01-08-2010 09:40 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Amalgamation
+ 
?
+ ?01-08-2010 09:44 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
October 06, 2008
By Terry Pender
RECORD STAFF
KITCHENER — City councillors are calling on their counterparts around the region to begin talks aimed at amalgamating some or all municipalities in Waterloo Region.
Coun. Berry Vrbanovic called for the meeting after listening to a presentation Monday night from Citizens for Better Government, a volunteer group that wants a bigger and simpler form of municipal government in the area.
Mayor Carl Zehr will invite the mayors of other municipalities to create an informal working group to discuss the report prepared by Citizens for Better Government.
The working group would have two or three members from each municipality in Waterloo Region. The mayors and regional chair would also be at the meetings.
Vrbanovic said the discussions of the working group should lead to a meeting of all councils in the region to determine future actions, Vrbanovic said.
“What’s important to remember is that nobody is talking about the region taking over the municipalities, or one municipality taking over another municipality,” Vrbanovic said.
“Whatever ends up happening is really the existing municipalities, in whatever option you talk about, ceasing to exist and a new entity being created.”
Zehr spoke in favour of the move as well. Nobody talked about the lack of response to a similar invitation Zehr made a few years ago.
Coun. John Gazzola was the only member of council to vote against the move.
Amalgamation is not a pressing issue among residents, he said, and the report by Citizens for Better Government does not demonstrate that amalgamation will lead to a better, less expensive or more accountable form of government.
Some of the information in the report is “sketchy,” he said.
“This to me isn't broken. Why are we trying to fix it?”
http://news.therecord.com/article/425483http://news.therecord.com/article/425483
Waterloo will talk about regional reform, not amalgamation
By Liz Monteiro, THE RECORD
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
RECORD STAFF
WATERLOO - The City of Waterloo will create a task force to talk about municipal reform -- but not amalgamation, according to the councillor who proposed it.
Councillors voted unanimously last night to create a committee -- with representatives invited from all municipalities in Waterloo Region -- to find ways to increase efficiency.
"It is not a discussion of amalgamation," said Coun. Jan d'Ailly, who proposed the task force with the goal of getting the most bang for tax dollars.
"How can we better improve our services and save costs for our citizens?"
Jim Erb, chair of Citizens for Better Government, said he was pleased with the decision.
"It's a great step," he said after councillors held a committee meeting.
"At the end of the day, we may not get what we asked for, but more co-operation and creating more efficiencies in areas such as libraries, water and emergency services -- then I'm pleased."
Citizens for Better Government supports merging eight local governments and cutting the number of municipal politicians. The group says $10 million could be saved by amalgamation.
Kitchener has said it wants to continue talking about reform, but Cambridge and North Dumfries are against amalgamation talks.
The Waterloo task force will prepare a list of projects in which cities and municipalities can find more cost-savings in their operations. The first meeting is planned for March.
Coun. Angela Vieth said she was concerned some municipalities may not want to participate. "What if the townships don't want to play?" she said.
Some residents spoke against setting up a task force, suggesting members would talk about amalgamation regardless of their brief.
Victor Hiebert told councillors that one massive city would reduce access to government.
To date, there have been no proven cost-savings, he said.
"Kitchener will dominate," he predicted if the region became one city. "Cambridge has bowed out. Waterloo should bow out too."
Robert Fleming said it would be "repugnant" to have city staff and politicians proceed with dissolving the city without input from citizens.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/481363
01-08-2010 09:48 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
January 08, 2010 | By Terry Pender, Record staff | http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/653071
KITCHENER — Amalgamation may be back on the local political agenda, but only for two cities.
Councillors for Kitchener and Waterloo will be asked Monday to support a referendum, to be included in this fall’s municipal elections, about holding merger talks between their two cities.
High-tech executives are scheduled to appear as delegations in both Kitchener and Waterloo with a simple request — that both city councils ask the Ontario government for permission to include a single question on this fall’s ballots.
The question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
Unlike previous attempts at amalgamating the eight municipal governments of Waterloo Region, this one focuses solely on the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo.
The latest group to push for the talks includes Ian Klugman of Communitech and Tim Jackson of Tech Capital Partners. Part of the push includes an open letter delivered earlier this week to the mayors and councils of Kitchener and Waterloo and signed by more than 50 leaders in business and the arts, including Sandvine president Dave Caputo, Open Text executive chair Tom Jenkins, David Marskell, executive director of the Waterloo Region Children’s Museum and Jamie Grant, general manager of the Centre in the Square.
“I suspect there will be some questions but I also suspect there will be some support,” Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said in an interview Thursday.
“How can you say ‘no’ to engaging in some dialogue?” Zehr said.
In the 1990s, the Conservative government under then-premier Mike Harris forced amalgamations in Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton, among other cities. But that government would not force the issue in Waterloo Region.
In 2006, a push for amalgamation came from a group called Citizens for Better Government. That, too, was unsuccessful in advancing the issue among the region, the three cities and the townships.
This latest move is focused solely on Kitchener and Waterloo.
Zehr is on board all the way — holding a referendum, holding talks and creating one city out of two.
“If we cannot have a one-tier system, then at a minimum, Kitchener and Waterloo should look at merging, because it makes eminent sense,” Zehr said.
In Waterloo, Coun. Mark Whaley gets excited about “extending Waterloo’s borders to the 401.”
When Whaley was first elected in 2003, the two cities were not co-operating.
“Today, we have almost 60 joint service initiatives,” Whaley said, “and I have voted for every one of them.”
Holding a referendum and then merger talks is a natural evolution, he said.
“We are talking about a dialogue on merging our cities to provide better services,” Whaley said.
Whaley does not want to see the current push for a municipal merger get bogged down in holding talks with municipalities that are not interested in even talking about it.
“Why try to partner with people who do not want to partner with you?” Whaley said.
Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig has been one of the most vocal opponents of amalgamation into a megacity. Craig and his council were not included in a letter from those pushing for the merger of Kitchener and Waterloo.
The open letter delivered to council members said, in part:
“How effective is our messaging to regional, provincial and national audiences? Are we maximizing our potential for provincial and national funding and for investment attraction? Is our current twin city structure the right plan for ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future?”
“Past efforts to address these questions have yielded no conclusive community viewpoint because the discussion has never properly begun. The only way to have this important conversation about our future is to give it the attention it requires, warrants and deserves — by asking the Province of Ontario to create the environment required for effective dialogue and debate through posing a direct question to the people of both cities during the 2010 municipal election,” says the letter.
01-08-2010 09:49 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
My only concern though is if Kitchener and Waterloo amalgamate (which is a logical choice) then what happens on a regional level? Do things fall apart? Will Cambridge and the Townships always feel like they are being "ganged up against" by a joint K-W? Joining Kitchener and Waterloo could have a tough effect on Regional politics. I don't know a ton about how it works, would it?
01-08-2010 05:02 PM
YKF
Junior Member
Date Dec 2009 Posts 11
01-08-2010 10:58 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
One of the things I like is that the referendum question is very simple. Unlike the electoral system reform referendum question in the last provincial election.
The clearer it is, the better off we'll be.
01-09-2010 10:07 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Referendum on merger talks needs provincial government support or it will not happen
January 09, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
KITCHENER — Getting permission from the province for a municipal-election referendum on whether to hold merger talks between Kitchener and Waterloo could be difficult.
A group of high-tech executives and business leaders will ask city councillors in the two cities on Monday to support making a formal request of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a ballot question in the Oct. 25 municipal elections.
The question is simple: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
The politics around the question are anything but simple.
Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran said she will support asking for the referendum, but she has doubts about whether the province will approve one.
“From what I understand, and I have heard from various political people, is that there is really no political will at this point in time for the provincial government to engage in any further discussions about amalgamating communities,” Halloran said.
Halloran is supported by retired University of Waterloo political science professor Bob Williams, now a consultant specializing in municipal politics, who said, “This is not a provincial priority.”
There is a bitter legacy from the forced amalgamations of Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton that occurred under the former Conservative government of then-premier Mike Harris, Williams said.
Kawartha Lakes was created by forced amalgamation in the late 1990s. The residents there voted in a subsequent referendum to de-amalgamate and the Liberals indicated they would honour that vote, but they reneged on that commitment, Williams said.
Simcoe County, created in 1848, has undergone a lot of development, but the Liberal government has refused to get involved in any reforms that would amalgamate the City of Barrie and Simcoe Country in order to better control that development.
“They have shied away from it,” Williams said.
Regional Chair Ken Seiling said the provincial government’s withdrawal from municipal reform has left a lot of people frustrated.
“Because traditionally, change does not take place unless the province has a hand in it, one way or the other,” Seiling said.
So, the city councils of Kitchener and Waterloo must convince the minister of the municipal affairs to inject himself into an area of local politics that has always bristled with challenges.
Provincial legislation specifically forbids municipal governments from holding referendums on municipal restructuring, or even the consideration, investigation, discussion or negotiations about restructuring.
The only way around that is to convince the Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson to give permission for a referendum question, Peter-John Sidebottom, a local government adviser at the ministry of municipal affairs, said.
If the minister agrees to place the question on the ballots, then it becomes the minister’s question and the results have no force and effect.
“It is not binding on the legislature, it is not binding on the minister, it’s not binding on the municipalities,” Sidebottom said.
The taxpayers in Kitchener and Waterloo provide more than 60 per cent of the tax dollars collected by Waterloo Region.
But if the two cities merged Waterloo Region could continue, Seiling said.
“It would just mean that one municipality would have a larger number of seats, it would change the voting balance on council,” Seiling said.
Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig disagreed, saying the merger of Kitchener and Waterloo would destroy regional government, which now provides all of the large, expensive services such as police, water and sewage treatment, ambulance and transit.
“It puts into question whether we need a regional government so we need to be prepared down here in Cambridge ahead of time and I am quite prepared to move forward on that and make sure our municipality is not compromised in any merger,” Craig said.
“If a merger were to take place in Kitchener-Waterloo, you would at the regional council table have a dominant municipality that controls every vote and would in fact become the real elephant in the room,” Craig said.
Craig wants assurances that talks about a merger of Kitchener and Waterloo will not be expanded to other municipalities in the region.
