Professional Memo

For the Special Meeting of Council to be held Monday, September 29, 2014 at 6:00pm in Council Chambers at the Municipal Office in accordance with Section 194 of the Municipal Government Act.

CALL TO ORDER

A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

E. ACTIONS/DECISIONS 1. City Status

M. ADJOURNMENT

City Status Proposal Executive Summary

As per the Municipal Government Act, Chestermere became eligible for city status in 2007 after reaching a population of more than 10,000.

With the results of the 2014 census indicating that Chestermere is now home to over 17,000 residents, Council asked Administration to pursue public consultation to determine if the residents of Chestermere would be in favour of changing the community’s official title from a ‘town’ to a ‘city’.

Public consultation began in August with the intent to inform all residents of the proposal and provide a variety of feedback opportunities should they wish to express their support or concerns about city status.

The following methods were utilized to inform residents:

 Weekly notices in the local paper from August 21 – October 1  Notices were sent to all homeowners as an insert in their utility bills  Calgary’s NewsTalk 770 featured the story on a 5 p.m. news cycle on August 20  Two stories were submitted to and published in the local paper  Large posters were placed in various locations in the community  A webpage and regular posts were created for the Town’s official website www.chestermere.ca.  Regular posts and an advertisement were made on the Town’s Facebook page  Councillors were present at the community’s major events  Residents were invited to attend a variety of events (in person and online) to share their feedback. Events included open houses, coffee conversations, tweetchats, online feedback forms, comment posters in the community, and meetings with Councillors.

Council and Administration reached out to as many residents as possible to solicit their feedback using the methods available in our community.

The data only captures the written comments provided to the Town and does not describe in detail the hundreds of in person conversations that were held. While there were initial questions regarding the proposal, what benefits a ‘city title’ could bring to the community, and what impacts it might have, very few residents expressed major concerns once those questions had been addressed. Of more than 17,000 residents in Chestermere, the Town received less than 250 written responses regarding city status. Less than 65 of those were explicitly negative written comments about whether or not the community should change its title to a ‘city.

As such, it is the conclusion of Administration that the vast majority of residents are either in favour or impartial to changing the town’s title to ‘city’.

The following pages provide a more detailed breakdown of the consultation methods utilized and the feedback provided by residents. Legislative Background – City Status

History of Chestermere Chestermere was first incorporated as a summer village effective April 1, 1977 and changed status to a Town effective March 1, 1993. In 2007, Chestermere reached a population of 11, 262 (officially surpassing the threshold for eligibility to become a City) and in 2014 had a total population of 17,203.

Legislated Authority The Municipal Government Act (MGA) RSA 2000 Chapter M-26 and regulations as amended provide the authority for municipal governments in Alberta. Part 4 establishes the criteria for Formation, Fundamental Changes and Dissolution. Specifically, sections 91-97.2 addresses status change.

There are currently 17 cities, 108 towns, 95 villages and 51 summer villages in Alberta and the MGA describes the characteristics of the different urban municipalities. Aside from Chestermere there are eight other municipalities with enough population to request city status. Of note Fort McMurray and Sherwood Park with populations around 80,000 people have remained hamlets and operate as part of a rural constituency but they both have specialized municipality status – which basically gives them a city’s authority.

Under section 82, a town may incorporate as a city when it reaches a population of 10,000 people and a when the majority of the buildings are on parcels of land smaller than 1850 square meters. As per section 93, status change can be requested by the municipality or its residents at any time after reaching the population threshold.

Section 76 of MGA authorizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs to establish standards, principles and criteria which are to be taken into account in considering the change in status of municipalities.

