1 Choose a department

Transcription

1 1 Choose a department STAFF REPORT Choose a division Title: Public engagement Report Number: CORP Author: Megan Harris and Filipa Reynolds Meeting Type: Council/Committee Date: February 8, 2016 File: Attachments: Ward No.: Recommendation: 1. That council approve report CORP A. Executive Summary Open and transparent government remains a priority for city council. To continue to build on the momentum created by the public s involvement in the strategic plan, staff and council continued the engagement process through both the leaf collection survey and the budget process. The following report outlines the efforts and results of the budget process as well as a brief outline of the leaf collection survey results. Engagement in the budget process included, the use of Open City Hall (OCH), pop-up city halls, budget issue boards, councillor led information sessions, an educational video, council meetings, and a luncheon event in partnership with the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce and the cities of Kitchener and Cambridge. For engagement in the budget process, the public was asked to provide their preferences and feedback on four main areas: efficiencies; environment, parks, and trails; library funding; and preferred tax rate increase. Over 1,000 members of the public were directly engaged in the budget process and over 3,000 members of the public were directly engaged in the leaf collection survey. B. Financial Implications $15,000 was allocated for public engagement for the budget process. C. Technology Implications

2 2 Choose a department D. Legal Considerations E. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Priorities: Multi-modal Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal, Strong Community, Environmental Leadership, Corporate Excellence, Economic Development) Strong community Corporate excellence F. Previous Reports on this Topic IPPW Leaf Collection Program Review August 10, 2015 IPPW Leaf Collection Program Review September 21, 2015 CORP Proposed Budget Summary August 10, 2015

3 3 Choose a department G. Approvals Name Signature Date Author: Megan Harris, Filipa Reynolds Director: Megan Harris, Filipa Reynolds Commissioner: Keshwer Patel Finance: CAO

4 4 Choose a department Public engagement CORP To continue building on the momentum created by the public s involvement in the strategic plan, staff and council continued the engagement process through both the leaf collection inquiry and the budget process. Below outlines the strategy and results of the budget engagement and a brief outline of the leaf collection survey results. Budget public engagement Public were directly engaged in the budget process through seven main channels. 1. An Open City Hall online forum launched on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 and allowed individuals to participate in the discussion of four main budget topics: efficiencies; environment, trails, and parks; library resources; and tax dollar impact. 2. Two pop-up city halls were organized and appeared at the Mayor s New Years Levee on Sunday, January 11, 2016 at RIM Park, and on Saturday, January 23, 2016 at the Harper Branch, in correlation with an arts and culture event taking place within the library. 3. Budget issue boards were placed in four city facilities (Waterloo City Centre, Adult Recreation Centre, Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, and RIM Park), and visitors had the opportunity to take part in a prioritization exercise. 4. Two councillor led sessions were held within wards one (January 20, 2016) and seven (January 27, 2016). These sessions were managed directly by the ward councillors. 5. An educational video was created and distributed. 6. The city partnered with the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, along with the cities of Kitchener and Cambridge, to host former London councillor, author, and community advocate Gord Hume at a luncheon event on December 9, Six council meetings were held on December 14, 2015, January 11, 18, 25, February 1 and 8, 2016.

5 5 Choose a department Creating public awareness A formal communications plan was developed to ensure continued awareness of both Open City Hall and the budget issue boards within the facilities. Advertisements encouraging participation in the budget process, were placed in the Waterloo Chronicle on December 3, 24, 31, 2015, January 7, 14, 21, 28, and February 4, Examples of the advertisements can be seen in the images below. Image 2 Image 1