Iain Klugman, president of Communitech, said the group of more than 50 executives who are seeking the referendum, want a complete debate about the issues around merging the cities.
“We are at one of those turning points in the history of our community,” Klugman said.
Tim Jackson, co-founder of Tech Capital Partners; Tom Jenkins, executive chair of Open Text; and Dave Caputo, president of Sandvine are among the high-tech leaders who signed the open letter to the mayors and councillors in Kitchener and Waterloo. Other business and arts leaders include Mike Milloy of Gateman-Milloy Inc., architect Roger Farwell, lawyer Jamie Martin, architect Sunshine Chen and Centre in the Square general manager Jamie Grant.
“We would be thrilled with getting this question on the ballot and then groups and individuals will emerge and participate in the discussion . . . ,” Klugman said.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/653724
January 09, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
KITCHENER — Getting permission from the province for a municipal-election referendum on whether to hold merger talks between Kitchener and Waterloo could be difficult.
A group of high-tech executives and business leaders will ask city councillors in the two cities on Monday to support making a formal request of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a ballot question in the Oct. 25 municipal elections.
The question is simple: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
The politics around the question are anything but simple.
Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran said she will support asking for the referendum, but she has doubts about whether the province will approve one.
“From what I understand, and I have heard from various political people, is that there is really no political will at this point in time for the provincial government to engage in any further discussions about amalgamating communities,” Halloran said.
Halloran is supported by retired University of Waterloo political science professor Bob Williams, now a consultant specializing in municipal politics, who said, “This is not a provincial priority.”
There is a bitter legacy from the forced amalgamations of Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton that occurred under the former Conservative government of then-premier Mike Harris, Williams said.
Kawartha Lakes was created by forced amalgamation in the late 1990s. The residents there voted in a subsequent referendum to de-amalgamate and the Liberals indicated they would honour that vote, but they reneged on that commitment, Williams said.
Simcoe County, created in 1848, has undergone a lot of development, but the Liberal government has refused to get involved in any reforms that would amalgamate the City of Barrie and Simcoe Country in order to better control that development.
“They have shied away from it,” Williams said.
Regional Chair Ken Seiling said the provincial government’s withdrawal from municipal reform has left a lot of people frustrated.
“Because traditionally, change does not take place unless the province has a hand in it, one way or the other,” Seiling said.
So, the city councils of Kitchener and Waterloo must convince the minister of the municipal affairs to inject himself into an area of local politics that has always bristled with challenges.
Provincial legislation specifically forbids municipal governments from holding referendums on municipal restructuring, or even the consideration, investigation, discussion or negotiations about restructuring.
The only way around that is to convince the Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson to give permission for a referendum question, Peter-John Sidebottom, a local government adviser at the ministry of municipal affairs, said.
If the minister agrees to place the question on the ballots, then it becomes the minister’s question and the results have no force and effect.
“It is not binding on the legislature, it is not binding on the minister, it’s not binding on the municipalities,” Sidebottom said.
The taxpayers in Kitchener and Waterloo provide more than 60 per cent of the tax dollars collected by Waterloo Region.
But if the two cities merged Waterloo Region could continue, Seiling said.
“It would just mean that one municipality would have a larger number of seats, it would change the voting balance on council,” Seiling said.
Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig disagreed, saying the merger of Kitchener and Waterloo would destroy regional government, which now provides all of the large, expensive services such as police, water and sewage treatment, ambulance and transit.
“It puts into question whether we need a regional government so we need to be prepared down here in Cambridge ahead of time and I am quite prepared to move forward on that and make sure our municipality is not compromised in any merger,” Craig said.
“If a merger were to take place in Kitchener-Waterloo, you would at the regional council table have a dominant municipality that controls every vote and would in fact become the real elephant in the room,” Craig said.
Craig wants assurances that talks about a merger of Kitchener and Waterloo will not be expanded to other municipalities in the region.
Iain Klugman, president of Communitech, said the group of more than 50 executives who are seeking the referendum, want a complete debate about the issues around merging the cities.
“We are at one of those turning points in the history of our community,” Klugman said.
Tim Jackson, co-founder of Tech Capital Partners; Tom Jenkins, executive chair of Open Text; and Dave Caputo, president of Sandvine are among the high-tech leaders who signed the open letter to the mayors and councillors in Kitchener and Waterloo. Other business and arts leaders include Mike Milloy of Gateman-Milloy Inc., architect Roger Farwell, lawyer Jamie Martin, architect Sunshine Chen and Centre in the Square general manager Jamie Grant.
“We would be thrilled with getting this question on the ballot and then groups and individuals will emerge and participate in the discussion . . . ,” Klugman said.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/653724
The fact that we need provincial approval worries me a little bit.
I understand why they've shied away from the amalgamation issue. Its a negative thing associated with the Harris regime that a lot of communities were forced to do. That's not the case here though. We are bringing up the issue. We are asking to TALK about the issue. It isn't a provincially mandated issue, but one that we are chosing to talk about on our own. This is something they should let happen.
01-11-2010 09:20 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Kitchener and Waterloo merger generates a lot of talk at city celebration
January 10, 2010
By Kevin Swayze, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — Merging with Kitchener was the hot topic at the City of Waterloo’s annual celebration of civic pride.
“Amalgamation is the big thing,” said Mayor Brenda Halloran, at the end of the council’s New Year’s Levee at RIM Park.
One after another, taxpayers asked Halloran about new suggestions to start talks with Kitchener about a marriage. After three hours, she estimated at least 50 people quizzed her about proposals from a business lobby group to begin the process with a referendum question in the October city vote.
Many of the questions came from people who feared amalgamation was already a done deal. It’s not, Halloran said.
“What the concern is for me is the misunderstanding. That tells me we need better communication as to what the question is.”
Local high-tech executives plan to be at meetings of both Waterloo and Kitchener city councils Mondayasking that the province put a question to voters Oct. 25: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
Halloran supports a referendum question about starting merger talks — and wants another referendum if there’s ever a detailed plan to make it happen. She wants to hear the opinion of taxpayers.
“I think we should definitely have referendums for questions this big,” she said.
More than 1,000 people attended the annual Waterloo city party. Free skating, musical and dance entertainment, face painting, coffee and snacks, were offered, along with a chance to buttonhole council members.
Naomi Furmston of Waterloo was standing in line to get a balloon animal tied for her son. She hadn’t heard of the merger suggestion, but likes the idea.
“When you go to Elmira to swim, you pay a non-resident fee. When you go to Kitchener to skate, you pay a non-resident fee . . . and you only live 10 minutes away in Waterloo,” she said.
Many people — like her, she said — already think of Kitchener and Waterloo as a single city.
“I don’t see any huge difference,” said Max Gwynn, of Waterloo.
“When I tell people I’m from Waterloo, I sometimes say I’m from Kitchener-Waterloo.”
Even so, he wasn’t ready to support the idea without hearing research and arguments for and against the change. He likes Waterloo as it is.
Already, Gwynn has tongue-in-cheek family talks over the breakfast table about what to call a new, amalgamated city.
“We said things like Kitcheloo, or K-Dub,” he said.
Barb Gaul already thinks of Kitchener-Waterloo as one city, but her husband is dead-set against amalgamation. They live in Waterloo.
“Kitchener has its traditions. Waterloo has its traditions. What sense is there in merging them?” said Bill Gaul.
There are more important referendum questions to be asking: like if most people support spending $800 million on a light rail transit system. He’s sure most people don’t.
“It’s one city,” said Naibin Sun, of Waterloo.
He lived in Kitchener until five years ago and doesn’t see much difference between the two cities — except that Kitchener’s roads are in better shape.
Outside Kitchener city hall, there was also support for merger talks.
Sonya Taha hadn’t heard about revived discussions about local government mergers when asked by The Record. The idea, however, appealed to her as she waited to skate with her children on the outdoor rink.
“I think it should be done, because I consider K-W one city. I don’t think there’s a big difference.”
Nathan Gwinn of Kitchener said politicians should get on with the obvious improvement.
“It should have happened a long time ago,” he said.
“There is no dividing line between the two cities. Just the signs.”
Atie Muller of Kitchener wouldn’t miss having two mayors and two councils running the urban area she moved to nine years ago.
“I do like amalgamation, definitely,” she said. “What difference is there?”
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/654242
January 10, 2010
By Kevin Swayze, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — Merging with Kitchener was the hot topic at the City of Waterloo’s annual celebration of civic pride.
“Amalgamation is the big thing,” said Mayor Brenda Halloran, at the end of the council’s New Year’s Levee at RIM Park.
One after another, taxpayers asked Halloran about new suggestions to start talks with Kitchener about a marriage. After three hours, she estimated at least 50 people quizzed her about proposals from a business lobby group to begin the process with a referendum question in the October city vote.
Many of the questions came from people who feared amalgamation was already a done deal. It’s not, Halloran said.
“What the concern is for me is the misunderstanding. That tells me we need better communication as to what the question is.”
Local high-tech executives plan to be at meetings of both Waterloo and Kitchener city councils Mondayasking that the province put a question to voters Oct. 25: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
Halloran supports a referendum question about starting merger talks — and wants another referendum if there’s ever a detailed plan to make it happen. She wants to hear the opinion of taxpayers.
“I think we should definitely have referendums for questions this big,” she said.
More than 1,000 people attended the annual Waterloo city party. Free skating, musical and dance entertainment, face painting, coffee and snacks, were offered, along with a chance to buttonhole council members.
Naomi Furmston of Waterloo was standing in line to get a balloon animal tied for her son. She hadn’t heard of the merger suggestion, but likes the idea.
“When you go to Elmira to swim, you pay a non-resident fee. When you go to Kitchener to skate, you pay a non-resident fee . . . and you only live 10 minutes away in Waterloo,” she said.
Many people — like her, she said — already think of Kitchener and Waterloo as a single city.
“I don’t see any huge difference,” said Max Gwynn, of Waterloo.
“When I tell people I’m from Waterloo, I sometimes say I’m from Kitchener-Waterloo.”
Even so, he wasn’t ready to support the idea without hearing research and arguments for and against the change. He likes Waterloo as it is.
Already, Gwynn has tongue-in-cheek family talks over the breakfast table about what to call a new, amalgamated city.