Staff at Municipal Affairs indicated the following is required if Council wishes to proceed with a request to change status:

 A motion of Council requesting the Minister of Municipal Affairs change the status from town to city accompanied with an effective date (allowing for approximately three months from the date of the request to the effective date of incorporation);  The Minister will want to know that the town has informed its residents and they are in favor of the change or at the very least that there is not a significant opposition;  The Minister will want an overview of the town’s public consultation process to be included with the request. There are a number of ways we can consult with residents;  Once the Minister has reviewed the request, a recommendation would require an Order in Council and would be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Under section 97.2, the effects on the municipality following a status change are as follows:

 Each Councillor of the town continues as a Councillor until a successor is sworn into office;  Each officer and employee continues with the same rights and duties until the council of the new municipality otherwise directs;  All bylaws and resolutions of the old municipality that the new municipality has the authority to pass are continued as the bylaws and resolutions of the new municipality;  All taxes due to the old municipality are deemed to be arrears of taxes due to the new municipality and may be collected and dealt with by the new municipality as if it has imposed the taxes;  All rights of action and actions by or against the old municipality may be continued or maintained by or against the new municipality;  All property vested in the old municipality becomes vested in the new municipality and may be dealt with by the new municipality in its own name subject to any trusts or other conditions applicable to the property;  All other assets, liabilities, rights, duties, functions and obligations of the old municipality become vested in the new municipality, and the new municipality may deal with them in its own name.

Section 99 of MGA also provides:  The change of a municipality’s name does not affect any obligations, rights, action or property of the municipality;  The use of the old name of the municipality in any proceedings, agreements, notices or documents after the name has been changed does not affect the validity of those proceedings, agreements, notices or documents.

In July 2014, a presentation was made to Council regarding the legislated authority for a status change, the legislated effects of status change, and a presentation of research that had been found when looking at the most recent municipalities that had gone through a status change from a town to a city.

A call was made early August to Municipal Affairs and the Municipal Sustainability branch. The conversation clarified and confirmed the legislated authority of the municipality and the legislated expectations of Municipal Affairs when considering a status change.

City Status Public Consultation Process

When Council began looking at the potential for Chestermere to pursue City Status in July, they were aware that a public consultation process was required by the MGA and important to ensure that there was not significant opposition to the change.

A variety of events, activities and meetings were planned to ensure that we reached out to as many people in the community as possible. Below is an explanation of public consultation work and results found.

Summary: Page Number

1. Advertising 1 2. In Person Feedback Opportunities 4 3. Electronic/Online Feedback Opportunities 5 4. Summary of Comments 7 5. Plan to Address Additional Questions 8

1. Advertising: As we wanted all the residents of Chestermere to have an opportunity to provide their input, we made use of all the advertising methods available to us in our community. See Appendix A for all the advertising done in the community.

a. Local Weekly Newspaper Advertisements

The weekly paper is a free paper delivered to every household in Chestermere and the surrounding area. The paper estimates that the hard copy paper reaches 5980 households, readership is 31,000 and their digital edition receives 3500 pageviews per week.

August 21 – September 10: We published an advertisement (above) for three consecutive weeks advising residents that we would be asking for their input regarding city status and letting them know when and how they could provide their feedback.

September 11-17: We published a smaller ad in the local paper explaining that residents could provide their feedback.

September 18-October 1: The Town published a formal notice explaining that Council would review the feedback and debate the question at a special meeting on September 29 at 6:00 p.m. It also indicated the final date for feedback (pictured left).

1 b. Local Weekly Newspaper Stories (See Appendix B):

We submitted a story to the local paper and it was published on August 21. It outlined why the town was considering city status, upcoming events to provide input and methods of providing feedback. The paper also featured a front page notice about the question of city status (see right).

A second story was submitted and published on September 18 explaining that feedback opportunities were wrapping up but there was still time to participate. The paper also featured two stories written by their reporters. See Appendix B for copies of the stories.

c. Regional News Coverage

While Chestermere does not have local TV or radio stations, Calgary’s CHQR NewsTalk770 Radio did a story on Chestermere’s consideration of the city status option. It was part of the 5 p.m. news cycle on August 20. d. Community Notices

During the first week of September, we also sent notices to every household in Chestermere with their utility bills notifying them of the question of changing to city status and inviting their feedback (below):

We displayed large posters in some of our major community areas (Safeway, the Recreation Centre, and the Library) for the duration of the consultation.

