10.4. SR 06-03-2019 EGty1� ,.,�� Request for Action
River
To Item Number
Mayor and City Council 10.4
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Work Session June 3, 2019 Cal Portner, City Administrator
Item Description Reviewed by
User Experience/Community Engagement Tina Allard, City Clerk
Reviewed by
Zack Carlton,Planning Manager
Action Requested
Discussion and direction.
Background/Discussion
Mayor Dietz asked for discussion on a recent League of Minnesota Cities article regarding obstacles to
participation.
The article is a good segue to planned discussion items regarding public hearing notices, meeting live
streaming and community engagement.
With full staffing in communications, the senior communications coordinator is beginning to turn her
focus to engagement strategies. One program staff is looking to implement this year in conjunction with
the Night to Unite program is the Elk River Resident Advisory (ERA).
Financial Impact
There may be costs associated with changes in certain programs.
Attachments
■ League of MN Cities Magazine Article: Is Your City Creating Obstacles to Participation?
■ The Fourth Wall Transforming City Hall Toronto
■ Public Hearing Notice Information
The Elk River Vision
A wehoMing community withrevolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional POWERED By
service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity INAMIRE1
FEATURE
8 | MAY/JUN 2019 | MINNESOTA CITIES
Four gallons of semi-gloss paint. Fif-
teen brushes. Twelve hours. That’s
all it took for me, my neighbors,
and our kids to create a 500-square-foot
mural on Springmount Avenue, a twist-
ing midtown Toronto street lined with
century-old homes and large trees whose
branches reach out from both sides of
the road, touching in the middle. Unlike
traditional murals painted on walls or
under bridges, the Springmount mural
was painted flat on the road, stretching
gloriously from curb to curb.
Designed by a local artist and care-
fully outlined by steady-handed adults,
our horizontal masterpiece was mostly
painted by dozens of pint-sized Picassos
of all ages. It was colorful and gorgeous.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, our
art project was also a violation of our
local bylaws, which didn’t allow road
murals—even though programs in other
cities had successfully encouraged resi-
dents to realize the artistic potential of
their pavement.
Councilmember
takes notice
But our artistic endeavor
did put pressure on the city
to do away with the unnec-
essarily restrictive bylaws,
and to legalize and regulate
community-driven road murals. Our
project quickly attracted media atten-
tion, and full color photos appeared in
multiple newspapers. I was even invited
to speak on radio shows. The icing on
the cake, though, was when our local city
councilmember agreed to put forward a
motion asking City Hall staff to create a
proper permit process. Our painting was
transforming policy!
I encouraged my neighbors to send
letters of support to the City Council,
and I invited Melissa Frew, the local artist
who designed our mural, to come to City
Hall and speak at an important commit-
tee meeting where the Council would be
voting on our proposal.
As a familiar face at City Hall, I’m
too easily dismissed as an “activist,” so I
felt that Melissa’s voice would show we
had support in the community. She’d
never been to a meeting at City Hall and
said she was nervous, but she hesitantly
agreed to attend. This was participatory
democracy in action!
Discouraged by
a closed door
At the meeting the following
week, Melissa didn’t show up.
I sent her a text message to
find out where she was, and
she wrote back immediately to
explain that she’d arrived at City Hall but
had trouble finding the committee room
the meeting was being held in. And when
she did find the right door, it was closed.
Councilors, City Hall staff, lobbyists,
political insiders, and activists (like me)
know that the committee room doors are
always closed, and that everyone is wel-
come to open them and walk in. But to
someone attending a committee meeting
for the first time, a closed door sends a
strong message: Keep out.
So, when Melissa encountered that
closed door, she wasn’t sure if she was
allowed in. She did crack the door open
slightly to listen, but when she couldn’t
determine if she’d missed the item or not,
she decided to go home. “I didn’t feel
that I could walk in,” she later told me. “I
thought I would be interrupting.”
Here’s a challenge for you: Go to any
indoor shopping mall and find a store
with its doors closed. You can search
for the rest of your life, but you’ll never
find one. Retail managers know that the
smallest details can encourage shoppers
to come in or walk past.
The mechanics
of exclusion
Our democratic institu-
tions, too, can feel inviting,
alienating, or even invisible,
depending on how they’re
designed. When we talk about
democratic reform, we tend to focus
on the biggest and most obvious design
flaws, such as our voting system or the
influence of “big money.” But during my
20 years as a community organizer, I’ve
seen how small, overlooked flaws can
collectively serve as a significant obstacle
to participation.
Just as a city’s billion-dollar sewer
system can get blocked by wet wipes and
dental floss, a democracy can be clogged
when the smallest details coalesce into
layers of obstruction. If something as
IS YOUR CITY
CREATINGObstacles to Participation?
BY DAVE MESLIN
MINNESOTA CITIES | MAY/JUN 2019 | 9
both physical and metaphorical. Once
these doors are open, I believe we can
create a participatory democracy unlike
anything we’ve ever seen before. MC
Dave Meslin is a Toronto-based community organizer and
author of the book, Teardown: Rebuilding Democracy from
the Ground Up (www.teardown.build).
Wise words. Sadly, that report was
written in 1972—before I was born. It’s
almost as if someone has come up with
a list of all the things that would make
it more comfortable and convenient for
citizens to engage politically, and then
implemented the opposite.
For example, our governments hold
their most important public meetings
during regular work hours, presenting
an enormous obstacle to those who
want to speak at a meeting or witness a
crucial vote but can’t take time off work
or school. (Timing is everything. That’s
why “Dancing With the Stars” doesn’t air
at noon, and restaurants don’t send their
staff home at 5 p.m.)
Very few city halls offer free snacks
during meetings, and some even ban all
food entirely from their chambers. Even
fewer municipalities offer childcare for
public meetings, even though IKEA has
been doing it since 1958.
All these barriers or inconveniences
create an imbalance at city hall, because
lobbyists and special interests will always
find their way through the legislative
labyrinth. But ordinary people will not.
Think about the
user experience
Almost every topic I’ve dis-
cussed here can be summed
up with two words: user
experience. In the world of
technology, user experience
(or UX, for short) is about maximizing
the simplicity and comfort of a device
or application—especially for first-time
users. But UX doesn’t apply only to lap-
tops or smartphones.
Anything can be designed with
UX in mind: a store, a car, or even a
pen. All the commercial products and
places we interact with daily tend to
have incredible UX design. Companies
invest effort, attention, and money
into making you feel as comfortable
as possible. Governments do not. In
fact, they seem committed to creating
uncomfortable environments.
A healthy democracy must be acces-
sible, comfortable, understandable, and
convenient. Every aspect of the system
needs to be dissected and assessed based
on how it impacts these four necessities.
If we want to create a culture that
invites people in rather than pushing them
away, the first step is to open the doors—
simple as a single closed door can deter
a grown adult from participating, try to
imagine the cumulative impact of these
layers and how they reinforce the idea of
politics as an insider’s game. These are
the often-overlooked mechanics of exclu-
sion, and this is what makes our system
rigged against ordinary people.
The way that governments design pub-
lic notices to communicate with citizens
offers us a perfect example of what I’m
talking about. When I presented a TEDx
Talk back in 2010, I showed the audience
what a public notice looks like in Toronto
(dull, monotone, no images, tiny font,
etc.), and then I showed how ridiculous a
Nike ad would look if the company used
the same approach.
The ensuing laughter was expected. We
all know that companies like Nike pro-
duce fun, sexy, effective advertisements,
while governments have cornered the
market on dull, useless communication.
Nike has effective ads because the
company wants you to buy its products.
But the message we get from bland public
notices is that governments are com-
pletely uninterested in having regular
people involved in community planning.
In other words, these government notices
are rigged. Rigged to keep you unin-
formed and uninvolved.
Another obstacle:
‘Municipal
Gobbledegook’
Of course, good graphic design
is just the beginning. The
effective use of colors, images,
fonts, and layout is great, but
if the words themselves don’t make any
sense, you’ve still got a useless leaflet, web
page, or sign.
A report called “Municipal Gobble-
degook,” written by the Toronto Bureau
of Municipal Research, explains the
problem: “Public notices, rather than
clearly informing people of decisions
that are pending, may only confuse or
perhaps frustrate or even antagonize
them. It is too easy to view the notices
as mere legal formalities. But they are
much more. These notices not only
convey specific information to particu-
lar individuals, but also are an import-
ant mechanism through which citizen
participation may be encouraged and
informed or discouraged and possibly
nipped in the bud.”
Learn more at
the League’s
2019 Annual
Conference
Dave Meslin will be a key-
note speaker at the League of
Minnesota Cities 2019 Annual
Conference, June 26-28, in
Duluth. During his general
session, “Empowering Com-
munity Through Bottom-up
Collaboration,” he will talk more
about the common barriers
that prevent engagement, and
share ideas for building stronger
social bonds at the community
level. Using anecdotes, humor,
and best practices, Meslin will
demonstrate that we all have
something to contribute and
that the most vibrant cities are
the ones that have learned how
to tap into the collective creativ-
ity, passion, and knowledge of
community.
Learn more and register:
www.lmc.org/ac19mncities PHOTO COURTESY OF DAVE MESLIN
TheFourThWall
The FourTh Wall
transforming
city hall
curator: Dave Meslin
research: Hilary best
Design: aDaM ZinZan-Harris
thank you to:
WindoWs and opporTuniTies
have you ever noticed that all the windows on our city hall towers face
inward? nine hundred and sixty windows looking at each other and zero
facing outwards. this can serve as a metaphor for the state of public
engagement in toronto. many citizens feel that their voices aren’t heard
at city hall and many don’t even know when, where or how to interact
with the democratic process. casting a ballot once every four years is
just the beginning. in between elections, citizens can play a major role in
shaping our city.
The FourTh Wall
in theatre and film, the ‘fourth wall’ is a term used to describe the imaginary barrier separat-
ing an audience from the stage. When an actor speaks directly to the audience, or an audience
member interacts with the cast, the fourth wall has been ‘broken’.
city hall also has a fourth wall. most residents are simply spectators, passively witnessing lo-
cal politics through headlines and soundbites. how can we break this fourth wall and create
a culture of local citizen engagement? how can we open the doors to meaningful dialogue
and participation, allowing us to collectively build the city we want to live in?
