municipal administrators’ survey 2013 - summary report ... · respondents’ last jobs were in...

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATORS’ SURVEY 2013

- SUMMARY REPORT -

Presented to:

Alberta Municipal Affairs

Date:

June 14, 2013

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... I

2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

3.0 METHOD HIGHLIGHTS ........................................................................................ 1

4.0 SURVEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 2

4.1 Employment, Education and Training .....................................................................2

4.1.1 Profile of Respondents .............................................................................................................................. 2

4.1.2 Employment Experience .......................................................................................................................... 3

4.1.3 Future Employment Plans ........................................................................................................................ 6

4.1.4 Educational Background .......................................................................................................................... 9

4.1.5 Education and Training Budget .......................................................................................................... 15

4.1.6 Education and Training Interests ........................................................................................................ 15

4.2 Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Time Commitments ................................................................................................................................. 18

4.2.2 Sources of Timely Information ............................................................................................................. 20

4.2.3 Capital, Financial and Sustainability Planning ................................................................................. 23

4.2.4 Priorities and Issues ................................................................................................................................ 26

4.2.5 Opportunities for Advancement ......................................................................................................... 31

4.2.6 Succession Planning ............................................................................................................................... 33

4.2.7 Staff Recruitment .................................................................................................................................... 34

4.3 Programs and Services ............................................................................................. 37

4.3.1 Likelihood of Participating in Municipal Internship Programs ..................................................... 37

4.3.2 Assessment of Municipal Grants Advisory Resources .................................................................... 41

4.3.3 Website Usage and Usability................................................................................................................ 46

4.3.4 Communication and Information Management Technology ....................................................... 49

4.3.5 Best Way to Communicate New Information .................................................................................. 51

4.3.6 General Comments ................................................................................................................................. 51

APPENDIX A – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 i

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the spring of 2013, a total of 253 Alberta Municipal Administrators participated in a multi mode (online and telephone) census survey. Key findings were as follows: EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Profile of Respondents

Thirty-four percent (34%) are the chief administrators of Alberta towns, 28%

administrate villages, 25% rural municipalities, 7% summer villages, and 7% cities or specialized municipalities.

When broken down by the 2012 official municipality population counts, 18% administrate a municipality with a population of 300 or less, 22% a municipal population of 301 to 1,000, 30% from 1,001 to 5,000, 14% from 5,001 to 10,000, and 15% more than 10,000.

The profile of respondents to the 2013 survey is very similar to the profile of the 2010 survey respondents.

Employment Experience

In 2013, 29% of respondents have been a CAO in an Alberta municipality for less

than 4 years, 40% between 4 to 10 years and 32% for more than 10 years. There has been a large decrease since 2010 in the proportion who have been a CAO for less than 4 years (from 39% in 2010, down to 29% in 2013), and a corresponding large increase in the proportion who have been a CAO for 4 to 10 years (from 29% in 2010, to 40% in 2013). In 2013, municipal administrators, as a group, have more experience as a CAO of an Alberta municipality than they had in 2010.

Twelve percent (12%) of respondents have been a CAO in another province, territory or state besides Alberta, with little change in these results since 2010 (14%).

Almost three quarters (72%, up substantially from 66% in 2010) of respondents’ last jobs were with a municipal government, including 32% who worked in another position within their current municipality, 32% (up substantially from 27% in 2010) whose last job was in another Alberta municipality, and 8% whose last job was in another municipality outside of Alberta. Sixteen percent (16%) of respondents’ last jobs were in the private sector, 9% in the non-municipal public sector, and 4% with another type of employer.

Almost half (45%) of respondents’ last jobs were as a CAO or another comparable position, and 31% worked in Corporate Services, such as Human

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 ii

Resources, Information Technology, Accounting, or Finance. Nine percent (9%) or less worked in another type of job.

Future Employment Plans

Approximately half (47%) of all respondents anticipate working as a CAO in an

Alberta municipality for six more years or less, 19% for seven to ten more years, and 26% for more than 10 more years. Eight percent (8%) did not provide a response. There has been little change in these results since 2010.

More than half (53%) of CAOs plan to leave the municipal CAO profession in the next 10 years, with the major reason being retirement. Similar results were found in 2010 (55% planned to leave).

Educational Background

Approximately half (51%) of CAOs have some formal university education,

including 13% who have some university education and 38% who have a university undergraduate or graduate degree. Less than half have college or technical school training (43%), or high school or less (6%) as their highest level of formal education.

Of those with a post-secondary education, the highest percentage had a degree or diploma in the field of Business or Commerce (37%), followed by Public Administration (21%), General Arts and Humanities (13%), and Recreation (10%). There has been a substantial decrease since 2010 in the percentage who have a degree or diploma in the field of Public Administration (from 27% in 2010, to 21% in 2013).

Across all fields of post-secondary education, 54% have a college diploma, 30% have an undergraduate degree, and 15% have a graduate degree.