“We said things like Kitcheloo, or K-Dub,” he said.
Barb Gaul already thinks of Kitchener-Waterloo as one city, but her husband is dead-set against amalgamation. They live in Waterloo.
“Kitchener has its traditions. Waterloo has its traditions. What sense is there in merging them?” said Bill Gaul.
There are more important referendum questions to be asking: like if most people support spending $800 million on a light rail transit system. He’s sure most people don’t.
“It’s one city,” said Naibin Sun, of Waterloo.
He lived in Kitchener until five years ago and doesn’t see much difference between the two cities — except that Kitchener’s roads are in better shape.
Outside Kitchener city hall, there was also support for merger talks.
Sonya Taha hadn’t heard about revived discussions about local government mergers when asked by The Record. The idea, however, appealed to her as she waited to skate with her children on the outdoor rink.
“I think it should be done, because I consider K-W one city. I don’t think there’s a big difference.”
Nathan Gwinn of Kitchener said politicians should get on with the obvious improvement.
“It should have happened a long time ago,” he said.
“There is no dividing line between the two cities. Just the signs.”
Atie Muller of Kitchener wouldn’t miss having two mayors and two councils running the urban area she moved to nine years ago.
“I do like amalgamation, definitely,” she said. “What difference is there?”
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/654242
01-11-2010 09:36 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
As Kitchener and Waterloo emerge from the recession and we look to the future, we’re writing today to request an opportunity for our community to engage in a discussion about how best to prepare ourselves for ongoing sustainability and prosperity, by taking stock of our unique strengths and building on our unique opportunities.
Over the past few decades, the socioeconomic dimensions of our community have changed considerably. Once small villages, our combined population today approaches 400,000 citizens. As an urban centre we’re considered one of the fastest-growing and most economically diverse in Canada. We have enjoyed long-term success in advanced manufacturing, insurance, automotive and financial services, while our burgeoning technology sector has achieved international recognition and been identified as a leading economic growth engine. Our universities, college and major research centres are award-winning institutions. We have one of the youngest median populations in Canada, one of the largest new immigrant populations in Canada, and a well supported entrepreneurial culture.
Our collective story of hard work, innovation and multiculturalism provides a strong foundation for opportunity. And yet, in having two separately branded cities, uncertainties about our future remain:
Have we created the opportunity for confusion, or competition, rather than endorsement, support, camaraderie and growth? Do arbitrary geographic divisions here make sense in an increasingly global economy? Have we truly considered how to best leverage our assets to ensure ongoing quality of life? How effective is our community messaging to regional, provincial and national audiences? Are we maximizing our potential for provincial and national funding, and for investment attraction? Is our current twin city structure the right plan for ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future?
Past efforts to address these questions have yielded no conclusive community viewpoint, because the discussion has never properly begun. The only way to have this important conversation about our future is to give it the attention it requires, warrants, and deserves — by asking the Province of Ontario to create the environment required for effective dialogue and debate through posing a direct question to the people of both Cities during the 2010 municipal election.
To that end, we urge the councils of Kitchener and Waterloo to pass a resolution that will set the stage for this important conversation; one that asks the province to place a question on the municipal ballot in the 2010 election that asks:
Would you support members of Council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo?” Yes or No.
We’re asking for your support to have this conversation; so that the people of this community can come together to effectively frame our own future.
Respectfully,
Dave Caputo, lain Klugman, Mary Bales, Aggie Beynon, Hulene Montgomery, David Strucke, John Whitney, John Baker, Larry Blundell, Cameron Hay, Stephen Basco, Carol Leaman, Dave Bullock, Dennis Watson, Ginny Dybenko, Don Bourgeois, Sunshine Chen, Dennis Grimm, Gerry Remers, Peter Sweeney, Peter Barr, Greg Barratt, Alan Quarry, Mike Milloy, Randy Fowlie, Ray Simonson, Mary D’Alton, Tim Jackson, Jamie Martin, Tom Jenkins,Brian Doody, Steve Bryant, Jan Varner, Brad Marsland, Howard Armitage, David Kruis, Marc Morin, Savvas Chamberlain, Yvan Couture, Rick Stroobosscher, Joan Fisk, Roger Farwell, Bruce Gordon, Eugene Moser, Steve Farlow, Jamie Grant, Murray Gamble, Jacqui Murphy, Mark Bingeman, Andrew Bass, David Fedy, Tom Beynon, Andrew Abouchar, Rosemary Smith, Ken Coates, Len Ruby, David Petras, Neil Aitchison, David Marskell, Rod Foster, Phil Deck, Joseph Fung, Ted Hastings, Jane Jantzi, Jim Stirtzinger, Frank Boutzis.
Over the past few decades, the socioeconomic dimensions of our community have changed considerably. Once small villages, our combined population today approaches 400,000 citizens. As an urban centre we’re considered one of the fastest-growing and most economically diverse in Canada. We have enjoyed long-term success in advanced manufacturing, insurance, automotive and financial services, while our burgeoning technology sector has achieved international recognition and been identified as a leading economic growth engine. Our universities, college and major research centres are award-winning institutions. We have one of the youngest median populations in Canada, one of the largest new immigrant populations in Canada, and a well supported entrepreneurial culture.
Our collective story of hard work, innovation and multiculturalism provides a strong foundation for opportunity. And yet, in having two separately branded cities, uncertainties about our future remain:
Have we created the opportunity for confusion, or competition, rather than endorsement, support, camaraderie and growth? Do arbitrary geographic divisions here make sense in an increasingly global economy? Have we truly considered how to best leverage our assets to ensure ongoing quality of life? How effective is our community messaging to regional, provincial and national audiences? Are we maximizing our potential for provincial and national funding, and for investment attraction? Is our current twin city structure the right plan for ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future?
Past efforts to address these questions have yielded no conclusive community viewpoint, because the discussion has never properly begun. The only way to have this important conversation about our future is to give it the attention it requires, warrants, and deserves — by asking the Province of Ontario to create the environment required for effective dialogue and debate through posing a direct question to the people of both Cities during the 2010 municipal election.
To that end, we urge the councils of Kitchener and Waterloo to pass a resolution that will set the stage for this important conversation; one that asks the province to place a question on the municipal ballot in the 2010 election that asks:
Would you support members of Council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo?” Yes or No.
We’re asking for your support to have this conversation; so that the people of this community can come together to effectively frame our own future.
Respectfully,
Dave Caputo, lain Klugman, Mary Bales, Aggie Beynon, Hulene Montgomery, David Strucke, John Whitney, John Baker, Larry Blundell, Cameron Hay, Stephen Basco, Carol Leaman, Dave Bullock, Dennis Watson, Ginny Dybenko, Don Bourgeois, Sunshine Chen, Dennis Grimm, Gerry Remers, Peter Sweeney, Peter Barr, Greg Barratt, Alan Quarry, Mike Milloy, Randy Fowlie, Ray Simonson, Mary D’Alton, Tim Jackson, Jamie Martin, Tom Jenkins,Brian Doody, Steve Bryant, Jan Varner, Brad Marsland, Howard Armitage, David Kruis, Marc Morin, Savvas Chamberlain, Yvan Couture, Rick Stroobosscher, Joan Fisk, Roger Farwell, Bruce Gordon, Eugene Moser, Steve Farlow, Jamie Grant, Murray Gamble, Jacqui Murphy, Mark Bingeman, Andrew Bass, David Fedy, Tom Beynon, Andrew Abouchar, Rosemary Smith, Ken Coates, Len Ruby, David Petras, Neil Aitchison, David Marskell, Rod Foster, Phil Deck, Joseph Fung, Ted Hastings, Jane Jantzi, Jim Stirtzinger, Frank Boutzis.
01-11-2010 09:37 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
A timely call for merger talks
January 09, 2010
An old word has roared back into Waterloo Region for a new decade and with lots of new twists. The word is amalgamation. But before you groan that we’ve been there and tried that too many times with too much aggravation, look what’s on the table and who put it there.
Instead of trying to roll the region’s eight governments into one — which has been unsuccessfully tried — today’s advocates of change are putting their energies into merging just Kitchener and Waterloo.
It’s a new generation and a new group of community leaders, in large part from our high-tech sector, in the driver’s seat this time. One of the generals leading the charge is Tim Jackson, a founder of Tech Capital Partners and vice-chair of the University of Waterloo Research + Technology Park Accelerator Centre. Instead of building their case on saving tax dollars, Jackson and his colleagues are arguing that one larger, merged city will have a bigger voice and make a greater splash in the globalized economy than two smaller communities frantically competing against each other.
It’s too soon to know what this plan would mean and if it’s the right fit for the people of Kitchener and Waterloo, as well as their fellow citizens of Waterloo Region. It’s not too soon to applaud the 52-people who have signed a letter calling for a referendum this fall to empower the two cities to hold merger talks. Nor is it premature to say that the municipal ballots in Kitchener and Waterloo in this October’s municipal elections should include the following question.
“Would you support the members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?’’
This referendum, with these words, should proceed. The councils of Kitchener and Waterloo should endorse the referendum. The government of Ontario, which has the final say, should approve it. Then, let democracy rule and the voters of these two cities decide. While the provincial Liberals have not encouraged municipal amalgamations since taking power six years ago, they have consistently affirmed that they will listen and respond to local requests for change. So for now, the Liberals should listen, and help the people of Kitchener and Waterloo plan their future.
For more than 150 years these two communities have been hamlets, villages, towns and cities living side-by-side and gradually growing into each other to the extent that you need a sign or a map to tell you when you’ve left Waterloo and entered Kitchener. People across Canada refer to Kitchener-Waterloo even though, officially speaking, such a hyphenated entity doesn’t exist.
Many people live in one of the cities but work in the other; Waterloo citizens use Kitchener’s libraries, catch a concert at Kitchener’s Centre in the Square or cheer the Rangers at the Kitchener Aud. Citizens of Kitchener play at Waterloo’s RIM Park, take a course at one of Waterloo’s universities or shop in Waterloo’s downtown. In many day-to-day practical ways, the two cities already act like one.