Believe it or not, we aren’t the first ones to raise
this issue. as far back as 1972, the Bureau of
Municipal research published a report called
“Municipal gobbledegook”
February 1972
‘Municipal goBBleDegook’
“Public notices, rather than clearly informing people of decisions that are
pending, may only confuse or perhaps frustrate or even antagonize them. It is
too easy to view the notices as mere legal formalities. But they are much more.
These notices not only convey specific information to particular individuals, but
also are an important mechanism through which citizen participation may be
encouraged and informed or discouraged and possibly nipped in the bud”.
reaching ouT
the city often tries to communicate directly
with citizens, to share information and seek
opinions. could they do a better job?
case stuDy
When a new development is proposed for a
neighbourhood, members of the commu-
nity are invited to provide feedback. This
requires the city to inform the neighborhood
using signage, posters or mailings. But do
these materials really work?
With small type, no colour, lousy graph-
ics (if any), and a lot of bureaucratic gob-
bledegook – it’s no wonder that people feel
uninformed. Imagine if businesses used the
same technique in their advertising:
Fun FacT!
From 2003 to 2010, the city
placed all their public notices
in the toronto star, the highest-
circulation newspaper in the city. in
october 2010, a decision was made
to switch all public notices to the
toronto sun, exclusively, despite
the star’s readership being twice as
high. the decision lasts until 2015.
Notice of Retail Purchase Opportunity
Our regional distribution centre has rece
i
v
e
d
n
o
t
i
c
e
that product #372G (running shoe) will
b
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
for retail purchase at certain locations,
a
s
o
f
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2nd. Product 372G has a mesh and syn
t
h
e
t
i
c
n
y
l
o
n
material shell with a carbon rubber outer
s
o
l
e
.
T
h
i
s
sole has a circular "waffle" tread for tra
c
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
i
n
n
e
r
sole is injected with Phylon material. Th
i
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
s
available in men's, women's and childre
n
'
s
s
h
o
e
s
.
Nike inc. Oct 25 2011
We can Do Better
Residents should expect notices that are engag-
ing, inviting and effective. We asked local design-
ers to re-imagine a better public notice. Here’s
what they came up with:
Proposal:8-storey student centre
Address: 347 Yonge StreetApplicant: Ryerson UniversityBuilding Type: education, mixed-use, re
t
a
i
lBuilding Size: 8-stories (32m, 96ft), 15
5
,
4
6
3
s
q
u
a
r
e
-
f
e
e
t
call
build-ry2@toronto.ca
toronto.ca/build/ry2
Building Toronto. Together.
Public meeting:Oct 27, 20117PM For more info:
Location:35 Gould Street (Ryerson Campus)
A 45-unit townhouse development has
b
e
e
n
proposed at 250 Manning Avenue in the city’s
Little Italy neighbourhood.
What do you think? Let us know!
Join us for a community meeting at
Trinity Recreation Centre (155 Crawford)
on 20 April 2011 at 7:00 pm.
The City of Toronto is the public corpora
t
i
o
n
responsible for guiding urban growth i
n
y
o
u
r
c
i
t
y
.
Use your voice and help the city grow!
416.392.7622
sphipps@toronto.ca
City of Toronto
Public Consultation Unit
Can’t make it? We still want to hear from
y
o
u
!
www.toronto.ca/planning
For more information on the proposed pro
j
e
c
t
,
v
i
s
i
t
:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011
/
t
e
/
b
grd/backgroundfile-37955.pdf
O
E E’LIS Gi,E
We’re listening t
o
T
o
r
o
n
t
o
.
W
e
’
r
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
t
o U
A seven storey b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
o
r
1
2
3
4
B
a
t
h
u
r
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
As city council,
w
e
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
.
T
h
a
t
m
e
a
n
s
y
o
u
.
If
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
a
n
y
i
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
w
e
’
r
e
a
l
l
e
a
r
s
.
PHONE US
EMAIL US
PUBLIC MEE
T
I
N
G
ONLINE INFO
416 123 4567
1234bathurst
@
t
o
r
o
n
t
o
.
c
a
www.toronto.c
a
/
1
2
3
4
b
a
t
h
u
r
s
t
Oct/12/2011
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
,
7
p
m
Development p roposal
416-123-4567
1234Main@toronto.ca
www.toronto.ca/1234Mai
n Public Meeting
Thursday, September 22
Glenn Gould Hall, 6 pm
Welcome to the nei
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
?
Please let us know wha
t
y
o
u
t
h
i
n
k
:
A new 7-story mixed-us
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
t
1234 Davenport Street.
The application amends t
h
e
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
B
y
-
L
a
w
24-68 to permit mixed us
e
s
.
D evCO D evel O pment C O rp
*Caroline SChutrumpf - 2011
➋ chicago Alderman Joe
Moore recently initiated a participa-
tory budgeting project in his district,
making the 49th Ward the first
political jurisdiction in America to
do so. All ward residents over age
sixteen, regardless of citizenship or
voter registration status, are invited
to research, propose and select pro-
jects to be funded with the ward’s
$1.3 million in discretionary funds.
In 2010, more than 1,600 citizens
cast ballots.
spending our Money
cities around the world are finding new ways to engage citizens
directly in their annual budget process.
One of the most important roles of
Toronto’s City Council is to collect
our money – and spend it. From
libraries and daycare to transit and
parks, the budget process shapes the
city around us. Each year, the City
provides an opportunity for public
input but the process often feels
rushed, polarized and simplistic. At
times, the public consultation even
feels like a formality, a secondary
thought that has no influence on
the budget process whatsoever.
Meaningful participation in the
budget process would ensure that
City services match the expectations
of residents in all neighbourhoods.
It would also give residents a deeper
understanding of where their
money goes – knowledge which
would reduce simplistic arguments
about ‘waste’.
There is much to learn from other
cities’ efforts to increase budget
outreach, education and participa-
tion. Some City Councils are even
experimenting with ‘Participatory
Budgets’ where citizens vote directly
on specific budget items. Globally,
more than 1,200 municipalities have
initiated some form of participatory
budgeting in an effort to fully en-
gage residents in monetary decisions
affecting their neighbourhoods.
➊ porto alegre, Brazil
hosted the world’s first full participa-
tory budgeting process in 1989 and
continues to do so annually. Tens
of thousands of citizens participate
each year, the majority of whom are
low income individuals. Through
this process, citizens allocate
roughly $200 million (over 20%) of
the city’s total budget. Municipal budget information painted on a wall in Brazil
chicago’s 49th Ward participatory budget
➌ the city oF calgary
initiated a review of core ser-
vices in 2011, inviting citizens to
weigh in on their priorities for
city services and budget alloca-
tions. During the four month
process more than 250 events
were held and over 24,000 indi-
viduals participated via workshops,
surveys, community conversations
and social media platforms. Calgary
City Council has also adopted a plan
to establish a participatory budget-
ing process by 2016.
➍ toronto coMMunity
housing, the second largest housing
authority in North America, has been
practicing participatory budgeting
since 2001. Each year, tenants decide
how to allocate roughly $9 million in
capital funds.
have you Met toBi?
the toronto open Budget
initiative (toBi) advocates for
the addition of new opportunities
for public input, increased access
to information, increased public
education and the exploration of
long-term changes towards a more
participatory budget process.
The nexT generaTion
“an educational system isn’t worth a great deal if it teaches young
people how to make a living but doesn’t teach them how to make a life.”
Building a culture of civic engage-
ment begins in our schools. If stu-
dents aren’t introduced to the basics
of local democracy, they are less
likely to participate later in life.
➊ city hall school
What can we learn from other cit-
ies? In Calgary’s City Hall School,
students from grades three to nine
spend an entire week in a classroom
at City Hall learning about the
inner-workings of local democracy
and city-building. Guest presenters
include City staff from 15 depart-
ments including Transportation
Infrastructure, Land Use Plan-
ning, Community Services and the
Mayor’s office.
➋ civics in
our high schools
Ontario’s grade ten Civics course
attempts to squeeze municipal, pro-
vincial, federal and global politics
into one semester. And while Civics
is all about changing the present
and future, this half-course is
inexplicably found within the ‘His-
tory’ curriculum, where it’s the only
half-course offered – even American
History gets a full course.
“it’s great that ontario’s cur-
riculum contains a manda-
tory civics unit. But as a half-
course, in a single year, there
is simply too much material
to cover. We’re just scratch-
ing the surface. and as you
might expect, the topic of
local government is often
overshadowed by the provin-
cial and federal content”.
stephen kagansky-young,
executive Director oF the civics
eDucation netWork.
sWeet sixteen
another way to get high school
students interested in politics might
be allowing them to vote! if they
are responsible enough to drive a
car, and mature enough to serve in
the canadian Military reserves –
aren’t they ready to vote?
➌ MaxiMuM city
Maximum City is a pilot project at
University of Toronto Schools giv-
ing high school students hands-on
experience in urban planning, civic
engagement and “the inner-work-
ings of our municipal government.”
“While children and youth
account for one third of city
dwellers, scant formal edu-
cational opportunities exist
for them to learn about and
engage in how we plan, build
and live in cities. students
are ready to get involved in
community and city-building
projects and have fresh and
innovative ideas for improv-
ing our city—we just have to
invite them to the table and
start the conversation.”
Josh Fullan,
Director, MaxiMuM city
Fun FacT!
in 1978, gloria lindsay luby wrote
a paper for the toronto Bureau
of Municipal research called
“teaching local government: a
responsibility of the educational
system”. twenty-two years later,
she was elected to etobicoke city
council and is still a city councillor
today in toronto.
elevaTing The ciTizenry
if our goal is to elevate the role of ‘citizen’ in our local democracy, let’s
start by taking a look at how we culturally rank all of our political players.
During his inaugural speech, Mayor
Rob Ford said: “This council is not
supreme. We were elected by the
people. The people of Toronto are
supreme.” We agree. Politicians
are key players in the process but
citizens collectively are the highest
authority. Why then do we insist on
turning our politicians into celebri-
ties of royal worth, at the expense
of recognizing the value of ordinary
citizens? Here are two examples.
excessive reverence?