We also posted a large bright road sign on a major thoroughfare for approximately 2 weeks and had an ad on our recreation centre’s electronic road sign to let residents know they could provide their input on city status.

e. Electronic Notices

Website: A story, banner photo, and/or link was posted on our website homepage for the duration of the public engagement campaign (August 20-September 22). During that time, the homepage had over 24,000 pageviews (6576 unique pageviews).

All the information about the possible status change was posted on www.chestermere.ca/future with FAQs, ways to participate, a schedule of events, and contact information. That page was the most viewed page on our website (other than the homepage and the contact us page) for the public consultation period and received over 500 pageviews.

See Appendix A for copies of the information provided to residents online.

Facebook:

The Town posted 38 times on the Town of Chestermere Facebook page about the city status question throughout the public engagement period.

The Town has 1632 followers of the page and the average post received approximately 500 views.

The Town also paid for one general advertisement to promote the city status discussion website www.chestermere.ca/future. That ad reached over 30,000 Facebook users and resulted in 66 likes of the post and 14 comments.

For detailed social media results and transcripts, see Appendix C.

Twitter:

While the Town does not utilize Twitter extensively, we posted several updates and notices on the Town’s twitter account. The Town has 594 followers and we wanted to ensure they were aware of the city status question and could participate as well.

Throughout the consultation period, the Town tweeted 32 times. Twitter tracking shows that we had 16,776 timeline deliveries during this period.

For detailed social media results and transcripts, see Appendix C. f. Other Notices

Members of Council also held several meetings with Town staff to let them know about the process, answer their questions and seek their feedback. Staff provided a number of questions about the proposal and its impact on the organization and the community and all of the questions were given a response.

Council also notified its regional neighbours, Rocky View County and the City of Calgary, at inter-municipal planning meetings.

2. In - Person Feedback

a. Informal Meetings with Councillors

In early August, Councillors met with various groups of residents in the community to discuss the option of moving ahead with city status. Groups included business owners, faith groups, representatives from community groups, influential residents, former members of Council, and more.

Councillors felt that the vast majority of residents attending these conversations had initial questions about the implications of pursuing city status but were generally in favour of the change and eager to present the question to the community at large.

Following the announcement on August 20, Council also attended additional informal meetings to discuss the city status option. Council attended the Whitecappers’ (55+ Seniors’ Group) on several occasions to answer questions about the proposal, wore ‘Ask me about City Status’ buttons at the weekend Country Fair (September 5-6), met with the Chestermere Area Network group, and attended various community meetings and gatherings.

The outcome of all of these conversations centered around a few key components. Residents typically asked about how it would affect them (particularly their taxes) and how it would affect the community. When they learned that the change would be primarily in title only, the majority were either supportive of the idea or neutral in their opinion about it.

Councillors estimate that they spoke with approximately 200-300 people through the various informal events and meetings and the vast majority of those they spoke with were impartial or in favour of the community changing its’ title to ‘city’.

b. Formal Meetings with Councillors

Council provided a number of formal events and opportunities for residents to meet with them and provide their feedback.

Coffee Conversations: The Town hosted three different opportunities for coffee and conversation about city status (August 23 in the Library, August 26 at Starbucks, and September 8 at Tim Hortons). In total, 12-15 people attended at these events. The discussion and feedback forms left at these events show that approximately 75% of the participants were neutral or in favour of the idea.

Open Houses: The Town hosted two formal open houses at Town Hall in Council Chambers (September 8 from 7-9 and September 18 from 7- 9). Approximately 4 residents came to the first open house. Approximately 8 residents came to the second open house. Four comment cards were left indicating that residents were not in favour of the idea.

Open House

Energizer Night: Every fall, our community hosts an event where residents can come to the community centre and sign up for activities and programs. Council hosted a table at this event to discuss the city status option with residents.