On its own, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo wouldn’t become Utopia. A merged city would still be the lower tier in a regional municipality where the regional government still spends most of the money and would deliver many of the most important services, such as policing, public transit, water and sewage treatment and social services. Moreover, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo could upset the delicate balance between the northern and southern parts of the region and leave a disgruntled Cambridge feeling alienated.
The proponents of amalgamation contend that a city of nearly 400,000 people would command more attention in Canada and around the world than two smaller cities both vying for government grants and corporate investments. As a single city, with a diverse and rapidly growing population as well as a diversified economy with a surging high-tech sector, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo could aspire to become a respected and recognized player in the global economy.
Other benefits of a merger are easy to see. Several years ago, Kitchener and Waterloo briefly explored co-operating with their library services and teaming up to build a grand, main library branch to serve both communities in this information age. The idea went nowhere; each city pursued more modest improvements to their libraries. And each threw away the opportunity to better serve its citizens in this information age. There is a strong argument that a united Kitchener and Waterloo could provide stronger support to the arts community and deliver to the public stronger cultural and recreational services.
But perhaps we run ahead of ourselves. It is a new year, a new decade. It is the right time to look at the world and our little part of it in new ways. Hurray for the people calling for the Twin Cities to become the one city. Let the conversation, let the debate begin. And let the will of the people be done.
January 09, 2010
An old word has roared back into Waterloo Region for a new decade and with lots of new twists. The word is amalgamation. But before you groan that we’ve been there and tried that too many times with too much aggravation, look what’s on the table and who put it there.
Instead of trying to roll the region’s eight governments into one — which has been unsuccessfully tried — today’s advocates of change are putting their energies into merging just Kitchener and Waterloo.
It’s a new generation and a new group of community leaders, in large part from our high-tech sector, in the driver’s seat this time. One of the generals leading the charge is Tim Jackson, a founder of Tech Capital Partners and vice-chair of the University of Waterloo Research + Technology Park Accelerator Centre. Instead of building their case on saving tax dollars, Jackson and his colleagues are arguing that one larger, merged city will have a bigger voice and make a greater splash in the globalized economy than two smaller communities frantically competing against each other.
It’s too soon to know what this plan would mean and if it’s the right fit for the people of Kitchener and Waterloo, as well as their fellow citizens of Waterloo Region. It’s not too soon to applaud the 52-people who have signed a letter calling for a referendum this fall to empower the two cities to hold merger talks. Nor is it premature to say that the municipal ballots in Kitchener and Waterloo in this October’s municipal elections should include the following question.
“Would you support the members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?’’
This referendum, with these words, should proceed. The councils of Kitchener and Waterloo should endorse the referendum. The government of Ontario, which has the final say, should approve it. Then, let democracy rule and the voters of these two cities decide. While the provincial Liberals have not encouraged municipal amalgamations since taking power six years ago, they have consistently affirmed that they will listen and respond to local requests for change. So for now, the Liberals should listen, and help the people of Kitchener and Waterloo plan their future.
For more than 150 years these two communities have been hamlets, villages, towns and cities living side-by-side and gradually growing into each other to the extent that you need a sign or a map to tell you when you’ve left Waterloo and entered Kitchener. People across Canada refer to Kitchener-Waterloo even though, officially speaking, such a hyphenated entity doesn’t exist.
Many people live in one of the cities but work in the other; Waterloo citizens use Kitchener’s libraries, catch a concert at Kitchener’s Centre in the Square or cheer the Rangers at the Kitchener Aud. Citizens of Kitchener play at Waterloo’s RIM Park, take a course at one of Waterloo’s universities or shop in Waterloo’s downtown. In many day-to-day practical ways, the two cities already act like one.
On its own, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo wouldn’t become Utopia. A merged city would still be the lower tier in a regional municipality where the regional government still spends most of the money and would deliver many of the most important services, such as policing, public transit, water and sewage treatment and social services. Moreover, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo could upset the delicate balance between the northern and southern parts of the region and leave a disgruntled Cambridge feeling alienated.
The proponents of amalgamation contend that a city of nearly 400,000 people would command more attention in Canada and around the world than two smaller cities both vying for government grants and corporate investments. As a single city, with a diverse and rapidly growing population as well as a diversified economy with a surging high-tech sector, a merged Kitchener-Waterloo could aspire to become a respected and recognized player in the global economy.
Other benefits of a merger are easy to see. Several years ago, Kitchener and Waterloo briefly explored co-operating with their library services and teaming up to build a grand, main library branch to serve both communities in this information age. The idea went nowhere; each city pursued more modest improvements to their libraries. And each threw away the opportunity to better serve its citizens in this information age. There is a strong argument that a united Kitchener and Waterloo could provide stronger support to the arts community and deliver to the public stronger cultural and recreational services.
But perhaps we run ahead of ourselves. It is a new year, a new decade. It is the right time to look at the world and our little part of it in new ways. Hurray for the people calling for the Twin Cities to become the one city. Let the conversation, let the debate begin. And let the will of the people be done.
01-12-2010 10:32 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
January 11, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — When it comes to talking about amalgamation, Kitchener says “yes” while Waterloo says “maybe.”
City councillors in Kitchener voted Monday in favour of holding a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections on whether to hold talks aimed at merging the two cities.
“This is an opportunity for citizens to really give a clear indication about their beliefs and their direction on this dialogue,” Coun. Berry Vrbanovic said Monday.
But Waterloo city councillors have a lot of questions about holding a referendum and asked staff to file a report for the meeting scheduled for Jan. 25.
“I think we need to give it some time,” Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran said at the end of a two-hour discussion that included several public delegations opposed to a referendum.
In a presentation to Waterloo city council, Tim Jackson, the president of Tech Capital Partners, said now is an appropriate time to ask the voters of both cities if they want their municipal councils to talk about a possible merger.
Jackson is among a group of businesspeople trying to kick start the issue of merging Kitchener and Waterloo. The group wants the councils in both cities to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to put a question on this fall’s municipal election ballots.
The question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Jim Watson, does not have to put the question on the ballot. The cities can only ask.
“It would be tough for the minister to ignore the will of two elected councils,” Jackson said to Waterloo city council.
Among the Waterloo residents opposed to the move is Jeff Henry, who told Waterloo city council a referendum would only build and solidify divisions.
“I don’t think a plebiscite is the right approach to this matter,” Henry said.
Added Stan Rektor: “I think council should do the right thing and drop this issue.”
And former Waterloo city councillor Mike Connolly said: “Can you honestly say you’ve been approached by many people on this subject?”
John Dietrich, the president of the Waterloo firefighters union, told councillors the amalgamation of cities failed just about everywhere it was tried.
“It is very disruptive,” Dietrich said.
Coun. Angela Veith wanted to end the issue yesterday, making it clear she is opposed to a merger or even talking about one.
“I don’t believe individual taxpayers will be better served,” Veith said.
Iain Klugman, the president of Communitech, appeared before Kitchener’s finance committee Monday asking councillors to support putting the question on the ballot.
“This will trigger the kind of debate and discussion this issue warrants,” Klugman said.
Coun. John Gazzola was the only member of Kitchener city council to vote against the referendum.
“I have been on council eight years and I don’t know if I have had three people ask me if we should be amalgamating or merging — that’s not a hot issue,” Gazzola said.
Years ago, Gazzola moved a motion at council seeking information from the province about the benefits and costs associated with the merger of other cities. The province never responded.
“It’s not really a burning issue in a lot of places,” Gazzola said.
Coun. Kelly Galloway said the referendum is about holding discussions on merging the cities.
“Ultimately the outcome will either be ‘yes,’ or ‘no,’” Galloway said. “It will open the door or it will close the door. If it closes the door it will be closed for a really long time.”
Coun. Geoff Lorentz, said it is important to take another serious look at the issue of merging the Twin Cities.
“We have chased this thing so many times, in so many different ways, but we really haven’t had a mandate,” Lorentz said. “I think this is a real opportunity to let the people speak, let’s hear what they have to say. I really do see it as a barometer.”
Cambridge council also talked about the Kitchener-Waterloo merger referendum question Monday night.
“I wish them all the luck,” said Coun. Ben Tucci. “I look at the motions and question why they don’t ask the real question. Put a question on about amalgamation of K-W and I suspect the answer would come back as a resounding ‘No.’ At least in Waterloo.”
Mayor Doug Craig said he wants Cambridge to stay out of the Kitchener-Waterloo debate, but said “I think we will have to take some steps” if the referendum gets provincial approval.
He refused to say what Cambridge could do if the referendum goes ahead. He rejects putting a merger question on the Cambridge ballot, to counter a K-W question.
“I don’t want this to blow up into an issue down here,” he said.
Craig fears a combined Kitchener-Waterloo would have a majority of votes on Waterloo Regional council — to the detriment of Cambridge and the townships.
Craig said a referendum question isn’t needed for cities to investigate cross-border issues like amalgamation.
“You don’t need a vote to start talking about it,” Craig said.
With files from Kevin Swayze, Record staff
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/654895
01-12-2010 10:42 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
What do you think? Should Kitchener and Waterloo engage in Amalgamation talks?
01-13-2010 12:21 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Council puts brakes on rush to put amalgamation question on ballot
By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff
Jan 13, 2010
A push for Waterloo council to put an amalgamation question on next fall’s ballot was met with a resounding “maybe” from city councillors.
Council was reluctant to throw its full support behind the proposition, which was brought forward by members of the local high-tech and business communities.
Instead, they delayed their decision two weeks in order to get more information and more input from the general public.
“I think it’s important for us and for the public to see a staff report and make comment,” said Coun. Ian McLean.
Kitchener council, meanwhile, supported the motion and will request the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing put the question on the ballot.
The amalgamation issue, which was last pronounced dead last January after the Citizens for Better Government released a report recommending merging the entire region. It was resurrected unexpectedly last week.
A request was put forward by a group that wants the amalgamation question answered once and for all.
Tim Jackson, a partner with Tech Capital Partners, believes the reason the issue has gone flat so many times is that there was never an endgame in view.
“Waterloo and Kitchener are great cities and as we come out of the recession, we feel it’s an appropriate time to ask the citizens of both cities to contemplate what we could be if we came together,” he said.