In cities across Canada, we refer to
our mayors as his or her “worship”.
Nothing in our official bylaws or
protocol requires the use of this
title, yet it’s frequently used both
inside and outside Toronto City
Hall. Isn’t it time that we brought
the Age of Enlightenment to local
government? The mayor is just a
dude. Not a god.
THE REST OF USCORPORATIONS AND
PHILANTHROPISTS
POLITICIANS
Canon Theatre
Air CanadaCentre
Direct EnergyCentre
CN Tower
Four SeasonsCentre
Panasonic Theatre
Ricoh Hall
Rogers Centre
EnochTurnerSchoolhouse
KoernerHall
RoyThompsonHall
Massey College
MasseyHall
Michael Lee-ChinCrystal
Vari Hall
BarbaraFrumLibrary
HaultainBuilding
Hugh GarnerCoop
Jane MalletTheatre
SanfordFlemingBuilding
Sidney SmithHall
Ted Reeve Arena
Terry Fox PS
Berzcy ParkBuddSugarmanPark
Rita CoxPark
DavidPecautSquare
RogersCommunicationsCentre
ScotiabankTheatre
Sony Centre
RobartsLibrary
AlbertCampbellLibrary
Mowat Block
S WalterStewartLibrary
Albert Campbell CI
ColborneLodge
Donald DSummerville Pool
Ecole Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Gibson House
JesseKetchumPS
Jimmie Simpson Rink
LamportStadium
Leslie FrostLibrary
MackenzieHouse
McMurtryBuilding
AllanGardens
Art EggletonPark
EstherShinerStadium
NathanPhilipsSquare
Albert CampbellSquare
David CrombiePark
MelLastmanSquare
Julius DeutschPark
Loring WylePark
Stanley GrizzlePark
June CallwoodPark
PiccinniPool
June Rowlands
Douglas Ford Park
Pearson InternationalAirport (T1)
honouring
coMMunity leaDers
We can learn a lot about a city by
looking at who its parks, buildings
and squares are named after. The
trend in Toronto is to name land-
marks after politicians, corpora-
tions, celebrities or philanthropists.
But what about average citizens
who take a strong leadership role in
city-building? Where is Jane Jacobs
Square? Brent Hawkes Gardens?
Dudley Lawes Arena? What about
Tooker Gomberg or Wendy Bab-
cock? It seems if you’re not wealthy
or elected, you’re not important.
What a disempow-
ering message – one
that excludes the vast
majority of those who are
making a difference in
our city.
100m
ciTizens uniTe!!
in cities across the world, citizens have found ways to work together to
give themselves a louder voice. residents associations, urban leagues
and voters unions have empowered residents to play a major role in
policy development. toronto has a strong history of resident organising,
including recent examples of successful neighbourhood advocacy. But
there is much room for improvement, innovation and growth.
Bringing
Back the Bureau?
As City Hall becomes increasingly
polarised, Toronto’s residents thirst
for non-partisan voices to provide
positive, balanced, research-based
solutions. Perhaps we can draw in-
spiration from the Toronto Bureau
of Municipal Research? Founded
in 1914, the Bureau produced
dozens of reports on local issues
for seven decades
The Bureau was also was also
very engaged with elections, includ-
ing this creative survey from 1919
trying to understand voter apathy
in the city:
the BMr would have
celebrated its 100th birthday
in 2014. Maybe that would be
a good time to bring it back?
the state oF our
resiDents’ groups
Toronto has dozens of residents’ as-
sociations, some of which are highly
organized while others are inactive.
These groups receive little support
from the City and lack a city-wide
organisation connecting them to
each other and to the larger public.
In fact, there is no comprehensive
list or map of residents’ groups
anywhere in Toronto. To their
credit, City staff have made efforts
to compile a list but the document
is incomplete, isn’t available online,
and only provides snail mail ad-
dresses and phone numbers.
Contrast this with the structure
of our Business Improvement As-
sociations, who receive support
from dedicated City staff and have a
central body (TABIA – Toronto As-
sociation of BIAs) that maintains a
website, an updated list, and a map
of all existing groups.
Some American cities have offi-
cially recognised neighbourhood as-
socations who receive staff support,
and in some cases, direct funding:
“Toronto’s BIA model is a great
example of how support from
City Hall can help local grassroots
groups flourish. It would be great
to see the same level support going to our
residents’ associations. And imagine what these two sets
of groups could do for our neighbourhoods if they were
working together.”
raFael goMez associate professor at the centre for
industrial relations and human resources, author of the
forthcoming book, “small Business and the city”
engageD ontario
We can also learn from nearby existing groups, as nearby
as the guelph civics league, the london urban league,
or citizens at city hall (catch) in hamilton.
los angeles DepartMent
oF neighBourhooD
eMpoWerMent
supports 90 elected Neighborhood
Councils
portlanD oFFice oF
neighBourhooD
involveMent
supports 95 Neighborhood
Associations
Minneapolis
neighBorhooD
revitalization prograM
supports 81 neighbourhoods
hop To iT!
insTanT runoFF voTing
Bringing fair and friendly elections to toronto.
2003 2006 2010
WOMEN ON TORONTO
CITY COUNCIL
WOMEN IN
TORONTO
52%31%22%33%
2003 2006 2010
VISIBLE MINORITIES ON
TORONTO CITY COUNCIL
VISIBLE MINORITIES
IN TORONTO
47%13%11%13%
2003 2006 2010
WOMEN ON TORONTO
CITY COUNCIL
WOMEN IN
TORONTO
52%31%22%33%
2003 2006 2010
VISIBLE MINORITIES ON
TORONTO CITY COUNCIL
VISIBLE MINORITIES
IN TORONTO
47%13%11%13%
Our local elections serve many pur-
poses. They provide an opportunity
to discuss and debate important is-
sues, give citizens a chance to show
leadership by putting their name
on the ballot and are supposed to
deliver a City Council that repre-
sents the views of voters – and the
diversity of our city.
But using an obscure prehis-
toric voting system ensures that
these goals are often thwarted. The
‘winners’ of each race often do
not represent a majority of voters
– Councillors have been recently
elected with as little as 17% of
the vote. Important issues are
often overshadowed by simplistic
soundbites, negative campaigns
and debates about ‘strategic voting’.
Many citizens who want to run
are pushed out of local races due
to the threat of vote splitting and
our elections consistently produce
Councils that do not represent our
cultural diversity:
the rankeD Ballot initia-
tive oF toronto proposes
Instant Runoff Voting for our City
Council. It’s a simple system that
only allows someone to win a race
if they have over 50% of the vote.
If no candidate gets a majority on
the first count, then the candidate
with the least votes is dropped off
the ballot and voters get to choose
again. This repeats until there is a
winner. With a ranked ballot, this
entire process happens in just a few
minutes with no need for multiple
voting rounds. That’s why it’s called
an ‘Instant Runoff’.
Runoffs are used in almost every
American city for local elections.
They are also used by every political
party in Canada to choose their
candidates and leader. That’s
because runoff voting ensures
majority support, eliminates
vote splitting and reduces strategic
voting. Runoffs allow more can-
didates to run, encouraging more
diversity on the ballot and increas-
ing turnover. With runoff voting,
campaigns tend to be more positive,
with fewer attack ads, as candidates
are seeking ‘second choice’ votes
from their opponents’ supporters.
So, why don’t we use it in Toron-
to? Instant Runoff Voting is a small,
simple change that would make
Toronto’s elections more inclusive,
diverse, friendly and fair. Let’s do it.RANKED BAL
L
O
T I N I T I A T IVE OF TORONTORaBI T
R anked Ballot Initiative of To ronto
RaBI T
ranked ballots are
used by all canadian
parties, the oscars (for
Best picture) and by
the nhl and nBa for
player awards.
ranked ballot leaflet from the
city of Minneapolis
Fun FacT!
toronto’s official procedural bylaws
mandates that city councillors
must use runoff voting to choose
the chairs of each standing
committee. But if they’re supposed
to use runoffs it to pick their
leaders - shouldn’t we use runoffs
to pick ours?
choosing When We choose
civic elections in toronto are
not meeting our expectations.
Voter turnout is low, new faces
on council are uncommon and
city council does not reflect the
evolving demographic of our
diverse population. What changes
can we make to improve the
situation? let’s start with timing.
soMething For the
WeekenD, sir?
There is a golden rule in event planning: If you
want to maximize public attendance at a city-wide
event, you should hold it on the weekend. A week-
end election would likely increase voter turnout,
especially in low income neighbourhoods. Both
Montreal and Vancouver hold their city elections
on the weekend. Why don’t we?
the perpetually
expanDing terM
Up until 1956, Toronto held mu-
nicipal elections each year. A series
of referendums asked voters if
they supported a longer term for
Council and almost every time, the
answer was ‘No’.
Eventually, the term changed
to two years, then three. The most
recent change, however, happened
without any referendum at all. At
the request of Councillors and
Mayors from across the Ontario,
the provincial government changed
the term to four years, with no
consultation or debate. In fact, the
change was buried as a minor note
in a budget bill. It seems wrong that
politicians are able to change their
office terms without consulting their
true employers: us.
At the local level in particular,
four years is very long. Unlike mi-
nority governments at the provincial
and federal levels, a City Council
government can never fall on a con-
fidence vote – even if their public
support has plummeted. Despite
the often-heard argument that three
years “isn’t enough time to plan
anything”, we know that City Coun-
cillors built the Yonge Street subway,
the Bloor Street Viaduct, our sewage
system, and the R.C. Harris water
plant – all with single year terms.
Longer terms mean one thing:
less accountability. And the trend
we’ve seen in the last five decades is
unsettling:
Fun FacT!
in 2006, councillor Michael Walker
put forward a motion at city council
against the introduction of the
four year term, and requested
a public referendum instead.
the motion was seconded by ten
councillors, including then-councillor
rob Ford and six members of his current inner circle:
David shiner, cesar palacio, Michael thompson, karen
stintz, Mike Del grande and Doug holyday.