6 6 Choose a department The Waterloo Chronicle reaches more than 32,000 homes in the City of Waterloo and in addition to advertising, the engagement efforts were also noted in several articles written by Chronicle staff writers. Social media was also utilized to encourage participation both online and in person and staff utilized paid promotions to achieve a further reach in their efforts. A total of $220 was spent on promoted messages, and the combination of both paid and organic messages garnered: 710 engagements (interactions between the city and its followers which garner attention and can include link clicks, likes, comments, shares, discussions) 9,900 views of our Lucy budget video a total reach of 146,000 Budget video The Lucy budget video was published on our website on December 15, This 90 second video highlights the quality of life in Waterloo and provides an understanding as to how our budget is allocated and spent. Lucy, our budget mascot, discusses the needs for the city to keep up with financial demands in order to maintain areas such as roads, parks, and emergency resources as well as to address increased service demands and costs associated growing infrastructure and climate related events. She also highlights a few other areas: o Average Waterloo homeowner paid $4,070 in property taxes and about $1,200 of that ($100/month) provides for services such as: Recreational programs Senior services Parks and trails Bike lanes Snow clearing Road repair Street lighting Libraries Cultural events Fire rescue Municipal enforcement

7 7 Choose a department In closing the video encourages public feedback on the proposed budget by visiting waterloo.ca/budget. Budget issue boards Budget issue boards were placed in four city-owned facilities and featured four main topics. Following an interaction with a customer service representative in these facilities, staff provided the patron with seven gold stars and asked them to place their stars on the Image 3 boards to mark their prioritized preferences. Members of the public were also engaged at two additional pop-up city hall events. These are random interactions and it is important to note the difficulty in measuring the total number of interactions. Total results compiling all budget boards. Efficiencies at the city: Do you feel it is important for the City of Waterloo to continue working with its neighbouring cities on projects such as energy management upgrades and street light upgrades to LED technology?

8 8 Choose a department City Hall Figure ARC WMRC Yes 7 RIM Park 0 0 No Not sure Pop-up city hall - Harper Branch Pop-up city hall - Levee Total Figure 1 Total issue board responses for efficiency preferences

9 Environment, parks, trails, and open spaces: 9 Choose a department a. I am willing to pay more to maintain our current parks, trails, and open spaces. b. I am willing to pay more to maintain NEW parks, trails, and open spaces scheduled to be created between 2016 and c. I am not willing to invest additional dollars in our environment and parks, trails, or open spaces. City Hall ARC A. Pay more for current assets WMRC B. Pay more for new assets C. Not willing to invest more RIM Park Pop-up city hall - Harper Branch Pop-up city hall - Levee Total Figure 2 - Total issue board responses for environment, parks, and trails preferences

10 10 Choose a department Library: d. I feel it is important to increase investment in the Waterloo Public Library by $6.15 per average household annually. e. I believe the current funding levels in the agreement between the city and the Waterloo Public Library are appropriate. f. I believe that a new branch on the east side should be designed with the capital available and planned sustainable operating budget. City Hall ARC WMRC A. Increase investment RIM Park B. Current funding is appropriate Pop-up city hall - Harper Branch C. New branch to be designed with available resources Pop-up city hall - Levee Total Figure 3 - Total issue board responses for library preferences

11 What is your budget of choice: 11 Choose a department a. CPIX budget in line with inflation. b. The recommended budget that is a little more than inflation. City Hall ARC CPIX Recommended WMRC RIM Park 7 6 Pop-up city hall - Harper Branch Pop-up city hall - Levee Total Figure 4 - Total issue board responses for budget choice preference