“Having a plebiscite allows the community to have nine or 10 months to debate with an absolute outcome at the end.”
Jackson suggested a question that would allow for amalgamation discussions to begin, but wouldn’t lead to amalgamation outright. That caused some confusion.
“We don’t have control of the question anyway,” said Coun. Scott Witmer. “The (ministry) could change it to say amalgamation, yes or no.”
Council was split on whether to allow the referendum. There were also questions about whether the province would allow it to take place.
Complicating the matter was the fact that councillors and staff would not be allowed to comment or provide information on the question.
That’s because, like in the recent decision on the fluoride plebiscite, provincial law prohibits the city from taking a stand.
That led some councillors to wonder how people would make a decision.
“How can people make a decision if they can’t get the information?” wondered Coun. Diane Freeman.
Coun. Angela Vieth hasn’t heard any hue and cry for amalgamation.
“I have not had any calls from constituents asking to assimilate their Waterloo with Kitchener,” she said.
“I don’t think anyone gains from reduced representation and I don’t think the taxpayers benefit from increased bureaucracy.”
But Coun. Mark Whaley thinks this is a question that finally needs a resolution.
“For the six years I’ve been sitting on council, the amalgamation question has hung over the community like a dense fog that doesn’t allow any sun,” he said. If a question was allowed, there could be some relief, he added.
The public was also split on the matter, with the representation at Monday’s council meeting tipping closer to the nays than the yays.
“I’ve been through this before,” said former regional councillor Mike Connolly. “There’s no public appetite to revive the subject of amalgamation.
“We’re still in a recession . . . now is not the time to get sidetracked.”
But the fact that there is such a wide variety of perspectives on amalgamation is precisely why the cities need a vote, Jackson said.
“We need an answer,” he said.
Councillors voted to return to the matter in two weeks.
Whatever the outcome, the debate will be lively and long, Whaley said.
“I’ll see you in two weeks,” he said. “I’m bringing my sleeping bag and pillow.”
http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/199588
01-13-2010 12:23 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Originally Posted by Spokes 
01-13-2010 12:31 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Minister rarely agrees to referendum questions
January 12, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — Time is on their side.
Waterloo city councillors stalled the latest push for merger talks by calling for a detailed report about asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs to place a question on the ballot for this fall’s municipal elections in the Twin Cities.
A group of more than 60 businesspeople wants councillors in both cities to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to place the following question on the ballot for the Oct. 25 elections: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
City councillors in Kitchener voted in favour of the move on Monday, but Waterloo councillors asked for a staff report that is scheduled to come back for a meeting on Jan. 25.
“I was pleased with the thoughtfulness that council gave to this important question,” Iain Klugman, president of Communitech, said. “We have some time.”
Klugman said the group of businesspeople does not view the move as a set back.
“Not at all, these are important matters that really deserve the consideration,” Klugman said.
When the Minister of Municipal Affairs is being asked to place the question on the ballot, the deadline is not until Sept. 1.
Kitchener and Waterloo need the minister to place the question because municipal mergers are the sole jurisdiction of the provincial government. City councillors are forbidden from holding referendums related to negotiations, consideration or investigation of municipal restructuring.
When a city council is holding a referendum on an issue within its own authority, such as fluoridation of drinking water, the ballot question is to be made public at least 180 days before election day—that is sometime in April.
In all municipal election referendums, the city must give at least 10 days notice that it intends to adopt a question for the ballot. The city must provide a neutral description of the consequences of adopting or rejecting the question and an estimate of the costs for implementing the results.
After all that, nobody can be held to the results because “a minister’s question can’t bind anybody,” Peter-John Sidebottom, the local government adviser at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, said.
It is very rare for a city to seek permission from the minister for a referendum.
“As far as I know there is only one question the minister himself has placed on a ballot anywhere,” Sidebottom said. “That was in Kawartha Lakes and it had to do with dissolving Kawartha Lakes as it exists today and reverting back to the 16 municipalities it used to be.”
The Town of Ajax held a referendum in the municipal elections of November 2000 on a proposed amalgamation with Pickering. Ajax did so without the province’s permission too.
“You have to look at how the Act is written and how our question was worded,” Marty de Rond, the clerk for the Town of Ajax, said. “We drafted our question to make it a matter of our own council’s authority.”
The referendum question in Ajax read: “Are you in favour of the Town of Ajax initiating negotiations on amalgamation with the City of Pickering?”
“Could the question be challenged? Yes. Would it be successfully challenged? I think that’s debatable. Did the province care to challenge it or anybody else? No,” said de Rond.
The vote in Ajax in November 2000—71 per cent opposed and 29 per cent in favour.
De Rond said nobody has raised the subject of amalgamation since that vote.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/655529
January 12, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — Time is on their side.
Waterloo city councillors stalled the latest push for merger talks by calling for a detailed report about asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs to place a question on the ballot for this fall’s municipal elections in the Twin Cities.
A group of more than 60 businesspeople wants councillors in both cities to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to place the following question on the ballot for the Oct. 25 elections: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
City councillors in Kitchener voted in favour of the move on Monday, but Waterloo councillors asked for a staff report that is scheduled to come back for a meeting on Jan. 25.
“I was pleased with the thoughtfulness that council gave to this important question,” Iain Klugman, president of Communitech, said. “We have some time.”
Klugman said the group of businesspeople does not view the move as a set back.
“Not at all, these are important matters that really deserve the consideration,” Klugman said.
When the Minister of Municipal Affairs is being asked to place the question on the ballot, the deadline is not until Sept. 1.
Kitchener and Waterloo need the minister to place the question because municipal mergers are the sole jurisdiction of the provincial government. City councillors are forbidden from holding referendums related to negotiations, consideration or investigation of municipal restructuring.
When a city council is holding a referendum on an issue within its own authority, such as fluoridation of drinking water, the ballot question is to be made public at least 180 days before election day—that is sometime in April.
In all municipal election referendums, the city must give at least 10 days notice that it intends to adopt a question for the ballot. The city must provide a neutral description of the consequences of adopting or rejecting the question and an estimate of the costs for implementing the results.
After all that, nobody can be held to the results because “a minister’s question can’t bind anybody,” Peter-John Sidebottom, the local government adviser at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, said.
It is very rare for a city to seek permission from the minister for a referendum.
“As far as I know there is only one question the minister himself has placed on a ballot anywhere,” Sidebottom said. “That was in Kawartha Lakes and it had to do with dissolving Kawartha Lakes as it exists today and reverting back to the 16 municipalities it used to be.”
The Town of Ajax held a referendum in the municipal elections of November 2000 on a proposed amalgamation with Pickering. Ajax did so without the province’s permission too.
“You have to look at how the Act is written and how our question was worded,” Marty de Rond, the clerk for the Town of Ajax, said. “We drafted our question to make it a matter of our own council’s authority.”
The referendum question in Ajax read: “Are you in favour of the Town of Ajax initiating negotiations on amalgamation with the City of Pickering?”
“Could the question be challenged? Yes. Would it be successfully challenged? I think that’s debatable. Did the province care to challenge it or anybody else? No,” said de Rond.
The vote in Ajax in November 2000—71 per cent opposed and 29 per cent in favour.
De Rond said nobody has raised the subject of amalgamation since that vote.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/655529
01-17-2010 08:58 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
January 15, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
KITCHENER — One of the most vocal critics of forced municipal amalgamations believes a voluntary merger of Kitchener and Waterloo deserves a close look.
“If it were approved in both places that would be an example of a voluntary amalgamation, of which we don’t have many recent examples in Canada, and it would make it different from all the others,” Andrew Sancton, a University of Western Ontario political scientist, said.
Sancton wrote a booked called Merger Mania, which was published in 2000, that was very critical of the forced amalgamations in cities such as Sudbury, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.
Those forced amalgamations resulted in increased debt for the cities to pay for the cost of the shotgun mergers — $30 million to create the City of Greater Sudbury and $100 million to create an expanded City of Ottawa. Taxes were increased and some services reduced. The efficiencies and savings touted by the former Ontario government of then-premier Mike Harris never materialized.
But Sancton notes there are big differences here.
Firstly and most importantly, the merger would be voluntary and based on a referendum held in both cities during the Oct. 25 municipal elections.
Secondly, Sancton said you have to compare the level of services provided in both cities, the wages for municipal employees in both cities and the salaries of administrators. If all of those are roughly equal then a merger could be effected that does not result in large tax increases for some property owners.
“The key thing is they are both urban areas, you are not trying to put together urban and rural and widely disparate communities,” Sancton said.
“Of all the proposals I have heard about in recent years this one potentially makes the most sense,” Sancton said. “I am not saying it is bound to succeed or anything, but there is a certain logic to it. I don’t quite understand what has kept Kitchener and Waterloo apart for so long.”
A group of more than 60 leading businesspeople is calling for a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections. The question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
City councillors voted to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to hold the referendum. Waterloo councillors are waiting for a staff report on the issue before voting on it. The minister must place the question on the ballot because municipal mergers are the sole jurisdiction of the provincial government.
“It’s a bit hard for me to understand why anybody would be opposed to having a vote or referendum on the question,” Sancton said.
Sancton stresses his opposition in the past has been to amalgamations forced on cities by provincial governments, some of which brought together urban areas with small towns and rural townships with varying levels of services and taxation.
“I don’t think there are examples of forced, legislated mergers that lead to any significant savings and certainly most of them lead to excess costs, new costs and problems and splits between urban and rural areas,” Sancton said.
“I would think a merger between Kitchener and Waterloo would have fewer of the pitfalls than other places have experienced,” Sancton said.
About 15 years ago there was a referendum held in two cities in British Columbia—Abbotsford and Matsqui. The voters in both jurisdictions voted in favour of amalgamation. They also voted in the same referendum to call the united city Abbotsford, which is 80 kilometres east of Vancouver on the Fraser River.
“I think it has been a marvelous success,” Abbotsford Mayor George Peary said. “We are now a vibrant city of 135,000. We are British Columbia’s fifth largest city.”
Abbotsford was about one quarter the size of its sister city prior to amalgamation. Taxes there went up by 25 per cent over five years following amalgamation, but the residents got access to a modern water system.
Prior to amalgamation both cities shared a fire, library and recreation services. But each had its own council, mayor and local administration.