“Should we extend the term of City Council from one year,
to two?” this referendum was held eight times in the city
of toronto: yEs no
Jan 1, 1912 6,764 23,854
Jan 1 1940 29,978 74,053
Jan 1, 1941 28,189 58,527
Jan 1, 1947 48,547 51,403
Jan 1, 1949 50,440 73,250
Dec 4, 1950 63,863 104,109
Dec 1, 1952 50,278 69,320
Dec 5, 1955 47,958 33,742
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
THEN WHAT?TODAY1834
?
Municipal elections
per DecaDe
our elecTions: Back To Basics
there are many innovative reforms that could improve our elections,
including term limits, a lower voting age, proportional models, online
voting and various finance reforms. But let’s not forget about the basics
too. Proper outreach and communication from the city is essential for our
elections to be engaging and relevant to voters.
it’s tiMe For a
WeBsite Makeover
While some city departments are
moving towards interactive ‘Web
2.0’, the City’s election website is still
working towards ‘1.0’. Some of the
most basic information that voters
need is not there. Ideally, we should
be able to enter our postal code and
instantly be connected to a page
listing our ward candidates, links to
their websites, a map of campaign
offices and a calendar of debates.
Instead, we are faced with awkward
navigation, incomplete information
and no external links at all. Ar-
chaically, the City refuses to provide
any hyperlinks to campaigns and
will only provide information for
campaigns who have filled out a
special paper form – by fax, mail
or hand-delivery. The result is that
most campaigns have no informa-
tion listed at all.
screenshots from 9/1/10, ten
months into the nomination period
seeking canDiDates
One of the most significant ways
for a citizen to engage at City Hall
is to put their name on a ballot
and run for Councillor, Trustee,
or Mayor. It’s an incredible op-
portunity that happens only once
every four years. Each election
there are 67 positions available
(44 Councillors, 22 Trustees and
Mayor). In the private sector, if a
company suddenly had 67 senior
positions to fill, they would invest
an enormous amount of energy
to announce the job postings and
hunt for a good crop of candidates.
But at City Hall, when nominations
open they do almost nothing.
Instead, we see a ten month
campaign encouraging residents
to ‘VOTE’ even though eight of
those months are technically the
‘Nomination Period’. How would
an ordinary citizen even know that
nominations are open to the public
and only cost $100?
the city’s spring
newsletter, seven
months before
the election. not
a word about
nominations.
strangely, the city seems more than able to promote
other kinds of nominations in toronto
this is the kind of ad we should see in toronto
Fun FacT!
During an election year, the city’s
nomination office is located in the far back hallways
of city hall - within the lottery office. at one single desk,
you can request an application for a bingo licence, a raffle
permit, or to run for mayor.
NOW OPEN!
Call forNominations2014
TORONTOCITYCOUNCILELECTION
JOB DESCRIPTION:HOW TO SIGN-UP IMPORTANT DATES:
Nominations close September 6, 2014Visit toronto.ca/election2014
Call
Maecenas scelerisque tempor justo, non ullamcorper mauris scelerisque a. Nullam
non nulla ligula, id gravida risus. Pellen-
tesque commodo tempus orci in adipisc-
ing. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos
himenaeos. Proin sed sem et sapien
malesuada aliquet. Sed imperdiet ante
Pellentesque commodo tempus orci in adipiscing. Class aptent taciti
sociosqu ad litora torquent per conu-
bia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.
Proin sed sem et sapien malesuada aliquet. Sed imperdiet ante sed Class
aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora
torquent per.
JUNE 25, 2011: Aliquam in tortor consequat felis laoreet tempor sit amet
vel lacus.
AUG 1, 2011:Duis ipsum neque, dictum quis volutpat quis, consectetur
eget diam.
Making MeeTings MeaningFul
150 years after Mackenzie, how are
we doing? City Council does allow
for public deputations at all Com-
mittee meetings, but there’s still
much room for improvement:
last-Minute tricks
When it comes to making informa-
tion accessible, the City is doing
quite well. In fact, the City Clerk’s
Office recently won three awards
for their new City Council website.
However, there are always loopholes
and the system depends on the integ-
rity and goodwill of City Councillors.
For example, we’ve recently seen
Councillors introduce controversial
items at the last minute, depriving
both citizens and Councillors of the
relevant information in advance.
This is done intentionally to avoid
scrutiny, debate and public feedback.
➊ the public is entitled to
full information concerning
the issues and conduct of
public business.
➌ interested members of the
public will have opportunities
to present their opinions to
those elected to office.
➋ there must be appropri-
ate opportunities for public
discussion of public issues
and the conduct of public
business, and those elected
to office have an obligation
to ensure that these oppor-
tunities exist.
Hey, I know it’s last minute,
but I propose we rip out a
major bike lane.
a wonderful biography of William lyon mackenzie
(the first mayor of toronto) was published by
John sewell (our 58th mayor) in 2002. in the
last chapter, sewell attempts to summarise
mackenzie’s political philosophy which was
focused primarily on the mechanics of process
and participation. his ‘principles of democracy’
include the following:
“Mackenzie believed that once
people had information and the
opportunity to discuss issues with
friends and neighbours, they would
have reasonable opinions worth
expressing to those charged with
making a decision. The governing
process included setting aside time
for people to be heard by those who
had been elected to make public
decisions.
The job of an elected representative
in a democracy is often said to be
to represent, and there’s no more
effective way of doing this task than
listening.”
John sewell
MiDnight Meetings
We’ve also seen the introduction of
‘24-hour meetings’ which are seen to
discourage participation by forcing
deputants to attend Committee meet-
ings in the middle of the night.
DaytiMe Meetings
Most of the public consultations at
City Hall and our Civic Centres are
held during the daytime and the tim-
ing of each item is not announced.
Often this means that Councillors
only get to hear one side of the story.
Private developers or billboard com-
panies can afford to have lobbyists
attend all day, but residents are not
able to wait around for their item.
shrinking
Deputations
The amount of time allotted to
public budget deputations has been
drastically cut back this year – from
5 minutes, to 3, and then 2.
Moving ForWarD
If we want to boost participation,
we should explore:
• evening meetings (6-9PM)
• timed items with clear schedules
• on-site childcare
• provision of refreshments
• increased promotion of meetings
• clear plain language materials that
explain the process including any
required translations for Toronto’s
diverse communities
1 2 3 4 5
SPRING 2011
SUMMER 2011
FALL 2011
2012 ?MaxiMuM length oF puBlic
BuDget Deputations
2 4 6 8 10 12
TORONTO
MONTREAL
BERLIN
PARIS
MONTREAL*
STOCKHOLM
*including borough
councillors
Break iT doWn
Education advocates often stress the importance of small classroom
sizes. if a class is too large, the teacher can’t provide adequate attention
to individual students. the same theory applies at city hall, where a
councillor’s responsiveness is affected by the size of the ward. as toronto
has grown we’ve seen a steady reduction in representation with ratios as
high as one councillor per 88,000 citizens. this is a staggering number
and inconsistent with many cities our size:
➊ While we still maintain ‘Com-
munity Councils’ in four regions
of the City, these bodies have very
little power, are not elected sepa-
rately and don’t have their own
budget. Many cities our size have
some form of two-tier structure al-
lowing for communities to engage
at the local level.
These bodies can be directly
elected with a wide range of delegat-
ed authority, as in Montreal, or they
can be appointed advisory bodies, as
in New York City. In either case, they
represent areas much smaller than
our current Community Councils
and provide further opportunity for
local citizen participation.
neW york city:
59 community BoarDs. mEmBErs
arE aPPointED.
Montreal:
19 Boroughs, With DirEctly ElEctED
councillors anD mayor.
NORTH
YORK
MIMICO
1967
1998
1967 TOWN OF NORTH
TORONTO
OLD CITY OFTORONTO
1967
TOWN OF WEST
TORONTO JUNCTION
VILLAGE OF
YORKVILLE
EAST
TORONTO
BROCKTON
FOREST HILL
PARKDALE
1909
1912
1908
1883
1834
1884
1889
1967
YORK
➋ Not only has the ratio shifted,
we’ve also seen a huge shift in
the geography of political access.
Fifteen years ago, residents in
Malvern lived four kilometers from
their City Hall in Scarborough. But
after the forced amalgamation of
Metro, these residents now live
over twenty kilometers from City
Hall. The same goes for residents
of Etobicoke, North York or any of
the cities and towns that have been
amalgamated over time. In fact, in
the history of Toronto, we have
dissolved nineteen City Councils
in the name of ‘efficiency’. Each
amalgamation has reduced access
to local decision-making.
Fun FacT!
in 2006 a toronto staff report
recommended that “the city
launch a community dialogue on
reconnecting people with city
government… that considers
processes and structures to
improve engagement at the
neighbourhood, community, ward
and city-wide levels and improve
public participation in the decision-
making process.” ...this community
dialogue never happened.
“Part of what we have lost through amalgamation is a
viable political structure for planning and managing the
complex web of local stewardship that makes cities work.
The situation points to a critical need for strong subentities
that work within the larger scale, beyond the very limited
Community Council model. The key concept is getting to the ideal size and right
degree of power and responsibility of “subsidiarity”, an organizing principle
which holds that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least
centralized competent authority.”
ken greenBerg Former Director of urban Design and architecture for the
city of toronto.
excerpt from “Walking home”
upgrading The claMshell
city hall is the heart of our local democracy. yet only a small percentage
of citizens have walked through its doors. indeed, the public gallery which
can hold 300 people sometimes sits empty during council meetings.
many factors contribute to the general lack of awareness of city hall’s
opportunities and resources. here are two simple ideas that could help.
signage & inForMation
If a citizen walked into City Hall
today looking for some information
about our local democracy, they
could be excused for thinking they
were in the wrong place. The main
floor of 100 Queen Street West is
currently configured primarily
as a kiosk for developers and an
information centre for tourists. For
example, there are 144 different
flyers and leaflets available in the
front lobby and not a single one of
them is about City Hall or mu-
nicipal government. No ward map.