12 12 Choose a department About Open City Hall How it works Open City Hall (OCH) is the city s online public engagement platform. Comments posted to OCH are available for the public to view, and remain visible after the topic has closed. Community members are asked to register when they submit a comment, although they can still submit comments anonymously. Feedback from those who register is identified as on-forum essentially being verified as a real person. Feedback from community members who do not complete the registration process is considered off-forum, and is not displayed publicly, although staff can still access these comments. Staff can respond to comments directly through OCH. Method of public engagement By using OCH, the city is allowing community members who may not have the ability or inclination to attend public meetings to provide their input on municipal projects. The forum is designed to be an additional tool for public engagement, but is not intended to replace legislated methods of public consultation or targeted public consultation that may be required depending on the project. Registering to Open City Hall Community members must register in order to submit their comment publicly. Many residents do not want to register to yet another account, although there is the option to use an existing account such as Facebook, Google+, or LinkedIn to register quickly and easily. OCH does not post to these accounts without the explicit permission of the respondent. Safe and transparent space for submitting feedback As it is a public forum, OCH is intended to increase transparency; it allows community members to learn about the different perspectives in the community and also to see how the collective feedback impacts the final outcome. Peak Democracy, the service provider for OCH, monitors the forum and uses sophisticated filters to find any comments that may be deemed uncivil or off-topic. These comments are removed from the forum, and the service provider contacts the individuals who submit these comments to give them an opportunity to amend the statements to be more civil or appropriate. Requiring residents to register in order for their comments to appear online improves the security of the forum. By default, each resident can only post once per topic. This prevents one resident from dominating the topic. The registration process also allows Peak Democracy to resolve statements that do not meet the guidelines for civility, as described above. Pros and cons of using Open City Hall Many of the challenges and risks associated with using OCH can also be seen as benefits. OCH is a public forum, and while all the comments must adhere to the civility

13 13 Choose a department standards outlined, as long as it is civil and on-topic, residents are permitted to write what they want. This supports transparency and public trust; however, staff may occasionally receive comments that are inaccurate, based on misunderstanding. Staff can respond to such comments in order to clarify the situation. This response can be made private or it can be public so that any resident perusing the feedback submissions will see this correction. OCH budget engagement The engagement through open city hall closely mirrored that of the issue boards, however more fulsome metrics could be gathered to understand who was providing input. Cumulative visitors to the topic: 961 total visitors 591 total participants (341 on forum participants and 250 off forum participants) 29.6 hours of public comment Figure 5 Total unique visitors **on forum only

14 14 Choose a department Age of 341 on forum participants: ** Note: Gender of participants was 50% male, 50% female Figure 6 Age of total on forum participants Number of on forum participants per ward: Ward 1 = 38 Ward 2 = 32 Ward 3 = 46 Ward 4 = 75 Ward 5 = 38 Ward 6 = 41 Ward 7 = 52 Outside Waterloo = 19 Image 4 Total on forum responses by ward

15 15 Choose a department 1. Efficiencies at the city: Do you feel it is important for the City of Waterloo to continue working with its neighbouring cities on projects such as energy management upgrades and street light upgrades to LED technology? Yes No Verified Unverified Not sure Figure 7 Total participants (% of on forum responses) Ward 1 Yes Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 No Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Not sure Outside Waterloo Figure 8 By ward (%)

16 16 Choose a department Selection of comments provided on efficiencies: " not sure in section 4 because I am not convinced of the potential savings by converting to LED technology. There will be about 8-9 years before breakeven point is reached, depending on interest rates for the borrowed funds. Sounds a little like a band-wagon issue! I am excited for LED street light conversion! 2. Environment, parks, trails, and open spaces: a. I feel it is important that more city funds focus on our growing community demands, environmental awareness and growth of our parks and open spaces. b. I am willing to pay more to maintain our current parks, trails, and open spaces. c. I am willing to pay more to maintain NEW parks, trails, and open spaces, scheduled to be created between 2016 and d. I am willing to pay more to ensure garbage is picked up more often. e. I am not willing to invest additional dollars in our environment and parks, trails, or open spaces. Important to focus on our growing community Willing to pay more to maintain current assets Willing to pay more to maintain new assets Willing to pay more to increase garbage pick up Verified Unverified Not willing to invest more

17 17 Choose a department Ward 1 Important to focus on our growing community Ward 2 Willing to pay more to maintain current assets Ward 3 Ward 4 Willing to pay more to maintain new assets Ward 5 Figure 9 Total participants (% of on forum responses) Willing to pay more to increase garbage pick up Ward 6 Ward 7 Not willing to invest more Outside of Waterloo Figure 10 By ward (%)