“My sense is very few people would revert back to the former way,” Peary said. “We are stronger and better because of the courageous steps taken by the taxpayers and the few politicians who were prepared to say, ‘We can work better as one.’ ”
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/656855
01-17-2010 09:00 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
January 16, 2010
By Jeff Outhit, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — Politicians expressed delight and dismay after a leading antimerger expert said it may make sense to merge Kitchener and Waterloo.
Political scientist Andrew Sancton sees a “certain logic” to a voluntary local merger. “I don’t quite understand what has kept Kitchener and Waterloo apart for so long,” said Sancton, a University of Western Ontario professor.
Sancton has long criticized forced municipal mergers as costly failures, and he’s uncertain whether a local merger will succeed. But he struggles to understand why anybody would oppose a proposed October referendum, asking the public to endorse merger talks.
The referendum has been endorsed by Kitchener council and is under review by Waterloo council. Here’s how key players reacted:
• Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr, who favours a merger: “In an ironic way, Mr. Sancton has perhaps helped the discussion, because people will say, ‘Well, maybe it is right, maybe some people are right that this is one of the most logical ones to occur.’ . . . It encourages me.”
• Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran, who favours a referendum: “I think that’s a really positive sign. I think that it shows that people should be willing to revisit issues. I think people should be really encouraged to be open-minded, to really think it through.”
• Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig, who opposes a merger: “I think the interpretation is very clear. Mergers are bad, but if you have to go any particular route, this particular situation would be the least of all the evils. I don’t personally see any logic in it.”
• Entrepreneur Tim Jackson, speaking for business leaders who propose a referendum: “You’ve got people on both sides of the issue saying this is something worth having a conversation about. When someone like that comes out and says, ‘There may be some merit one way or the other,’ it’s definitely time for his conversation to happen.”
• Waterloo Coun. Karen Scian, who opposes a referendum: “He’s talking about a completely hypothetical situation because we’re not allowed to merge as cities, without the province doing it. There’s no concept of voluntary merger involved in these conversations. So what he’s saying really I don’t think applies to our situation.”
• Waterloo Coun. Jan d’Ailly, who’s undecided on a referendum: “I think it’s another piece of information. Certainly, if you have two very, very like cities and they’re on their own, you could certainly see where he comes from. However, I think we have to look at it in terms of the context of Waterloo Region as a whole.”
• Waterloo Coun. Mark Whaley, who favours a referendum: “He says himself, first of all, this is a time for the citizens to be asked. This is one of the few cases where the citizens are actually being asked. And I think that’s really positive. And might lead to a conclusion that has buy-in by the residents going in.”
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/657482
01-20-2010 11:13 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff
Jan 20, 2010
No matter what the city decides next week when weighing whether or not to hold a referendum on amalgamation, the debate is already raging in the community.
No one’s more aware of that than Coun. Karen Scian, who has been polling her constituents for their views on joining with Kitchener.
Kitchener already plans to ask the province to put a question on the ballot in the spring and Waterloo council will decide Monday whether to endorse that process.
The results of Scian’s poll have been mixed to say the least. She sent out an e-mail to 150 people asking for their views, and figures she’s heard every opinion in the spectrum.
“It’s given me a lot to think about,” Scian said. “It’s illuminating how divergent opinions are on this.”
Scian has been posting responses on her blog at kscian.wordpress.com .
They range from the adamant — “My answer is emphatically — YES!” to “NO for me,” to anywhere in between.
Some highlights:
• “I am not opposed to having the question asked. I think Waterloo will vote overwhelmingly no and then we can put this to rest.”
• “I do not believe in the near future that Waterlooians will say Yes to amalgamation while Kitchener will always want amalgamation.”
• “I have been following this and am of the opinion it needs to be studied.”
• “I am wondering who the ‘Community leaders’ are? I know the business people behind the idea are only interested in business ventures getting more of a profile instead of the well-being of Waterloo. What is in it for Waterloo?”
• “All else being equal (e. g. I don’t feel I know what pros and cons would a merger bring), I feel normally bigger is better in terms of capacity to deliver services and efficiency to do it. For this overall reason, I feel looking more into a merger is a good idea and to not consider it further would be crazy.”
For the rest, see Scian’s blog.
Scian has received just under 40 responses
and she’s hoping to get more before Monday’s decision.
But the responses so far have already cleared up one of Scian’s concern, which was the lack of an organized opposition.
The amalgamation debate was brought back into the forefront by a group of businesspeople fronted by high-tech leader Tim Jackson.
Scian expressed concern that special interest groups would dominate any debate.
But the emergence of the website onewaterloo.ca has proven there will be at least two sides if an amalgamation question is asked.
The site was launched Sunday as an alternative, grassroots voice for the issue. It is clearly opposed to amalgamation and beseeches visitors to “Keep Waterloo Independent.”
The people behind the site declined an interview with the Chronicle.
But for Scian, their presence is reassuring.
“I’m starting to see the benefit of putting a question on the ballot,” she said.
Councillors will debate asking the amalgamation question during Monday’s council meeting, 6:30 p. m. in council chambers. To register as a delegation, contact the city clerk’s office.
http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/200201
01-20-2010 11:16 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
We need a big loud voice from the pro-amalgamation people at council.
01-21-2010 06:32 AM
Ktown4ever
Junior Member
Date Jan 2010 Posts 20
01-21-2010 08:35 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Originally Posted by Ktown4ever It's just a group of business people not really an official group.
01-21-2010 09:52 AM
kwliving
Senior Member
Date Dec 2009 Location Westmount/Belmont Villiage Posts 120
http://onewaterloo.ca/
I find it humorous that there are no names on the "about" page and they use a gmail address. Way to step up a notch with integrity.
01-22-2010 12:38 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
01-22-2010 12:42 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
January 22, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
WATERLOO — The vote will be too close to call at Monday’s meeting of Waterloo city council on the question of holding a referendum on merger talks between the Twin Cities.
That’s the word from Coun. Mark Whaley, who expects a long list of residents opposed to a referendum to make presentations at Monday’s meeting.
“It may be defeated. What we are going to have is a passionate group on Monday night come and let us know what’s on their minds,” Whaley said.
“My understanding is that a lot people who are making a presentation will recommend that we don’t put this on the ballot,” Whaley said.
A group of more than 60 business leaders wants both Kitchener and Waterloo to seek permission from the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs to hold a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections. The proposed question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?”
Kitchener city council has already voted in favour of the move. Waterloo city council asked for a report from staff.
That report, which was delivered to Waterloo city councillors yesterday, says a referendum would cost very little, perhaps less than $5,000, would not be binding on anyone, that only the provincial government can place the question on the ballot because municipal restructuring is its jurisdiction and that a question from the Minister of Municipal Affairs must be given to the city clerk by June 1.
Whaley, who has supported the call for a referendum, said he will listen carefully to the delegations at Monday’s meeting.
“I know where I stand today,” Whaley said. “I could be convinced otherwise by the presentation Monday night, I am not going into it close-minded.”
Whaley added: “Why can’t we have the entire community have their say on the issue by putting the question on the ballot?”
Coun. Diane Freeman said she is listening to what her constituents have to say about the issue.
“I would say I received about three emails saying: ‘Please give some consideration to putting the question out so people can answer.’ And I have probably received in excess of one hundred emails asking me not to do that,” Freeman said.
Tim Jackson, of Tech Capital Partners, is among the business people calling for the referendum.
Jackson said the staff report prepared for Waterloo city council essentially confirms what the group believes.
“That ultimately, at the end of the day, the minister is the one making the decision and the cost to the city to do this is nominal,” Jackson said.
“My sense is some of the councillors are still trying to get information and as recently as today spent time with some of them,” Jackson said.
“Some are solidly on board, some are still trying to make up their mind, and I think that in some cases we are making the argument that letting the people have a say is a way to get a final answer on this,” Jackson said.
“I am still optimistic that come Monday night council will ultimately let the citizens actually have a say as to whether they want this to move ahead or not,” Jackson said.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/660568
01-22-2010 12:45 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
01-22-2010 09:26 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
01-22-2010 11:03 PM
Duke-of-Waterloo
Senior Moderator
Date Jan 2010 Location Waterloo, ON Posts 599
01-26-2010 02:14 PM
UrbanWaterloo
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener-Waterloo Posts 2,672
Fluoridation Forum #2 | Thursday October 7, 2010 7:00PM - 8:30PM @ Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex
By Brent Davis, Record staff - January 25, 2010
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/662204
WATERLOO — The prospect of merging the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo may have died Monday night with Waterloo council’s decision not to ask for a referendum on the issue.
After hearing from several delegations — most of whom spoke against the idea — and speaking passionately about the issue themselves, councillors ultimately defeated the motion in a recorded vote.
A group of more than 60 local business and community leaders asked Waterloo and Kitchener to seek permission from the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs to hold a referendum in this fall’s municipal elections.
The question the group proposed is: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?”
Kitchener council has already voted in favour of the move.
Two weeks ago, Waterloo asked for more time to consider the issue. Last night, Mayor Brenda Halloran and councillors Mark Whaley and Ian McLean voted for the motion. Voting against were councillors Scott Witmer, Jan d’Ailly, Karen Scian, Angela Vieth, and Diane Freeman.
Freeman said the issue had been considered and rejected several times in the past, and only served to divide the community.
“We say things about each other that are hurtful and that are destructive,” she said.
Halloran, on the other hand, said it was necessary for the citizens of Waterloo to have their say.
“How do we move forward if we don’t allow people to have a voice?” she asked.
Prior to the vote, council heard from several members of the public.
“There is no groundswell of support from either the citizens of Kitchener or Waterloo,” argued Stan Rektor.
Several people voiced their concerns about differences between the two cities, especially when it comes to conflicting approaches to environmental preservation and urban development.
Rosemary Smith, executive director of the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation, and a member of the group advocating for merger talks, had urged council to pass the motion.
“I believe it is a discussion we must enter into in earnest,” she said. “Help us set the stage for an important conversation about our future.”
After the vote, Smith expressed her disappointment with the results, but said there was still work to be done.
“The citizens of Waterloo have not yet spoken, and until they do, I think it’s still alive.”