No meeting calendar. No printed
materials about Community Coun-
cils, Standing Committees or public
deputations.
Fun FacT!
there used to be booklets
available in the lobby of city hall
all about local democracy but they
haven’t been seen in years.actual flyers
from toronto city hall
Toronto Public Library
branches are equipped
with free Wi-Fi.
Wireless Toronto provides
free Wi-Fi for Better
Ballots event in Toronto
Council Chambers.
Pearson Airport begins
offering free wireless
internet access.
Starbucks begins
offering free Wi-Fi in
Canadian locations.
Mayor Boris Johnson
pledges London-wide
Wi-Fi by 2012.
Mysore became India's
first Wi-Fi enabled city.
Mississauga offers Wi-Fi
at libraries, community
centres and arenas.
Hong Kong offers free
wireless service at
libraries including City
Hall Public Library.
Harvard Square offers
free wireless internet.
San Francisco offers free
wireless to affordable
housing communities.
1994
Carnegie Mellon University
builds the first wireless Internet
network at their Pittsburgh
campus, before ‘Wi-Fi’
branding originated.
2000
Drexel University in
Philadelphia offes
wireless Internet
access across the
entire campus.
2001
Tompkins Square Park,
NYC launches locally
supported free hotspot.
Montreal’s Ile Sans Fil
launches a network of
free wireless hubs.
Wireless City is
launched providing free
city-wide Wi-Fi.
Fredericton, launches
Fred-eZone, a free
city-wide community
wireless network.
McDonalds Canada
launches free wireless.
2003
Fredericton
Via Rail launches pay
per use Wi-Fi pilot pro-
ject on trains between
Montreal and Toronto.
Wireless Toronto is
founded—a volunteer
non-profit that sets up
free Wi-Fi networks to
strengthen local
community and culture.
Waterloo launches their
UpTown wireless network.
Second Cup launches
free Wi-Fi in 50 locations.
2005
NYC launches a network
of free wireless access in
several public spaces
including City Hall Park.
Albany, NY City Hall
launches free public
wireless.
2008
San Francisco offers
free Wi-Fi access in
City Hall chambers.
2009
2010
St. Cloud, FL launches
a free wireless network
owned by the City.
Norwich, UK launches
city-wide Wi-Fi project.
2006
Toronto Reference
Library launches pilot
wireless internet project.
Oakville Central Branch
Library goes wireless.
Boston offers free Wi-Fi
in the downtown core
including City Hall.
Bettendorf, IA offers
free Wi-Fi at City Hall.
Mississauga pilots wire-
less at Central Library.
Saskatoon launches free
downtown wireless.
Sherbrooke launches
several free public
hotspots.
Regina launches free
downtown wireless.
Shawinigan launches
free public access points.
Moosejaw launches free
downtown Wi-Fi service.
2007
Chattanooga, TN
transit buses get wire-
less internet access.
San Francisco unveils
1,100 solar powered
wireless bus shelters.
Hermosa Beach, CA
offers first free city-
wide hi-speed wireless
in the US.
Virtually all US operated
Starbucks offer Wi-Fi
for free with an AT&T
account or purchase.
2004 ?
Toronto Public Library
branches are equipped
with free Wi-Fi.
Wireless Toronto provides
free Wi-Fi for Better
Ballots event in Toronto
Council Chambers.
Pearson Airport begins
offering free wireless
internet access.
Starbucks begins
offering free Wi-Fi in
Canadian locations.
Mayor Boris Johnson
pledges London-wide
Wi-Fi by 2012.
Mysore became India's
first Wi-Fi enabled city.
Mississauga offers Wi-Fi
at libraries, community
centres and arenas.
Hong Kong offers free
wireless service at
libraries including City
Hall Public Library.
Harvard Square offers
free wireless internet.
San Francisco offers free
wireless to affordable
housing communities.
1994
Carnegie Mellon University
builds the first wireless Internet
network at their Pittsburgh
campus, before ‘Wi-Fi’
branding originated.
2000
Drexel University in
Philadelphia offes
wireless Internet
access across the
entire campus.
2001
Tompkins Square Park,
NYC launches locally
supported free hotspot.
Montreal’s Ile Sans Fil
launches a network of
free wireless hubs.
Wireless City is
launched providing free
city-wide Wi-Fi.
Fredericton, launches
Fred-eZone, a free
city-wide community
wireless network.
McDonalds Canada
launches free wireless.
2003
Fredericton
Via Rail launches pay
per use Wi-Fi pilot pro-
ject on trains between
Montreal and Toronto.
Wireless Toronto is
founded—a volunteer
non-profit that sets up
free Wi-Fi networks to
strengthen local
community and culture.
Waterloo launches their
UpTown wireless network.
Second Cup launches
free Wi-Fi in 50 locations.
2005
NYC launches a network
of free wireless access in
several public spaces
including City Hall Park.
Albany, NY City Hall
launches free public
wireless.
2008
San Francisco offers
free Wi-Fi access in
City Hall chambers.
2009
2010
St. Cloud, FL launches
a free wireless network
owned by the City.
Norwich, UK launches
city-wide Wi-Fi project.
2006
Toronto Reference
Library launches pilot
wireless internet project.
Oakville Central Branch
Library goes wireless.
Boston offers free Wi-Fi
in the downtown core
including City Hall.
Bettendorf, IA offers
free Wi-Fi at City Hall.
Mississauga pilots wire-
less at Central Library.
Saskatoon launches free
downtown wireless.
Sherbrooke launches
several free public
hotspots.
Regina launches free
downtown wireless.
Shawinigan launches
free public access points.
Moosejaw launches free
downtown Wi-Fi service.
2007
Chattanooga, TN
transit buses get wire-
less internet access.
San Francisco unveils
1,100 solar powered
wireless bus shelters.
Hermosa Beach, CA
offers first free city-
wide hi-speed wireless
in the US.
Virtually all US operated
Starbucks offer Wi-Fi
for free with an AT&T
account or purchase.
2004 ?
Toronto Public Library
branches are equipped
with free Wi-Fi.
Wireless Toronto provides
free Wi-Fi for Better
Ballots event in Toronto
Council Chambers.
Pearson Airport begins
offering free wireless
internet access.
Starbucks begins
offering free Wi-Fi in
Canadian locations.
Mayor Boris Johnson
pledges London-wide
Wi-Fi by 2012.
Mysore became India's
first Wi-Fi enabled city.
Mississauga offers Wi-Fi
at libraries, community
centres and arenas.
Hong Kong offers free
wireless service at
libraries including City
Hall Public Library.
Harvard Square offers
free wireless internet.
San Francisco offers free
wireless to affordable
housing communities.
1994
Carnegie Mellon University
builds the first wireless Internet
network at their Pittsburgh
campus, before ‘Wi-Fi’
branding originated.
2000
Drexel University in
Philadelphia offes
wireless Internet
access across the
entire campus.
2001
Tompkins Square Park,
NYC launches locally
supported free hotspot.
Montreal’s Ile Sans Fil
launches a network of
free wireless hubs.
Wireless City is
launched providing free
city-wide Wi-Fi.
Fredericton, launches
Fred-eZone, a free
city-wide community
wireless network.
McDonalds Canada
launches free wireless.
2003
Fredericton
Via Rail launches pay
per use Wi-Fi pilot pro-
ject on trains between
Montreal and Toronto.
Wireless Toronto is
founded—a volunteer
non-profit that sets up
free Wi-Fi networks to
strengthen local
community and culture.
Waterloo launches their
UpTown wireless network.
Second Cup launches
free Wi-Fi in 50 locations.
2005
NYC launches a network
of free wireless access in
several public spaces
including City Hall Park.
Albany, NY City Hall
launches free public
wireless.
2008
San Francisco offers
free Wi-Fi access in
City Hall chambers.
2009
2010
St. Cloud, FL launches
a free wireless network
owned by the City.
Norwich, UK launches
city-wide Wi-Fi project.
2006
Toronto Reference
Library launches pilot
wireless internet project.
Oakville Central Branch
Library goes wireless.
Boston offers free Wi-Fi
in the downtown core
including City Hall.
Bettendorf, IA offers
free Wi-Fi at City Hall.
Mississauga pilots wire-
less at Central Library.
Saskatoon launches free
downtown wireless.
Sherbrooke launches
several free public
hotspots.
Regina launches free
downtown wireless.
Shawinigan launches
free public access points.
Moosejaw launches free
downtown Wi-Fi service.
2007
Chattanooga, TN
transit buses get wire-
less internet access.
San Francisco unveils
1,100 solar powered
wireless bus shelters.
Hermosa Beach, CA
offers first free city-
wide hi-speed wireless
in the US.
Virtually all US operated
Starbucks offer Wi-Fi
for free with an AT&T
account or purchase.
2004 ?
Wi-Fi
Coffee shops have known for many
years that providing Wi-Fi is a
great way to attract customers. And
universities, libraries and City Halls
across North America have been
installing Wi-Fi to increase accessi-
bility and participation – since 1994:
city hall Wi-Fi WoulD:
➊ make it easier for citizens to at-
tend meetings during work hours.
➋ encourage citizens to interact
with the proceedings by download-
ing reports, viewing agendas, track-
ing votes and submitting written
deputations directly to the Clerk.
➌ allow more citizens to use Fa-
cebook and Twitter at City Hall, rais-
ing public awareness about Council
issues and procedures.
The good neWs
While the purpose of this exhibit is to identify problems, gaps and
opportunities at city hall, let’s also take a moment to congratulate city
staff on some positive initiatives and success stories:
opening up
Toronto Open Data launched in
2009. The goal of Open Data is to
make the government more acces-
sible and transparent by providing
“unfiltered access to information”.
So far, the program has released
over fifty data sets including elec-
tion results, bike counts, billboard
applications and Councillors’ at-
tendance records.
#Winning
The City Clerk’s Office recently won
three prestigious awards for their
new web portal “Toronto.ca/council”
which is designed to help Toronto
residents have better, faster and
more convenient access to informa-
tion about Council proceedings. The
new system allows the public to find
agendas, background reports and
minutes quickly and improves the
way the public can engage by pro-
viding simple feedback buttons.