18 18 Choose a department Selection of comments provided on environment, parks and trails: I would be willing to pay more for parks etc upkeep, but not the amounts shown and not on top of all the other increases noted. Neighbourhood parks are extremely important to our community. I fully support additional funds to ensure that green (and white in winter!) space exists for our citizens. Waterloo is a great place to live, work, invest and rear a family! Well done councillors and staff. I think the current investments in parks/trails, etc. are sufficient. I am a frequent user and have not found the maintenance or garbage collection to be an issue at all. 3. Library: a. I feel it is important to increase investment in the Waterloo Public Library by $6.15 per average household annually. b. I believe the current funding levels in the agreement between the city and the Waterloo Public Library are appropriate. c. I believe that a new branch on the east side should be designed with the capital available and planned sustainable operating budget. Increase investment by $6.15/yr Current funding levels are appropriate Verified Unverified New branch should be designed with current resources Figure 11 Total participants (% of on forum responses)

19 19 Choose a department Ward 1 Increase investment by $6.15/yr Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Current funding levels are appropriate Ward 5 Ward 6 New branch should be designed with current resources Ward 7 Outside Waterloo Figure 12 By ward (%)

20 Selection of comments provided on library funding: 20 Choose a department Funding should be restored to the Library at Fisher-Hallman/Laurelwood so that it can be open 7 days a week! A library on the East side would be amazing! The programmes and increase in literacy initiatives are crucial to the community. Our neighbourhood is a sea of kids playing only competitive sports. And those who cannot afford or make these teams are then forced to go as far as the Waterloo Rec Centre or YMCA in order to take part in activities that are not as stringent. Waterloo is an aging population and we need to consider what options our seniors have. I feel a library with a rec center attached would be fitting. Desperately need a library on the east side. The city and WPL should not add yet another library on the east side instead increase and maintain the hours at our current 3 libraries. It is silly to build another library when current hours are to be reduced at the wonderful Harper Library. Use the $7.8 million set aside in capital funding to maintain our current branches (also noted that no operating funding has been set aside to pay for staff, utilities etc. of a new branch).

21 21 Choose a department 4. What is your budget of choice: a. CPIX budget in line with inflation. b. The recommended budget that is a little more than inflation. CPIX Recommended Verified Unverified Figure 13 Total participants (% of on forum responses) CPIX Recommended Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Outside Waterloo Figure 14 By ward (%)

22 Selection of comments provided on tax rate increase: 22 Choose a department I believe a strong municipal government with a vision of improving the quality of life for its constituents is critical. To do this effectively, it must ensure that it provides services that the residents require while eliminating inefficiencies. Raising taxes is not the first option that should be considered. Targeting services and reducing operating costs should be the goal. We pay enough in taxes now. While these projects may all seem valid, it is important that our elected officials consider the cost to its citizens and work within reasonable budgets. If something new is needed, then something else may have to go. That is how households have to make tough decisions. One of the things I love about living in Canada and in Waterloo is the political climate which generally recognizes the value of public investments funded by our taxes. City services are an important part of what makes Waterloo a good place to live, and because of that I support increasing taxes slightly above inflation to maintain and increase services. What can I really buy for 11 dollars these days? How about better parks, more library hours, pools for my kids? Please be forward thinking and choose the higher bracket to invest in our city's future. Selection of other comments provided within the survey: Please continue to move forward with the senior/age friendly community initiative. This community is also taking lead in the province with a dementia strategy and it would be important for the city to be aware if not actively involved. I think neighbourhood associations can engage older adults for creative endeavours the same way young families are supported. Please consider adding outdoor basketball courts in neighbourhood parks as an active and engaging activity for kids that are older than the playground age. I support densifying the Waterloo uptown core. I would love to see Waterloo as a leader in municipal Internet speed. I would also support sidewalk snow clearing December-February. I would like to see the city invest much more in arts and culture. It does not pull its weight in this area compared to the City of Kitchener. I love all the city services provided. I have no complaint. Waterloo is a great city and it costs money to focus on things that matter such as parks, libraries, bike trails, and so on. We need to make Waterloo the city was