01-26-2010 02:56 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
I hope Rosemary Smith is right that it's not dead, but I fear she's wrong.
01-26-2010 04:46 PM
kwliving
Senior Member
Date Dec 2009 Location Westmount/Belmont Villiage Posts 120
Stodgy curmudgeons ftw.
01-26-2010 05:04 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Originally Posted by kwliving The frustrating thing to me was watching the news last night it was a train of 70 year old, or older citizens who were opposed. Guess what people? By the time any kind of meaningful amalgamation would get passed the drawing board, you'll be to old for it to affect your life.
Stodgy curmudgeons ftw.
Stodgy curmudgeons ftw.
01-27-2010 02:51 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Group will continue to push for KW municipal merger talks
January 27, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — The group calling for a referendum on merger talks between Kitchener and Waterloo has no intention of giving up.
The latest push for municipal merger talks was staggered by Waterloo city council’s vote on Monday against holding a referendum on the issue in this fall’s municipal elections.
“More than anything we were disappointed with the outcome,” said Iain Klugman, a spokesperson for more than 60 businesses and community leaders who signed an open letter to the city councils in Kitchener and Waterloo calling for a referendum on merger talks.
A few weeks earlier, Kitchener city council had voted in favour of asking the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to hold a plebiscite. The province must put the question on the ballot because municipal restructuring is the sole preserve of Queen’s Park.
“This was such a tremendous opportunity for the citizens of Kitchener and Waterloo to have the opportunity to have their say on whether they wanted to dialogue on this issue, whether this issue is important,” Klugman said Tuesday.
The coalition of business and community leaders intends to regroup and develop a new strategy that keeps the issue alive.
When asked if the group would organize a public education campaign or perhaps run pro-amalgamation candidates in this fall’s municipal elections, Klugman would only say, “All options are on the table.”
“That’s what we are in the process of discussing — where do we go from here?” he said.
Since the letter by the pro-talks group was made public earlier this month, Klugman said the group has received widespread encouragement from people in both cities.
“More than ever people want to have a say,” Klugman said.
After Waterloo city council nixed the idea of a referendum, the group received dozens of emails and calls of support expressing disappointment and frustration, Klugman said.
“We absolutely have to continue on,” Klugman said. “We are considering all the options right now. We are going to have to a plan put together very shortly.”
Their proposed question for the referendum was: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
Several delegations appeared at Waterloo city council on Monday speaking against a referendum on merger talks. Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said Waterloo council allowed itself to be persuaded by a handful of anti-referendum delegations that pale in comparison to the more than 60 community and business leaders in favour of merger talks.
And, some of the comments irked Zehr.
“I was stunned by the result,” Zehr said. “I was very disappointed and shocked by some of the negative attacks that were made on individuals and Kitchener specifically.”
The proposed referendum only asked about holding merger talks, not about whether the cities should be amalgamated — a key point that was lost in the debate, Zehr said.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/662942
January 27, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — The group calling for a referendum on merger talks between Kitchener and Waterloo has no intention of giving up.
The latest push for municipal merger talks was staggered by Waterloo city council’s vote on Monday against holding a referendum on the issue in this fall’s municipal elections.
“More than anything we were disappointed with the outcome,” said Iain Klugman, a spokesperson for more than 60 businesses and community leaders who signed an open letter to the city councils in Kitchener and Waterloo calling for a referendum on merger talks.
A few weeks earlier, Kitchener city council had voted in favour of asking the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to hold a plebiscite. The province must put the question on the ballot because municipal restructuring is the sole preserve of Queen’s Park.
“This was such a tremendous opportunity for the citizens of Kitchener and Waterloo to have the opportunity to have their say on whether they wanted to dialogue on this issue, whether this issue is important,” Klugman said Tuesday.
The coalition of business and community leaders intends to regroup and develop a new strategy that keeps the issue alive.
When asked if the group would organize a public education campaign or perhaps run pro-amalgamation candidates in this fall’s municipal elections, Klugman would only say, “All options are on the table.”
“That’s what we are in the process of discussing — where do we go from here?” he said.
Since the letter by the pro-talks group was made public earlier this month, Klugman said the group has received widespread encouragement from people in both cities.
“More than ever people want to have a say,” Klugman said.
After Waterloo city council nixed the idea of a referendum, the group received dozens of emails and calls of support expressing disappointment and frustration, Klugman said.
“We absolutely have to continue on,” Klugman said. “We are considering all the options right now. We are going to have to a plan put together very shortly.”
Their proposed question for the referendum was: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.”
Several delegations appeared at Waterloo city council on Monday speaking against a referendum on merger talks. Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said Waterloo council allowed itself to be persuaded by a handful of anti-referendum delegations that pale in comparison to the more than 60 community and business leaders in favour of merger talks.
And, some of the comments irked Zehr.
“I was stunned by the result,” Zehr said. “I was very disappointed and shocked by some of the negative attacks that were made on individuals and Kitchener specifically.”
The proposed referendum only asked about holding merger talks, not about whether the cities should be amalgamated — a key point that was lost in the debate, Zehr said.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/662942
01-27-2010 02:55 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Yesterday City of Waterloo Council voted against moving forward on the referendum. There were about 16 delegations who spoke to many aspects of the issue.
In voting no, I made an alternative recommendation to establish a task force which will address the issues raised and start the dialogue that is needed.
A summary of my comments at Council are below. Please feel to contact me if you would like to discuss further.
When any 50 residents come and make a proposal to Council, it is Council’s job to evaluate the merits of the request, have an opportunity to have a discussion on the topic, and not to jump to conclusions. For the Record to suggest that this Council is not being responsible because it did make decision on a merger referendum question the same day the formal request was made for a merger proposal that is just 2 weeks old, shows just how divisive this debate can be.
There are many people who oppose a merger, and see discussion of the merits of a merger as the thin edge of the wedge to start down that path to somewhere they do not want to go.
Equally, there are many who support a merger and see a discussion on the merits of a merger as the thin edge of the wedge to start down that path they want to go.
Collectively, we have to step back, take a collective deep breath, listen to each other, and figure out a way to move forward to deal with these issues in a constructive manner.
This is what I have heard tonight and over the past few weeks and years
The business community feels that we can be greater than we already are. There are issues with branding and other things that don’t work well.
There are challenges with getting funding for the arts and sorting out funding priorities between the different municipalities.
A process for discussion is needed that leads to a conclusion
Participation in the Citizens for Better Government process overall was quite low.
There are many differences between Kitchener and Waterloo, and many shared services
What we need to do is undertake a process to have the discussion without any preconceived outcome. We need a process that is seen to be open and transparent, and without preconceived outcomes, and where everyone can feel free to discuss the issues without agendas. It is unrealistic to have that happen discussing the merits of a merger.
Therefore, instead of a referendum, I recommend that we set up a (region wide) task force with a mandate to:
1) Identify the pros and cons of the current governance model
2) What are the problem area
3) What are the choices and options
I undertook that I would put together a more formal description of the task force I the next couple of weeks and present it to Council. I am committed to ensure that this process will get to a conclusion.
With the process, we will be able to have a discussion about what the issues are, so that everyone can understand what the issues are, and balance them off against what works and what does not work. This can be a true community dialogue where understanding can develop, and solutions found.
It is on this basis that I did not support the motion presented.
I would me more than happy to discuss this process with you, and any further ideas on moving forward.
Jan
In voting no, I made an alternative recommendation to establish a task force which will address the issues raised and start the dialogue that is needed.
A summary of my comments at Council are below. Please feel to contact me if you would like to discuss further.
When any 50 residents come and make a proposal to Council, it is Council’s job to evaluate the merits of the request, have an opportunity to have a discussion on the topic, and not to jump to conclusions. For the Record to suggest that this Council is not being responsible because it did make decision on a merger referendum question the same day the formal request was made for a merger proposal that is just 2 weeks old, shows just how divisive this debate can be.
There are many people who oppose a merger, and see discussion of the merits of a merger as the thin edge of the wedge to start down that path to somewhere they do not want to go.
Equally, there are many who support a merger and see a discussion on the merits of a merger as the thin edge of the wedge to start down that path they want to go.
Collectively, we have to step back, take a collective deep breath, listen to each other, and figure out a way to move forward to deal with these issues in a constructive manner.
This is what I have heard tonight and over the past few weeks and years
The business community feels that we can be greater than we already are. There are issues with branding and other things that don’t work well.
There are challenges with getting funding for the arts and sorting out funding priorities between the different municipalities.
A process for discussion is needed that leads to a conclusion
Participation in the Citizens for Better Government process overall was quite low.
There are many differences between Kitchener and Waterloo, and many shared services
What we need to do is undertake a process to have the discussion without any preconceived outcome. We need a process that is seen to be open and transparent, and without preconceived outcomes, and where everyone can feel free to discuss the issues without agendas. It is unrealistic to have that happen discussing the merits of a merger.
Therefore, instead of a referendum, I recommend that we set up a (region wide) task force with a mandate to:
1) Identify the pros and cons of the current governance model
2) What are the problem area
3) What are the choices and options
I undertook that I would put together a more formal description of the task force I the next couple of weeks and present it to Council. I am committed to ensure that this process will get to a conclusion.
With the process, we will be able to have a discussion about what the issues are, so that everyone can understand what the issues are, and balance them off against what works and what does not work. This can be a true community dialogue where understanding can develop, and solutions found.
It is on this basis that I did not support the motion presented.
I would me more than happy to discuss this process with you, and any further ideas on moving forward.
Jan
01-27-2010 04:29 PM
mpd618
Senior Member
Date Jan 2010 Location Waterloo, ON Posts 573
Originally Posted by Spokes 01-27-2010 04:43 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
Originally Posted by mpd618 That's something I was never clear on. So if the minister decided we'd hold a referendum, the topic of engaging in talks is 100% off limits for politicians to talk about?
01-27-2010 04:49 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
01-27-2010 04:50 PM
mpd618
Senior Member
Date Jan 2010 Location Waterloo, ON Posts 573
Originally Posted by Spokes 01-30-2010 08:52 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff
Jan 27, 2010
The amalgamation debate is dead again.