Watch your spenDing
City staff have produced educational
materials about the budget, includ-
ing the Community Budget Work-
book. This booklet invites citizens to
explore the impacts of the re-alloca-
tion of capital and operational funds
on City services.
taking action
Neighbourhood Action Teams have
been established in each of the
city’s thirteen priority neighbour-
hoods. These teams bring together
staff working locally from City of
Toronto divisions and City boards to
address local needs and “build com-
munity capacity”
teach your
chilDren Well
Toronto Election Services has re-
cently developed educational mate-
rials in collaboration with the Civics
Education Network and Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
During 2010, the materials were
distributed to teachers and used
by staff to educate youth about the
upcoming election.
the city’s award-winning
council portal
student youth poster contest
connecting the Dots
The City’s Public Consultation Unit
has been experimenting with Dot-
Mocracy, an innovative method for
participatory decision making with
large groups.
Back to school
In 2009, 175 people took part in
Civics 101, a six-part learning series
about decision-making, finances,
planning and elections. A web portal
with video highlights and presenta-
tions, links to background material
and learning exercises allowed the
general public to follow along online.
950 people applied to participate but
due to limited resources 80% were
not able to participate. The program
did not take place in 2010 or 2011
but will hopefully return in 2012.
getting in on the
grounD Floor
City Councillor Paul Ainslie, chair
of the Government Management
Committee, has recently introduced
two motions related to increasing
civic engagement. One calls for
increased use of social media by
Council and Committees and the
other recommends the creation of a
Civic Engagement office in the lobby
of City Hall.
Thank You!
Urbanspace
Keli Maksud
ToronTo archives
research Team
Adam Clare
Evan Dean
Sarosh Khuraja
Debra Mewdell
Anthony Murray
Margaret Perry
Ben Robins
Jess Ross
Matt Roy
Henry Sansom
Ardene Shapiro Francois
Villeneuve Cam Woloshyn
ciTy of ToronTo
Matthew Cowley
(Engagement Office)
Jason Diceman
(Public Consultation Unit)
John Elvidge
(City Clerk’s Office)
Arthur Flach
(Elections Office)
Meg Shields
(City Manager’s Office)
ToronTo
commUniTy hoUsing
Mina Baghat
Sinead Canavan
Joseph Ching
ToronTo archives
Karen Teeple
ciTy of calgary
Nancy Close
(Mayor’s Office)
Jody Danchuk
(City Hall School)
Diane Murray
(City Hall School)
ciTy of chicago
Betsy Vandercook
pUblic noTice
sUbmissions
Iva Jericevic
Andrea Yip
Carolyn Tripp
Jeff Robson
Sasha Plotnikova
Caroline Schutrumpf
Andrea Winkler
Anthony Greenberg
Ingrid Stromberg
Ian Malczewski
Elsa Fancello
Thanks To
David Banerjee
Paul Bedford
Matt Blackett
Woodsy Brown
Pauline Craig
Dave Fingrut
Josh Fullan
Rafael Gomez
Ken Greenberg
Geoff Kettel
Stephani Roy McCallum
Peter McLeod
Olivia Nuamah
John O’Sullivan
Stephen Otto
William Roberts
Gabe Sawhney
John Sewell
Stephen Young
Here is a summary of thirty-six recommendations emerging from this exhibit.
a Recipe fo R change
reaching oUT
1 Public notices should be completely
re-designed, as ‘marketing’ materials
2 The Ontario Planning Act should be
amended to allow for public notice
re-design
3 Public notices should be published in
more than one newspaper
spending oUr money
4 Let’s explore participatory budgets for
Toronto’s neighbourhoods
5 The number of community information
sessions across the city should be
increased
6 The budget process should be
promoted more widely, using plain
language
The nexT generaTion
7 Our provincial curriculum should
include a full course on municipalities
and neighbourhoods
8 A ‘City Hall School’ should be created
with a designated classroom at Toronto
City Hall
9 Let’s lower the voting age to 16
elevaTing The ciTizenry
10 It’s time to retire the title of “worship”
11 Toronto should create tributes to
non-elected (and unwealthy)
community leaders
12 Citizens should decide in a poll who
we name landmarks after, rather
than politicians naming things after
themselves
ciTizens UniTe!
13 The City should have several staff
positions dedicated to supporting
residents’ groups
14 Let’s create and support an active city-
wide association of residents’ groups
hop To iT!
15 Let’s bring ranked ballots and Instant
Runoff Voting to Toronto
choosing When We choose
16 Our municipal elections should be held
on a Saturday or Sunday
17 Let’s dump the four-year term, since no
one asked for it in the first place
18 Legislation should be created imposing
a binding referendum on future term
extensions
oUr elecTions: back To basics
19 Our elections website needs a makeover
including a fully integrated ward search
function
20 Campaigns should be allowed to easily
provide contact information online
21 The election website should include
active hyperlinks to candidates’
websites
22 The city should proactively promote
the nomination process and encourage
nominations
making meeTings meaningfUl
23 New regulations should restrict the
introduction of controversial motions
without notice
24 Overnight consultations should be
banned due to inaccessibility
25 A minimum deputation length should
be established, one that cannot be
over-ruled
26 Let’s explore the viability of evening
meetings for Community Councils (6-
9pm)
27 “Timed items” should be introduced
more frequently to make attendance
easier
28 Childcare opportunities should be
explored for public meetings
29 Snacks and beverages should be
provided at all public meetings
30 Meetings should be better promoted
with good design, plain language and
translations
break iT doWn
31 Our ward boundaries should be redrawn
to reduce the discrepancy in sizes
32 Let’s explore new models of subsidiarity
for Toronto’s neighbourhoods and
former cities
33 The proposed “Dialogue on
reconnecting people with government”
should be launched in 2012
Upgrading The clamshell
34 Better signage and outreach/education
materials should be created in our City
Hall lobby
35 Free and open Wi-Fi should be
immediately installed at City Hall and all
Civic Centres
36 A “one stop” resource centre for
citizen engagement should be created
at City Hall
mUnicipal responsibiliTy provincial responsibiliTy
cUraTor: Dave Meslin
dave@pigeonhat.ca
research: Hilary best
hilary@pigeonhat.ca
design: aDaM ZinZan-Harris
hello@adam.am
Thank You!
Urbanspace
Keli Maksud
ToronTo archives
research Team
Adam Clare
Evan Dean
Sarosh Khuraja
Debra Mewdell
Anthony Murray
Margaret Perry
Ben Robins
Jess Ross
Matt Roy
Henry Sansom
Ardene Shapiro Francois
Villeneuve Cam Woloshyn
ciTy of ToronTo
Matthew Cowley
(Engagement Office)
Jason Diceman
(Public Consultation Unit)
John Elvidge
(City Clerk’s Office)
Arthur Flach
(Elections Office)
Meg Shields
(City Manager’s Office)
ToronTo
commUniTy hoUsing
Mina Baghat
Sinead Canavan
Joseph Ching
ToronTo archives
Karen Teeple
ciTy of calgary
Nancy Close
(Mayor’s Office)
Jody Danchuk
(City Hall School)
Diane Murray
(City Hall School)
ciTy of chicago
Betsy Vandercook
pUblic noTice
sUbmissions
Iva Jericevic
Andrea Yip
Carolyn Tripp
Jeff Robson
Sasha Plotnikova
Caroline Schutrumpf
Andrea Winkler
Anthony Greenberg
Ingrid Stromberg
Ian Malczewski
Elsa Fancello
Thanks To
David Banerjee
Paul Bedford
Matt Blackett
Woodsy Brown
Pauline Craig
Dave Fingrut
Josh Fullan
Rafael Gomez
Ken Greenberg
Geoff Kettel
Stephani Roy McCallum
Peter McLeod
Olivia Nuamah
John O’Sullivan
Stephen Otto
William Roberts
Gabe Sawhney
John Sewell
Stephen Young
Here is a summary of thirty-six recommendations emerging from this exhibit.
a Recipe foR change
reaching oUT
1 Public notices should be completely
re-designed, as ‘marketing’ materials
2 The Ontario Planning Act should be
amended to allow for public notice
re-design
3 Public notices should be published in
more than one newspaper
spending oUr money
4 Let’s explore participatory budgets for
Toronto’s neighbourhoods
5 The number of community information
sessions across the city should be
increased
6 The budget process should be
promoted more widely, using plain
language
The nexT generaTion
7 Our provincial curriculum should
include a full course on municipalities
and neighbourhoods
8 A ‘City Hall School’ should be created
with a designated classroom at Toronto
City Hall
9 Let’s lower the voting age to 16
elevaTing The ciTizenry
10 It’s time to retire the title of “worship”
11 Toronto should create tributes to
non-elected (and unwealthy)
community leaders
12 Citizens should decide in a poll who
we name landmarks after, rather
than politicians naming things after
themselves
ciTizens UniTe!
13 The City should have several staff
positions dedicated to supporting
residents’ groups
14 Let’s create and support an active city-
wide association of residents’ groups
hop To iT!
15 Let’s bring ranked ballots and Instant
Runoff Voting to Toronto
choosing When We choose
16 Our municipal elections should be held
on a Saturday or Sunday
17 Let’s dump the four-year term, since no
one asked for it in the first place
18 Legislation should be created imposing
a binding referendum on future term
extensions
oUr elecTions: back To basics
19 Our elections website needs a makeover
including a fully integrated ward search
function
20 Campaigns should be allowed to easily
provide contact information online
21 The election website should include
active hyperlinks to candidates’
websites
22 The city should proactively promote
the nomination process and encourage
nominations
making meeTings meaningfUl
23 New regulations should restrict the
introduction of controversial motions
without notice
24 Overnight consultations should be
banned due to inaccessibility
25 A minimum deputation length should
be established, one that cannot be
over-ruled
26 Let’s explore the viability of evening
meetings for Community Councils (6-
9pm)
27 “Timed items” should be introduced
more frequently to make attendance
easier
28 Childcare opportunities should be
explored for public meetings
29 Snacks and beverages should be
provided at all public meetings
30 Meetings should be better promoted
with good design, plain language and
translations
break iT doWn
31 Our ward boundaries should be redrawn
to reduce the discrepancy in sizes
32 Let’s explore new models of subsidiarity
for Toronto’s neighbourhoods and
former cities
33 The proposed “Dialogue on
reconnecting people with government”
should be launched in 2012
Upgrading The clamshell
34 Better signage and outreach/education
materials should be created in our City
Hall lobby
35 Free and open Wi-Fi should be
immediately installed at City Hall and all
Civic Centres
36 A “one stop” resource centre for
citizen engagement should be created
at City Hall
mUnicipal responsibiliTy provincial responsibiliTy
cUraTor: Dave Meslin
dave@pigeonhat.ca
research: Hilary best
hilary@pigeonhat.ca
design: aDaM ZinZan-Harris
hello@adam.am
Thank You!