Council was located at the main entrance where approximately 500 people came into the hall. They estimate that they had personal conversations with approximately a dozen residents at the event and received written feedback from 8 residents. Seven of the feedback forms indicated that the resident liked the idea of changing the title to city.

c. Comment Boards

Large posters with opportunities to comment were placed in 4 spaces in the community (Town Hall, the Library, Safeway, and the Recreation Centre) for one week.

Safeway staff estimate that approximately 3000 residents visit their store each day. The posters were placed so that shoppers would see them while waiting in line to pay.

The posters asked people to provide their feedback on what they felt about city Comment Poster at the Chestermere Public Library status, what makes Chestermere unique and how we can keep our identity into the future.

We received 18 comments specifically about city status. Of the comments provided, over 60% were positive, neutral, or asking a question about the change. For the specific comments left, please see Appendix D of this report.

3. Online/Electronic Feedback

a. Feedback Forms

From August 27 until September 20, residents were invited to go online to www.chestermere.ca/future and fill out an online feedback form. The feedback forms were electronic duplicates of the feedback forms given to residents who attended open houses.

In total, 99 hard copy and electronic feedback forms were submitted. Those who completed the form were asked to indicate on a scale of 1-7 how they felt about changing the community’s official title (1 being they really dislike the idea and 7 being

that they really like the idea). The average result was 4.3.

Copies of the comments and rankings provided are available in Appendix D. b. Facebook The Town posted 38 times on the Town of Chestermere Facebook page about the city status question throughout the public engagement period (August 20-September 22).

The Town has 1632 followers of the page and on average a post received approximately 500 views.

In total, 45 Facebook users provided 63 comments on our posts or separate comments on our page during that time. Of those comments, 10 specifically did not support city status, 6 comments expressly supported the change, and 12 were direct questions about city status. The rest of the comments were either neutral or about other aspects of the community (i.e. what parts of our identity should we work to keep, what types of businesses would you like to see here, etc). c. Twitter As explained in the advertising section, while the Town does not utilize Twitter extensively, we posted several updates and notices on the Town’s twitter account to ensure the Town’s 500+ Twitter followers were aware of the city status question and could participate as well. Throughout the consultation period, the Town tweeted 32 times. Twitter tracking shows that we had 16,776 timeline deliveries during this period.

In another effort to collect feedback from the online community, the Town hosted two Tweetchats to engage residents and answer questions about the city status proposal. Appendix D shows the results more clearly but in total, there were 22 contributors to the tweetchat, a reach of 11,946 and 35,364 timeline deliveries. Participants in the tweetchat primarily posed questions during the conversation.

The infographic to the right shows some of the buzzwords from the twitter conversations. d. Emails

Throughout the course of the public consultation process, the Town received 11 emails regarding the city status proposal. Many contained a variety of opinions and questions on the rationale for the change, the potential impact and comments on other community initiatives.

Of the 11 emails, 4 were explicitly in favour of the city status change, 3 were primarily asking questions, making suggestions, or neutral and 4 were not in favour of the change. The Town and a Councillor or the Mayor responded to these emails.

4. Summary of Comments and Questions

These comments are a sample of the types of comments received. For the full transcript of all written comments received, please see Appendices C and D.

Sample of Comments

(For the full written comments, please see Appendices C and D):