Within the past three years, about half (49%) have taken an association sponsored conference or workshop, followed closely by 48% who have taken an Alberta Municipal Affairs (MA) workshop. Substantial proportions have taken a Municipal Administrators Leadership Workshop (27%), National Advanced Certificate in Local Authority Administration (NACLAA) Level I (18%), a Let’s Resolve workshop (15%), NACLAA Level II (12%), and the Certificate in Municipal Management and Leadership (CMML) (10%). Other courses, workshops or seminars were taken by less than 10% of respondents.

Education and Training Budget

Approximately one-third (32%) of respondents indicated that their municipality

budget allocation for CAO education and training is under $1,500, 32% indicated it was between $1,500 and $3,499, and 36% indicated it is $3,500 or more. Since

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 iii

2010, there has been a large increase in the percentage who have a budget of $3,500 or more (from 25% in 2010, to 36% in 2013).

Education and Training Interests

A majority (from 56% to 71%) were interested in the following areas of training:

Strategic thinking and business planning skills (71% interested); Knowledge of the Municipal Government Act/other legislation (68%

interested, up from 62% in 2010); Municipal roles and responsibilities (68% interested); Financial management and budgeting skills (65% interested); Interpersonal communication skills (65% interested); Human resource management practices (60% interested, up from 52% in

2010); Project management skills (56% interested); and Skills in drafting by-laws, policies and minutes (56% interested).

A minority (14% to 49%) of respondents were interested in the following areas: Mediation and negotiation skills (49% interested); Public/media relations skills (48% interested); Tax recovery process (42% interested); Written communication skills (44% interested); Returning Officer training during non-election years (20% interested, up from

15% in 2010); and Municipal census training (14% interested).

There were no areas of training with a substantial decrease since 2010 in the percentage who are interested.

RESPONSIBILITIES Time Commitments

A majority (a range of 51% to 63%) of CAOs indicated increases in the amount of

time they devote to the following: Interacting with neighboring municipalities (63% increased); Administration (57% increased); Management of staff and dealing with staff issues (54% increased); Strategic planning/Business planning (54% increased); Interacting with council (51% increased); and Land use planning/development (51% increased).

The area with the highest proportion of respondents who indicated that the amount of time they devote has decreased is accounting (16% decreased).

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 iv

In 2013, respondents were more likely to say that the amount of time spent on the following has increased: Management of staff and dealing with staff issues (from 47% who said it had

increased in 2010, to 54% in 2013). In 2013, respondents were less likely to say that the amount of time spent on the

following has increased: Interacting with neighbouring municipalities (from 69% who said it had

increased in 2010, to 63% in 2013); Strategic planning/Business planning (from 61% who said it had increased in

2010, to 54% in 2013); Land use planning/development (from 57% who said it had increased in

2010, to 51% in 2013); Finance and budgeting (from 56% who said it had increased in 2010, to 48%

in 2013); Accounting (from 46% who said it had increased in 2010, to 34% in 2013); and Drafting bylaws and policy (from 37% who said it had increased in 2010, to

31% in 2013). Sources of Timely Information

The vast majority (90%) indicated that phoning a colleague in another

municipality was the most (41%), second most (35%) or third most (14%) beneficial source of information for addressing a time-sensitive issue. A majority of respondents mentioned the following additional sources of information as one of their top three sources for time-sensitive information: Discussing the issue with their staff (mentioned by 57% as one of their top

three sources of information); and Calling municipal advisors at Municipal Affairs (mentioned by 56% as one of

their top three sources of information). Capital, Financial and Sustainability Planning

Approximately three-quarters (77%) of respondents identified that their

municipality has a council approved capital plan, with no substantial change in these results since 2010.

Among those who indicated that their municipality has an approved capital plan, most (84%) have a financial plan to provide for the planned capital spending, with little change in these results since 2010.

The vast majority (91%) of all respondents have or were preparing, an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) or Municipal Sustainability Plan (MSP), with little change in these results since 2010.

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 v

Priorities and Issues Eighty-three percent (83%) anticipate intermunicipal concerns to be a priority in

the future, among whom 75% were considering new approaches, such as formal intermunicipal protocols or guidelines, as a means of addressing intermunicipal concerns. There has been little change in these results since 2010.

When asked to identify the three major issues on which their municipality will focus over the next three years, infrastructure was mentioned most often as the issue on which they will focus (by 72% of respondents, including 42% who indicated they will focus on it most, 22% second most, and 8% third most), followed by financial shortfalls (42%, including 14% who indicated they will focus on it most, 15% second most, and 13% third most), and long-term capital planning (23%, including 7% who indicated they will focus on it most, 7% second most, and 9% thirst most). A long list of other issues were provided by respondents.