In a 5-3 vote on Monday, councillors rejected a request from a group headed by local high tech leaders to put the question of merging Kitchener and Waterloo on the ballot in the next municipal election.
The group wanted the city to ask the provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to put a question on the ballot that read, “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No.” Kitchener council had already supported the motion.
It was a difficult and emotional decision for Waterloo councillors, who have struggled with the question ever since it came up two weeks ago. That wasn’t more apparent than when Coun. Scott Witmer seemingly changed his mind in the middle of a comment.
“I’ve had sleepless nights about this,” he said. “I know where I stand. I know where people in this room stand. But I don’t know where the rest of the people stand.
“When I started this comment two minutes ago I still didn’t where I stood. But this question is misleading . . . I can’t support it.”
Witmer defeated the motion, along with Coun. Angela Vieth, Coun. Karen Scian, Coun. Jan d’Ailly and Coun. Karen Scian.
Scian too had struggled with the question, but believed that the special interest group pushing the question was looking to make things easier for themselves. Her decision was cemented when Joseph Fung, a delegation to council, said even if the debate died now, it would be back — even if people voted no in October.
“Why would it come back?” Scian asked.
“Well if I asked you if you wanted an iPhone now, you might say no. But you don’t know what you’ll say in the future,” Fung said.
“I think my city is more important than an iPhone,” said a clearly irritated Scian.
Councillors on both sides of the issue spoke passionately about it. But the debate can be harmful, Freeman said. “Whenever amalgamation is discussed, a division cuts the community,” she said. “We say things about each other that are hurtful and destructive.”
Others believed a referendum was not the way to go.
Coun. Jan d’Ailly believes there is merit in exploring joint servicing or improved services. In the coming weeks, he’ll propose a task force made up from representatives from both Kitchener and Waterloo to explore the issues surrounding amalgamation.
“There will be no presupposed conclusion, just a discussion,” d’Ailly said.
But Coun. Ian McLean believes that discussion must go to the public.
“Our community is strong and mature enough to engage in discussions about our future,” he said.
Mayor Brenda Halloran also wanted to see the issue go to a vote.
“I’m not afraid of that question,” she said. “We need to hear from the citizens here who pay the bills. “I am strongly convinced the right thing for myself as mayor is to let this community have a say in its future.”
The motion fell, however, and the amalgamation debate will likely recede.
Iain Klugman, the president of Communitech and a member of the pro-amalgamation group, wouldn’t say what’s next.
“I think the citizens of Waterloo have missed out on an opportunity to have their voices heard,” he said.
http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/200883
Public come out to have their say on amalgamation
Jan 27, 2010
The people of Waterloo – and a few from Kitchener — came out to have their voices heard on the amalgamation issue Monday night.
There was a range of views, but the majority were against a referendum.
“The system is set up for you to tackle the big questions, not punt them back to us if they’re too tough,” said Waterloo resident Jeff Henry.
He believes a discussion needs to take place, but among politicians, not at the polling booths.
Others wished calls for amalgamation would just go ahead and die already.
“Kitchener is a brain tumor. It’s benign. But if we get it into the provincial government’s head (to amalgamate), it would be malignant,” said John Dietrich, president of the Waterloo Professional Fire Fighters Association. “This is not a merger, it’s a takeover.”
Others still contended that the amalgamation discussion will never die.
“Conversations over the last few weeks and I think the last several years have shown that this is a conversation that has been ongoing both above the radar and under the radar,” said Rosemary Smith, executive director of the Kitchener-Waterloo Community Foundation.
In the end, most councillors sided with people like longtime Waterloo resident Stan Rektor.
“Waterloo is already on the map. Let’s keep it there,” he said. “We’re proud of it.
“There’s no groundswell of support from the City of Kitchener or Waterloo.”
But even Rektor, a staunch opponent of amalgamation, couldn’t deny that the issue will likely return.
“There’s always a fringe element that thinks bigger is better,” he said.
http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/200897
01-30-2010 08:55 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
January 29, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff
WATERLOO — Coun. Jan d’Ailly wants the next city council to “start a community dialogue” about how the city is governed.
Up for consideration: The pros and cons of the current system; issues, problems and opportunities; and alternative solutions to the problems.
d’Ailly voted with the majority of council members who, last Monday, rejected a proposal to hold a referendum on whether Kitchener and Waterloo should talk about a merger. The referendum would have been asked on the municipal ballot this fall.
d’Ailly said that while he doesn’t support a referendum at this time, “I am more than willing to have a discussion on issues dealing with our governance.”
The dialogue needs to be open, transparent and unbiased, he said.
“Rather than start a discussion with a pre-conceived outcome, we should enter the discussion with: ‘What are the issues we are trying to solve?’”
“If you want to have a discussion on these type of issues let’s start at first base and understand what the issues are, what the alternatives are and then move forward,” d’Ailly said.
A group of more than 60 leaders from the business and arts sectors tried recently to get the city councils in Kitchener and Waterloo to hold a referendum.
The proposed question: “Would you support members of council engaging in a dialogue about the merits of merging Kitchener and Waterloo? Yes or No?” The provincial government must authorize any referendum questions related to municipal restructuring.
Councillors in Kitchener voted in favour of seeking permission for the referendum. Councillors in Waterloo rejected the idea.
“A referendum is a very blunt tool, I mean it’s either ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ on the proposal,” d’Ailly said. “First of all there is no proposal on the table right now.”
The group calling for a referendum said it only wanted to the residents of Kitchener and Waterloo have a say on whether they wanted to see merger talks held. The group said it was premature to discuss the pros and cons of a merger until a referendum was approved on whether to hold the talks.
d’Ailly believes that was the wrong approach.
“The only way you are going to get true community buy-in to have a discussion is if you do it in an unbiased manner without a preconceived outcome,” d’Ailly said.
“That’s the discussion this community has to have if it wants to tackle these issues.”
While his notice of motion calls on the next city council to start this community dialogue, d’Ailly said it’s all right if a majority of the current council wants to get started sooner.
“We are there today and if this council wants to start on these activities today I don’t have an issue with that and I never have.”
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/664619
01-30-2010 04:46 PM
Spokes
Urban Issues Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 651
Originally Posted by mpd618 01-08-2010 09:40 AM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,497
September 22, 2008 | Record Staff Web Edition
CAMBRIDGE -- Proposals to remake local government will be unveiled today at the Cambridge Holiday Inn at 4 p.m.
Nobody is giving any hints about what the report will say, said Jim Erb, spokesperson for the volunteer citizens for better government.
“It will be black print on white paper,” he said.
Citizens for better government started work in March 2005, with the mindset that a single government would be more efficient and work better than the eight local councils now running Waterloo Region.
The group held public meetings and spoke at public gatherings in an effort to engage the public in the process. It promised to release a final report reflecting public opinion
The push to erase local municipal boundaries also prompted Cambridge city council -- a steadfast opponent of amalgamation -- to form its own citizens committee. The Cambridge committee recommended tinkering with the existing system, with a long range plan to dismantle regional council and give all taxing and spending powers to cities and townships.
Early on, the citizens for better government group said it intended to lobby Queen’s Park for reform of regional government before the 2010 local elections, so changes could be in place then.
Erb refused to say what will be done with his group’s final report.
“That’s what’s going to be released tomorrow (Tuesday),” he said.
All local and provincial politicians have been invited to the meeting. Erb doesn’t know how many will attend.
The meeting is open to the public, Questions will be allowed from the audience, Erb said.
http://news.therecord.com/News/article/418817
Waterloo Region should become one city, report says
It also recommended that regional councillors sit on local councils.
September 23, 2008
By Jeff Outhit, Record staff
Web edition
WATERLOO REGION — Waterloo Region should be turned into a single city, by merging eight municipal governments and slashing politicians by half.
So says Citizens for Better Government, a group that’s been campaigning for municipal reform since 2005.
It’s not new advice. Calls to create a single city in this region go back to 1995. Politicians have always rejected them, with strong opposition from Cambridge.
The difference this time is that it is a citizen-led group making the call, rather than a panel of politicians or appointed experts.
Tuesday afternoon, at a gathering in Cambridge, the group released a 52-page final report titled Finding a Better Way.
Citizens for Better Government, which includes some businesspeople, contends the current government system impedes progress for 516,000 residents.
The group’s report criticizes the system as confusing to the public, costly for taxpayers and hard for citizens to influence.
Residents are governed by three city councils, four township councils, and a regional government. The region provides 70 per cent of services but “remains largely invisible.” This system was established in 1973.
Finding a Better Way argues that a single city would:
• Reduce public confusion about who does what and increase political accountability.
• Reduce government costs by $10 million a year through reduced duplication and staffing.
• Provide public services more consistently and efficiently.
• More strongly influence provincial and federal governments.
Transition costs to a single city are estimated at $28 million.
“A single city model,” the report says, “would have one overall vision, provide efficient and consistent delivery of universally-needed services, have little or no administrative duplication and overlap, reduce costs and ensure clarity of responsibility.”
Citizens for Better Government says it has more than 200 members. It is led by a steering committee of 22 who signed the report. They are from all municipalities in the region and include business people and former municipal councillors.
The group’s report calls for:
• 26 ward councillors plus a mayor, down from 51 municipal politicians today.
• Wards that would span current borders in some places. Rural wards that would be overrepresented compared with urban wards, similar to regional council today.
• Community councils that would be appointed in former municipalities, to advise city council on local issues such as traffic, street naming, business licences, neighbourhood planning and recreation.
If municipal and provincial politicians balk at a single city, the group suggests two other reforms:
• Keeping Waterloo regional government. Merging Kitchener, Waterloo and Woolwich to create a city of 400,000. Wellesley, Wilmot, North Dumfries and Cambridge would remain as today.
• Eliminating regional government and creating two cities: Cambridge, and everybody else. North Dumfries could join either city.
The report asks municipal and provincial politicians to consider and respond to the recommendations and “hopefully act.”
It does not propose a timeline or a process for this. The next municipal election is in 2010.
http://news.therecord.com/News/article/419294
Yesterday 06:43 PM
Spokes
Senior Moderator
Date Dec 2009 Location Kitchener Posts 3,746 Urban Reward Points 136
Originally Posted by smably