 “I love Chestermere and would never choose to live anywhere else”  “I think this is really positive...let’s us keep our identity...while showcasing all we have to offer”  “No Thank you; we love our Private Little Resort Community. We would attract business not related to this Private Lakeside Community and we do NOT want to be another Strathmore”  “Do It”  “I agree. Why go for city status when we don't have what a city offers. We moved to Chestermere because it is a town with a town atmosphere. Don't do it.”  “I might come off at harsh with my opinion but this whole idea truly baffles me.”  “Chestermere needs to get so much sorted before concentrating on becoming a city. Roads for one, water issues etc”  “I love the people, and no matter whether we are a town or a city, that will never change”  “We don’t need the added expense of changing all our signage, letterhead, truck signage, etc...We do not need to become in name a “City”. Just become more efficient and cost effective and completing projects”  “I think it’s a fabulous idea. I lived in the city for years, and came to Chestermere a year ago. I miss some of the things that go along with being in a city, and maybe……just maybe ….one day Chestermere could have some of the “city” things, like the black/blue garbage and recycling cans, transit would be huge out here…..along with retail/recreational growth”  “Residence I believe have and still want Chestermere as a “small town atmosphere”. Although the status could be changed to city and still with an objective to create a small town atmosphere the council seems to keep moving in a direction that does not incorporate this”  “I moved away from Calgary 'city' to be away from the 'city'. I would have just stayed there if I wanted more amenities”  “Even if it means that it will lower the residents tax responsibility, attracting more businesses means attracting more trouble”  “How does this fit in to Chestermeres 20-30 year plan?”  “City brings City attitudes. There is no glamour in being a City. People are leaving the Cities looking for and wanting small town values. We have a town culture and should focus on preserving and enhancing it.”  “I chose 4 because for personal reasons I moved from the city to Chestermere in order to live and raise our sons in a small town. But I do understand why Council are wanting to change to 'city' status; it will benefit Chestermere”  “Government support and attracting business is a must. We need more services and transportation.”  “Completeley unnecessary waste of time, resources, and energy!”  “I believe the change is a good plan that has to come sooner or later. The town should be in the process of seeking expansion to the south, north and east to accomodate our rapid growth and room for expanding economic activity.”  “Let's fix our town before we continue to city status.”  “Great idea - perhaps will attract more businesses to our city”  “I am afraid taxes will likely rise we pay to much now as it is”  “An idea long overdue.”  “Concerned we will have less support provincially and it will give more power to council. I wish that council would be able to tell us why we need to. Comments of, changing to a city "may" benefit us, doesn't cut it.”  “The main premise of this discussion seems to be that it will be easier to attract a business base for our taxes. You first have to have somewhere to attract business... Where??? We need development. In my humble opinion becoming a city with our current attitude would do nothing”  “I would to see more business development in Chestermere as a resident, I love living here but I am tired of carrying the load of expenses if we remain a town.”

 “I have lived in Chestermere for over 20 years and while the population has grown very fast the small town feel is still there. I would be very disappointed if we changed to "City" status.”  “If this status will help give Chestermere a boost financially and relieve some of the tax burden, then this will be a good idea.”  “It will not improve services nor will it bring in new business. The developers own the town. “  “Sounds like it will open more opportunity.”  “I like 'city' but long for neighbourhoods that are designed for interaction between neighbours.”  “No problem with the title change but I do have a problem with the money that will probably be spent on rebranding and signs on all town buildings and vehicles and such.”  “About Time...”

Sample of Questions

(For the full written questions, please see Appendices C and D):

 What is the benefit?  Will it reduce our taxes?  How much will this cost?  Will it help get more recreational amenities?  Will we still get the same levels of funding?  We don’t some of the amenities people think of when they think ‘city’. How can we become a city if we don’t have our own transit or police?  Will the town still listen to residents as a city?  Would Councillors get paid more?  Why don’t we discuss water and other priorities first?  How will we be able to keep our cherished small town character?  Some other similarly sized communities can attract businesses. Why do we need to be a city to do so?  Will it help with the high cost of renting commercial space?  Will it help provide local jobs?  Will it change the electoral boundaries (i.e. will we have wards)?  Why do we keep growing so much?  Can we stop growth?

5. Plan to Address Additional Questions

The comments or questions provided by residents were acknowledged by a member of staff and or a member of Council.

Many of the general questions were also addressed with the resident directly or indirectly on our website or social media channels.

Should Council decide to proceed with city status, Administration will prepare a plan to continue addressing any outstanding questions or concerns and continue to listen to feedback provided by residents.