Council size on your ballot: what County voters are being asked to decide

When County voters open their municipal election ballot this October, they will have a question to answer alongside their choices for elected representatives: should an independent third party examine the size of council and its related ward boundaries?

It is a familiar subject, but the decision on the ballot is narrower than some of the debate around it. Residents are being asked whether they support a review. The number of councillors, the shape of electoral wards and any eventual changes remain matters for a later process.

At the mayoral debate, Ernie Margetson, Brad Nieman and Terry Shortt offered different approaches. Understanding those positions is useful; understanding what your ballot can actually decide is essential.

What the ballot asks

The question, adopted through Bylaw 24-2026 on February 24, reads:

“Are you in favour of a third-party review of Council size and related ward boundaries?”

The permitted answers are Yes and No. A yes expresses support for commissioning that examination; it does not endorse eight councillors, ten councillors or any candidate’s proposed map. A no expresses opposition to undertaking the review described in the question.

The wording was deliberately chosen to leave the outcome open. In January, municipal staff recommended removing “changes” after “ward boundaries” because it could suggest that a review would necessarily lead to change. Staff also recommended retaining “third-party,” citing the need for specialized expertise and impartiality, and the potential perception of bias in an internal review.

The County estimates the review would cost $75,000 to $100,000, depending on its scope. That is an estimated study cost; it does not establish what any eventual restructuring would save.

When the result becomes binding

Two conditions must be met: at least 50% of eligible electors must vote on the question, and more than 50% of votes on the question must favour the winning answer. The eligible-elector count is determined from the voters’ lists at the close of voting.

The first threshold concerns answering this particular question. Voting for mayor or councillor while leaving it unanswered does not count as participation in the question.

A tied result would also fail the majority requirement. The County’s formal notice explains the yes and no consequences, while provincial legislation establishes the binding-result rules.

A non-binding result can still carry political weight. In 2010, 80.78% of those answering a council-size question supported commencing public consultation, but only 41.87% of eligible electors answered. Council proceeded despite the non-binding result. The subsequent process reduced council from 16 members to 14 and electoral wards from ten to nine.

What the candidates said

Ernie Margetson emphasized learning from the ballot result, including the proportion supporting a review, even if it falls short of being binding.

“I think we’ve matured as a municipality since amalgamation,” - Ernie Margetson said, while acknowledging his own attachment to Hillier and the County’s historic communities.

His preliminary model divides the County into four sectors, with two councillors per sector and a mayor: nine members overall. He described considering voter numbers and combining some existing wards. This was an idea for consideration, rather than a completed boundary proposal.

Brad Nieman supported reducing council and stressed the importance of retaining ward boundaries. His central concern was that another review could produce several competing options and reopen the same divisions.

“They cannot come back and say, here are your four options,” Brad Nieman said

Nieman discussed eight councillors as a possible outcome, while also allowing that nine might be appropriate. His preference was for a definite recommendation that council could vote on. That is his proposed approach to the review, rather than a requirement established by the ballot.

Terry Shortt began by supporting the existing number of councillors, but described an alternative should the referendum favour proceeding.

“We need to maintain representation by population… that’s important,” Terry Shortt said.

His outline involved ten electoral wards, each electing one councillor, plus the mayor. He described splitting Ameliasburgh and combining the Marysburghs, among other adjustments. He also argued that a very small council could be more easily dominated by a group of like-minded members.

Today, the County has 13 councillors and a mayor across nine electoral wards. Shortt’s alternative would therefore also reduce the total membership, to eleven.

What happens after a review

The consultant would not acquire authority to redraw the County by delivering a report. Council has statutory authority over its composition and ward boundaries; adopting changes involves separate decisions and applicable legal procedures, including ward-boundary appeal rights.

There is a timing discrepancy in the official information: the County’s ballot webpage identifies 2031, while its earlier staff report identifies 2030 and Ontario’s candidates’ guide lists a term ending in November 2030. The Municipal Clerk’s clarification would resolve that inconsistency. Any resulting restructuring would concern a future election, rather than change the council residents elect this October.

For voters, the immediate choice is whether an independent examination would be worthwhile. You can favour a review while remaining undecided about its outcome, and you can weigh the candidates’ ideas without treating them as the options on your ballot.

If a review proceeds, the discussion about the right size and shape of council will continue. This October’s question determines whether residents want that examination undertaken.

Candidate quotations and summaries come from the transcribed mayoral-debate transcript, question five.