Urbanspace
Keli Maksud
ToronTo archives
research Team
Adam Clare
Evan Dean
Sarosh Khuraja
Debra Mewdell
Anthony Murray
Margaret Perry
Ben Robins
Jess Ross
Matt Roy
Henry Sansom
Ardene Shapiro Francois
Villeneuve Cam Woloshyn
ciTy of ToronTo
Matthew Cowley
(Engagement Office)
Jason Diceman
(Public Consultation Unit)
John Elvidge
(City Clerk’s Office)
Arthur Flach
(Elections Office)
Meg Shields
(City Manager’s Office)
ToronTo
commUniTy hoUsing
Mina Baghat
Sinead Canavan
Joseph Ching
ToronTo archives
Karen Teeple
ciTy of calgary
Nancy Close
(Mayor’s Office)
Jody Danchuk
(City Hall School)
Diane Murray
(City Hall School)
ciTy of chicago
Betsy Vandercook
pUblic noTice
sUbmissions
Iva Jericevic
Andrea Yip
Carolyn Tripp
Jeff Robson
Sasha Plotnikova
Caroline Schutrumpf
Andrea Winkler
Anthony Greenberg
Ingrid Stromberg
Ian Malczewski
Elsa Fancello
Thanks To
David Banerjee
Paul Bedford
Matt Blackett
Woodsy Brown
Pauline Craig
Dave Fingrut
Josh Fullan
Rafael Gomez
Ken Greenberg
Geoff Kettel
Stephani Roy McCallum
Peter McLeod
Olivia Nuamah
John O’Sullivan
Stephen Otto
William Roberts
Gabe Sawhney
John Sewell
Stephen Young
Here is a summary of thirty-six recommendations emerging from this exhibit.
a Recipe foR change
reaching oUT
1 Public notices should be completely
re-designed, as ‘marketing’ materials
2 The Ontario Planning Act should be
amended to allow for public notice
re-design
3 Public notices should be published in
more than one newspaper
spending oUr money
4 Let’s explore participatory budgets for
Toronto’s neighbourhoods
5 The number of community information
sessions across the city should be
increased
6 The budget process should be
promoted more widely, using plain
language
The nexT generaTion
7 Our provincial curriculum should
include a full course on municipalities
and neighbourhoods
8 A ‘City Hall School’ should be created
with a designated classroom at Toronto
City Hall
9 Let’s lower the voting age to 16
elevaTing The ciTizenry
10 It’s time to retire the title of “worship”
11 Toronto should create tributes to
non-elected (and unwealthy)
community leaders
12 Citizens should decide in a poll who
we name landmarks after, rather
than politicians naming things after
themselves
ciTizens UniTe!
13 The City should have several staff
positions dedicated to supporting
residents’ groups
14 Let’s create and support an active city-
wide association of residents’ groups
hop To iT!
15 Let’s bring ranked ballots and Instant
Runoff Voting to Toronto
choosing When We choose
16 Our municipal elections should be held
on a Saturday or Sunday
17 Let’s dump the four-year term, since no
one asked for it in the first place
18 Legislation should be created imposing
a binding referendum on future term
extensions
oUr elecTions: back To basics
19 Our elections website needs a makeover
including a fully integrated ward search
function
20 Campaigns should be allowed to easily
provide contact information online
21 The election website should include
active hyperlinks to candidates’
websites
22 The city should proactively promote
the nomination process and encourage
nominations
making meeTings meaningfUl
23 New regulations should restrict the
introduction of controversial motions
without notice
24 Overnight consultations should be
banned due to inaccessibility
25 A minimum deputation length should
be established, one that cannot be
over-ruled
26 Let’s explore the viability of evening
meetings for Community Councils (6-
9pm)
27 “Timed items” should be introduced
more frequently to make attendance
easier
28 Childcare opportunities should be
explored for public meetings
29 Snacks and beverages should be
provided at all public meetings
30 Meetings should be better promoted
with good design, plain language and
translations
break iT doWn
31 Our ward boundaries should be redrawn
to reduce the discrepancy in sizes
32 Let’s explore new models of subsidiarity
for Toronto’s neighbourhoods and
former cities
33 The proposed “Dialogue on
reconnecting people with government”
should be launched in 2012
Upgrading The clamshell
34 Better signage and outreach/education
materials should be created in our City
Hall lobby
35 Free and open Wi-Fi should be
immediately installed at City Hall and all
Civic Centres
36 A “one stop” resource centre for
citizen engagement should be created
at City Hall
mUnicipal responsibiliTy provincial responsibiliTy
cUraTor: Dave Meslin
dave@pigeonhat.ca
research: Hilary best
hilary@pigeonhat.ca
design: aDaM ZinZan-Harris
hello@adam.am
I MINNESOTA STATUTES 2018 462.357
462.357 OFFICIAL CONTROLS: ZONING ORDINANCE.
Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals,
and general welfare,a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's surface,in the air space above
the surface,and in subsurface areas,the location,height,width,bulk,type of foundation,number of stories,
size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and
other open spaces,the density and distribution of population,the uses of buildings and structures for trade,
industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry,
residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of
shorelands, as defined in sections 103F.201 to 103F.221, access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems
as defined in section 216C.06,flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedures
regulating such uses. To accomplish these purposes,official controls may include provision for purchase of
development rights by the governing body in the form of conservation easements under chapter 84C in areas
where the governing body considers preservation desirable and the transfer of development rights from those
areas to areas the governing body considers more appropriate for development.No regulation may prohibit
earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, relocated residential buildings,
or manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that comply with all other
zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The regulations may divide the surface, above
surface,and subsurface areas of the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers,shape,and area.
The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class
or kind of use throughout such district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other
districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the zoning ordinance and shall
consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application of its zoning regulations to
unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction,but not in a county or town
which has adopted zoning regulations;provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have
boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land on its side of a line
equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless a town or county in the affected area has
adopted zoning regulations.Any city may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent
as if such property were situated within its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a
comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area.
Subd. la. Certain zoning ordinances.A municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce a zoning
ordinance that has the effect of altering the existing density, lot-size requirements, or manufactured home
setback requirements in any manufactured home park constructed before January 1, 1995,if the manufactured
home park,when constructed, complied with the then existing density, lot-size and setback requirements.
Subd. lb. Conditional uses.A manufactured home park, as defined in section 327.14, subdivision 3,
is a conditional use in a zoning district that allows the construction or placement of a building used or
intended to be used by two or more families.
Subd. lc. Amortization prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a municipality
must not enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance providing for the elimination or termination of a use by
amortization which use was lawful at the time of its inception.This subdivision does not apply to adults-only
bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance.
Subd. Id. Nuisance. Subdivision lc does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance
providing for the prevention or abatement of nuisances, as defined in section 561.01, or eliminating a use
determined to be a public nuisance,as defined in section 617.8 1, subdivision 2,paragraph(a),clauses(i)to
(ix),without payment of compensation.
Copyright U 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.
462.357 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2018 2
Subd. le. Non conformities. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including
the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control
under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or
improvement,but not including expansion,unless:
(1)the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or
(2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of
its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, and no
building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a
municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a zoning or building permit in order to mitigate any
newly created impact on adjacent property or water body.When a nonconforming structure in the shoreland
district with less than 50 percent of the required setback from the water is destroyed by fire or other peril to
greater than 50 percent of its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at
the time of damage, the structure setback may be increased if practicable and reasonable conditions are
placed upon a zoning or building permit to mitigate created impacts on the adjacent property or water body.
(b)Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy.
A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable
regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health,welfare,or safety.This subdivision
does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults-only bookstores,adults-only
theaters,or similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance.
(c)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a municipality shall regulate the repair, replacement,maintenance,
improvement,or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary
to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or
increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway.
(d)Paragraphs(d)to 0)apply to shoreland lots of record in the office of the county recorder on the date
of adoption of local shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements for lot size or lot width. A
municipality shall regulate the use of nonconforming lots of record and the repair,replacement,maintenance,
improvement,or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in shoreland areas according to paragraphs
(d)to 0).
(e)A nonconforming single lot of record located within a shoreland area may be allowed as a building
site without variances from lot size requirements,provided that:
(1) all structure and septic system setback distance requirements can be met;
(2) a Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed
or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and
(3)the impervious surface coverage does not exceed 25 percent of the lot.
(f) In a group of two or more contiguous lots of record under a common ownership, an individual lot
must be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or development, if it meets the
following requirements:
(1) the lot must be at least 66 percent of the dimensional standard for lot width and lot size for the
shoreland classification consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 6120;
Copyright U 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.
3 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2018 462.357
(2)the lot must be connected to a public sewer,if available,or must be suitable for the installation of a
Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, and local government
controls;
(3) impervious surface coverage must not exceed 25 percent of each lot; and
(4) development of the lot must be consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan.
(g)A lot subject to paragraph(f)not meeting the requirements of paragraph(f)must be combined with
the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more conforming lots as much as possible.
(h)Notwithstanding paragraph(f),contiguous nonconforming lots of record in shoreland areas under a
common ownership must be able to be sold or purchased individually if each lot contained a habitable
residential dwelling at the time the lots came under common ownership and the lots are suitable for, or
served by, a sewage treatment system consistent with the requirements of section 115.55 and Minnesota
Rules, chapter 7080, or connected to a public sewer.
