPER PARADISE
ST
ON
EC
HU
RC
Gilkson
Gurnett
GARTH
ING
RN
HO
ER
PP
G U
IN
RN
HO
LF
UPPER JAMES
R
PE
UP
GO
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
LIMERIDGE
KS
LIN
WEST 5TH
IC
EN
SC
L
GO
KS
L IN
D
OL
GARTH
MOHAWK
Barnstown
UPPER SHERMAN
m
Escarp
Niagara
STONE CHURCH
Butler
ER
RN
GA
Chappel
Allison
MILES
Kennedy
Carpenter
UPPER JAMES
12
CHRISTIE
RYMAL
GLANCASTER
TWENTY
11
0.5
Km
Highway
Major Road
Niagara Escarpment
Railways
Ward
Parks
Natural Open Space
Downtown Area
Employment Areas
Other Built Up Area

Hamilton Proposed Ward Boundary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hamilton Proposed Ward Boundary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix "A" to Report CL16009 (b) - Page 1 of 135

Dr. Robert J. Williams

January 16, 2017

Study Overview .................................................................................................... 1

Guiding Principles for Hamiltons Ward Boundary Review ................................... 9

Assessment of the Existing Ward Structure and Preliminary Options ................ 21

Alternative Options ............................................................................................. 27

Appendix A Public Consultation ................................................................................A-1

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

The basic requirement for any electoral system in a representative democracy is to

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

Conduct an appropriate consultation process to ensure community support for

Identify plausible modifications to the present ward structure; and

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

Project Structure and Timeline

The W.B.R. commenced in October, 2015 and is anticipated to be completed in

Research and data compilation;

Development and implementation of a Public Engagement Strategy;

Population and growth forecasting and data modelling to 2026;

Round 1 of Public Consultation;

Preparation of a Progress Report which was presented to the City of Hamilton

Development of eight preliminary ward boundary alternatives;

Preparation of an Interim Report, released to the public on June 9, 2016;

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

Development of final options and recommendations, and preparation of Final

In collaboration with Communications staff at the City:

The Interim Report

An explanation of the Terms of Reference and Objectives for the W.B.R.;

An analysis of the distribution of the present (2015) City population and a

Preliminary Alternative Ward Options developed by the Consultant Team around

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

The Hamilton W.B.R. incorporated a comprehensive public engagement component

To ensure Council that ward boundary alternatives reflect municipal vision,

The outcomes of the public engagement component include the following:

Public Consultations in Round 1 and Round 2 are discussed in detail below.

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

Nine public consultation meetings held throughout Hamilton where the

Project materials, including all project display boards, a PowerPoint presentation

Round 2 of consultation achieved a moderate level of public engagement, as follows:

Approximately 90 people attended the public meetings;

Numerous emails from the public were received.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

2. Guiding Principles for Hamiltons Ward

Overview of Guiding Principles

Representation by Population Ensure that every Councillor generally

Means of Communication and Accessibility Group neighbourhoods into

Geographical and Topographical Features Use natural features as ward

Community or Diversity of Interests Draw ward boundary lines around

Effective Representation Evaluate the capacity of each ward to give residents

Relative Weighting of Guiding Principles

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

What principles should be given the highest

Source:Based on aggregated responses from online submissions and public workshops

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

H:\Hamilton\Ward Boundary Review\Report\Final Report\Hamilton WBR Final

3. Hamilton A Changing City with

Origins of a Diverse City