23 23 Choose a department want our children to have in 20 years and not just worry about the increased cost for a single time (like replacing the light bulbs). I value our City's focus on its Public Library system, bike trails and lanes, improved energy efficiency, well-maintained trails and green spaces, and regular snow clearing. As a result of our hard work, our community is a pleasure to work, play and raise children in. I hope we may remain a strong, welcoming community for generations to come. Thanks for eliciting feedback. I'm happy to see that the City is asking for our input. The main suggestion I have, and I don't even know if this is possible, is to bring civil servant salaries and benefits in line with the regular job market. I don't know the figures, so that makes for a weak argument, but the odd time stories have appeared in the paper in the past, I feel angry that that taxpayers are paying for what appears to be so much extra. Congrats on this effort to seek rate payers input. OCH - Leaf collection engagement A large portion of leaf collection public consultation was conducted through OCH, although comments also received by phone, , and paper were recorded. The survey opened October 23, 2015 and closed November 20, The leaf collection survey was promoted through paid advertising on Facebook and Twitter, using funds from the OCH project. A total of $1,275 was spent on promoted messages, and the combination of both paid and organic messages garnered: 11,000 engagements (interactions between the city and its followers which garner attention and can include link clicks, likes, comments, shares, discussions) a total reach of 202,000 The survey was also promoted on the city s website, with details about the survey on the leaf collection project page. Posters advertising the leaf collection program were posted at all city facilities, which also included a notice to visit the city s website to receive more information about the program. Customer service representatives promoted the OCH survey to all residents that call or ed regarding the leaf collection program. It should be noted that the advertising for the survey and the collection of responses was almost exclusively online. While this reaches a broad segment of the population, many residents in Waterloo may not have had access to the survey details or been

24 24 Choose a department aware that staff was collecting feedback on the leaf collection program and the three options for the future of the program. Cumulative visitors to the topic: 3,024 total visitors 1,007 on forum participants 811 off forum participants (unable to verify human participation) 90.9 hours of public response **on forum only Figure 15 Total unique visitors for the leaf collection survey Age of 1,007 on forum participants: ** Note: Gender of participants was 50% male, 50% female Figure 16 Total on forum participant age

25 Number of on forum participants per ward: Ward 1 = 107 Ward 2 = 32 Ward 3 = 143 Ward 4 = 155 Ward 5 = 156 Ward 6 = 162 Ward 7 = 164 Outside of Waterloo = Choose a department Image 5 Total participants by ward

26 Residents were asked to rank their preferences and comment on the following three options. Option one: maintain current level of services Option two: provide leaf Collection in mature treed areas only Option three: discontinue the leaf collection program 26 Choose a department Maintain Mature only Discontinue st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice Figure 17 total participants (#)

27 27 Choose a department Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Figure 18 Number of on forum responses by ward for leaf collection survey Ward 7 Outside Waterloo East 1 East 2 East 3 East 4 East 5 West 1 West 2 West 3 West 4 West 5 West 6 Outside of Mature Treed Figure 19 - Number of on forum responses by mature treed area collection zones Areas The majority of responses came from community members who reside within the mature treed areas of the City.

28 28 Choose a department Continue to visit all leaf collection zones at least once Provide leaf collection in mature treed areas only Discontinue the leaf collection program 0 Figure 20 On forum responses of preferred option by mature treed area collection zones In each of the proposed mature treed areas, residents would like leaf collection provided in their area. Outside of the mature treed areas, the residents would rather the discontinuation of the program, leading to the assumption that these residents would be able to manage the collection and disposal of their own leaves.