(i)In evaluating all variances,zoning and building permit applications,or conditional use requests,the
zoning authority shall require the property owner to address, when appropriate, storm water runoff
management,reducing impervious surfaces,increasing setback,restoration of wetlands,vegetative buffers,
sewage treatment and water supply capabilities,and other conservation-designed actions.
0)A portion of a conforming lot may be separated from an existing parcel as long as the remainder of
the existing parcel meets the lot size and sewage treatment requirements of the zoning district for a new lot
and the newly created parcel is combined with an adjacent parcel.
Subd. If. Substandard structures.Notwithstanding subdivision le,Minnesota Rules,parts 6105.0351
to 6105.0550, may allow for the continuation and improvement of substandard structures, as defined in
Minnesota Rules,part 6105.0354, subpart 30, in the Lower Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway.
Subd. Ig. Feedlot zoning controls. (a)A municipality proposing to adopt a new feedlot zoning control
or to amend an existing feedlot zoning control must notify the Pollution Control Agency and commissioner
of agriculture at the beginning of the process, no later than the date notice is given of the first hearing
proposing to adopt or amend a zoning control purporting to address feedlots.
(b)Prior to final approval of a feedlot zoning control,the governing body of a municipality may submit
a copy of the proposed zoning control to the Pollution Control Agency and to the commissioner of agriculture
and request review, comment, and recommendations on the environmental and agricultural effects from
specific provisions in the ordinance.
(c)The agencies'response to the municipality may include:
(1) any recommendations for improvements in the ordinance; and
(2)the legal, social, economic, or scientific justification for each recommendation under clause (1).
(d) At the request of the municipality's governing body, the municipality must prepare a report on the
economic effects from specific provisions in the ordinance. Economic analysis must state whether the
ordinance will affect the local economy and describe the kinds of businesses affected and the projected
impact the proposal will have on those businesses.To assist the municipality,the commissioner of agriculture,
in cooperation with the Department of Employment and Economic Development,must develop a template
for measuring local economic effects and make it available to the municipality.The report must be submitted
Copyright U 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.
462.357 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2018 4
to the commissioners of employment and economic development and agriculture along with the proposed
ordinance.
(e)A local ordinance that contains a setback for new feedlots from existing residences must also provide
for a new residence setback from existing feedlots located in areas zoned agricultural at the same distances
and conditions specified in the setback for new feedlots, unless the new residence is built to replace an
existing residence. A municipality may grant a variance from this requirement under section 462.358,
subdivision 6.
Subd. lh. Comprehensive plans in greater Minnesota; open spaces.When adopting or updating a
comprehensive plan in a municipality located within a county that is not a greater than 80 percent area, as
defined in section 103G.005, subdivision 10b, and that is located outside the metropolitan area, as defined
by section 473.121, subdivision 2, the municipality shall consider adopting goals and objectives for the
preservation of agricultural, forest, wildlife, and open space land and the minimization of development in
sensitive shoreland areas. Within three years of updating the comprehensive plan, the municipality shall
consider adopting ordinances as part of the municipality's official controls that encourage the implementation
of the goals and objectives.
Subd. 2. General requirements. (a)At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the municipality,
the planning agency,for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan,may prepare
a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption.
(b) Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, the governing body may adopt and amend
a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all its members. The adoption or amendment of any portion of a
zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential
to either commercial or industrial requires a two-thirds majority vote of all members of the governing body.
(c) The land use plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official
controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the land
use plan.
Subd. 3. Public hearings.No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public
hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body.A notice of the time,place
and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days
prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an
area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to
each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to
which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing
the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners.A copy of the
notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible
person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to
individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona
fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made.
Subd. 4. Amendments.An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by the governing body,
the planning agency, or by petition of affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance. An
amendment not initiated by the planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency,if there is one,for
study and report and may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation
of the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference
of the amendment without a report by the planning agency.
Copyright U 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.
5 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2018 462.357
Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of this subdivision apply to the
adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing
classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial of a property located in
a city of the first class, except a city of the first class in which a different process is provided through the
operation of the city's home rule charter.In a city to which this subdivision applies,amendments to a zoning
ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the
office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate
situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party
purchasing any such contiguous property within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative
vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city. The governing
body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance
without such written consent whenever the planning commission or planning board of such city shall have
made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40 acres, within which the new
ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and
shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and
alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or
planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in
any case are reasonably related to the overall needs of the community,to existing land use, or to a plan for
future land use,and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance,changes or alterations,
of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least
once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place
and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and
recommendations in writing.
Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments.Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by
any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance.The
board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance:
(1)To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order,requirement,decision,
or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
(2) To hear requests for variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance including restrictions
placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties
in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of
a variance,means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include,but are
not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for
earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the
ordinance.The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be,may not permit
as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be,may permit as a variance
the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the
case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances.A condition must be directly related to and
must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
Copyright U 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.
462.357 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2018 6
Subd. 6a. Normal residential surroundings for persons with disabilities.It is the policy of this state
that persons with disabilities should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use
regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through
9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245A.02, subdivision 11.
Subd. 7. Permitted single family use.A state licensed residential facility or a housing with services
establishment registered under chapter 144D serving six or fewer persons,a licensed day care facility serving
12 or fewer persons,and a group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules,parts 9502.0315
to 9502.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of
property for the purposes of zoning, except that a residential facility whose primary purpose is to treat
juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent
on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a
permitted use.
Subd. 8. Permitted multifamily use. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 7 or in any town,
municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision,a state licensed residential facility
serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall
be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township,
municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure
proper maintenance and operation of a facility,provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility
which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property
in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the
residents of the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or
day care facilities from single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation.
Subd. 9. Development goals and objectives. In adopting official controls after July 1, 2008, in a
municipality outside the metropolitan area, as defined by section 473.121, subdivision 2, the municipality
shall consider restricting new residential,commercial,and industrial development so that the new development
takes place in areas subject to the following goals and objectives:
(1)minimizing the fragmentation and development of agricultural,forest,wildlife,and open space lands,
including consideration of appropriate minimum lot sizes;
(2)minimizing further development in sensitive shoreland areas;
(3) minimizing development near wildlife management areas, scientific and natural areas, and nature
centers;
(4) identification of areas of preference for higher density, including consideration of existing and
necessary water and wastewater services,infrastructure,other services,and to the extent feasible,encouraging
full development of areas previously zoned for nonagricultural uses;
(5) encouraging development close to places of employment, shopping centers, schools, mass transit,
and other public and private service centers;
(6) identification of areas where other developments are appropriate; and
(7) other goals and objectives a municipality may identify.
History: 1965 c 670 s 7; 1969 c 259 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 379 s 4; 1973 c 539 s 1; 1973 c
559 s 1,2; 1975 c 60 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 14,15; Ex]979 c 2 s 42,43; 1981 c 356 s 248; 1982 c 490 s 2; 1982
c 507 s 22; 1984 c 617 s 6-8; 1985 c 62 s 3; 1985 c 194 s 23; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 333 s 22; 1989 c 82 s 2;
Copyright U 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.
7 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2018 462.357
1990 c 391 art 8 s 47; 1990 c 568 art 2 s 66,67; 1994 c 473 s 3; 1995 c 224 s 95; 1997 c 113 s 20; 1997 c
200 art 4 s 5; 1997 c 202 art 4 s 11; 1997 c 216 s 138; 1999 c 96 s 3,4; 1999 c 211 s 1; 2001 c 174 s I,-
2001
;2001 c 207 s 13,14; 2002 c 366 s 6; 2004 c 258 s 2; 2005 c.56 s 1; 1 Sp2005 c I art I s 92; art 2 s 146; 2007
c 140 art 12 s 14; 2008 c 297 art I s 60,61; 2009 c 149 s 3; 2011 c 19 s 2
Copyright U 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.
Exhibit B
7101-2200
II
75-1
75- 1-34,
J5-11 . .14
-
75-1 14 q.
11 11��
3 0' = 4
5 0' = 5
i 0' CNI
_
711-11411000' _ 6
N
T
T
ll
ti r_
' N
N
•w r
Z N
8 ~ -
SOZ900lt cn
Q iri
ti 0 90.0tv-19L c� ^
1 h71J�Z0t
G
r
N `r
O
O
O
l l0-
� W
M
Q
Z
O
h-
a �
-r
ll
a �►
V `2NON AVE N
PZSON AVE W
Q�
N ]AVVIN3X
s�
s
UZ.ZZ•%k:l 4l
W
l
4�j4ou�- 1 op
Notice of Public Hearing
Dated: May 17, 2019
Proposed Project
Request by Karen Randall for a Conditional Use Permit for a Private Kennel, Case No. CU 19-02.
Planning Commission Meeting Date
The Elk River Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on this matter on Tuesday, May
28, 2019, at 6:30 p.m., at the Elk River City Hall, 13065 Orono Parkway NW. All interested persons
are invited to attend the public hearing to express their questions and/or comments.
City Council Meeting
The Elk River City Council will also conduct a public hearing concerning this matter Monday, June
17, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. at Elk River City Hall, 13065 Orono Parkway.
Subject Property Location
General description of the subject property is 19101 Zebulon St. NW.
Legal Description
The South 165 feet of the North 330 feet of the South 1,540.00 feet of the West One Half of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 33, Range 26, except the East 660 feet thereof,
Sherburne County, Minnesota.
Why did you receive this notice?
As part of the review process for requests of this nature, we attempt to notify all property owners at
least 350 feet in distance from the subject property. The tax records from the Sherburne County
Auditor's Office indicated that you own property within or near the 350 -foot requirement.
More Information
All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing to express their questions, concerns,
comments. If you would like further information or to submit comments, contact Chris Leeseberg,
Senior Planner.
For more detailed information related to this matter, can 763.635.1000 or visit
ElliRiverMN.gov/agendas. Agendas and other meeting material are typically available the Friday
before meetings are scheduled to be held. All interested persons are invited to attend the public
hearing.
Chris Leeseberg, Senior Planner
Community Development