There were substantial increases since 2010 in the percentage of respondents who mentioned the following issues: Infrastructure (from 67% who mentioned it as one of their top three issues in

2010, to 72% in 2013); Financial shortfalls (from 35% who mentioned it as one of their top three

issues in 2010, to 42% in 2013); and Lack of qualified staff (from 10% who mentioned it as one of their top three

issues in 2010, to 16% in 2013). There were substantial decreases since 2010 in the percentage of respondents who

mentioned the following issues: Developing relationships with neighbouring municipalities (from 29% who

mentioned it as one of their top three issues in 2010, to 21% in 2013); and Land development (from 23% who mentioned it as one of their top three

issues in 2010, to 18% in 2013). Opportunities for Advancement

Forty-one percent (41%) provided a high rating on the opportunities for

advancement within their municipality for a new employee with management potential, 28% provided a neutral rating, and 30% provided a low rating, with little change in these results since 2010.

Succession Planning All respondents were asked if they have a formal succession plan in place.

Although more than half (53%) of all respondents plan to leave the municipal CAO profession in the next 10 years, only 13% of all respondents have a formal succession plan in place. There has been no change in these results since 2010.

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 vi

Staff Recruitment

The vast majority (85%) of respondents recruited staff within the past three years.

The same results were found in 2010. Among those who hired staff, the following types of positions were most

difficult to fill: Public works, gas, and utilities positions (43% mentioned it as one of their top

three positions that were most difficult to fill); Planner/planning and development/economic development positions (24%

mentioned it as one of their top three positions that were most difficult to fill); and

Finance/CFO/accountant positions (21% mentioned it as one of their top three positions that were most difficult to fill).

Of those who hired staff, the vast majority (85%) were able to fill all their positions. A very small percentage of respondents were unable to fill certain types of positions. Mentioned most often as positions that they were unable to fill were: Public works, gas, and utilities positions (2% of respondents were unable to

fill these types of top positions); Planner/planning and development/economic development positions (2% of

respondents were unable to fill these types of top positions); Parks and recreation/tourism positions (2% of respondents were unable to fill

these types of top positions), and Trades/maintenance/equipment operators/agricultural fieldmen positions

(2% of respondents were unable to fill these types of top positions). PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Likelihood of Participating in Municipal Internship Program

Within the next three years, 39% of respondents who were eligible to participate

in the Municipal Internship Program for Administrators (n=191) indicated that they were likely to apply to participate, with little change in these results since 2010.

Within the next three years, 30% of respondents who were eligible to participate in the Municipal Internship Program for Land Use Planners (n=125) indicated that they were likely to apply to participate. There has been a substantial decrease since 2010 in the likelihood of participating in Municipal Internship Program for Land Use Planners (from 35% likely to participate in 2010, to 30% in 2013).

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 vii

Assessment of Municipal Grants Advisory Resources

In 2013, new questions were added to the survey to assess the services and

materials provided by Alberta Municipal Affairs’ Municipal Grants advisory resources.

When asked if, over the past three years, they have received the various services provided by Municipal Grants advisory resources, most respondents had a conversation with program staff (81%) and/or corresponded with program staff (65%). A minority had visited a trade show booth at a convention (40%), met with program staff at a municipal conference (35%), and/or attended a presentation by program staff (32%). Nine percent (9%) did not receive any services from Municipal Grants advisory resources.

Satisfaction with the level of service provided was high, regardless of the type of service received (81% to 93% were satisfied, and 0% to 1% were dissatisfied).

When asked if, over the past three years, they have received or used the various municipal grant program materials provided by Municipal Grants advisory resources, almost all (96%) received or used the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) capital program guidelines, followed by the MSI operating program guidelines (93%), the MSI capital application form (92%), the MSI capital Statement of Funding and Expenditures (SFE) (91%), the MSI operating SFE (83%), and the MSI operating spending plan (79%). Over half (55%) received or used the Regional Collaboration Program (RCP) program guidelines. A minority received or used the RCP program application form (35%) and the RCP reporting package (27%).

Respondents’ level of satisfaction with the grant program materials that they received or used over the past three years was highest for the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) capital program guidelines, with 88% satisfied (4 or 5 rating) and 2% dissatisfied (1 or 2 rating). Satisfaction was lowest for the RCP reporting package, with 61% satisfied, and 6% dissatisfied.

Website Usage and Usability

The vast majority (91%) of respondents have accessed the Alberta Municipal

Affairs website in the past year. These respondents (n=229) were then asked if they found the information they were looking for. The vast majority (93%) did find the information they were looking for. If they found the information (n=212), almost all (99%) indicated that it was of value.

Among those who accessed the Municipal Affairs website in the past year (n=229), the majority (64%) provided high ratings for the usability of the website, 28% provided a neutral rating, and 8% provided low ratings. Ratings of the usability of the website have improved substantially since 2010, as 57% provided high ratings in 2010, rising to 64% in 2013.

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 viii

Communication and Information Management Technology

Most respondents (72%) are already using an email management system. About

half are already using mobile devices (48%) and electronic surveys (47%). A minority are already using social networking media (29%), web-based video conferencing (26%), digital video-conferencing (17%), and Wiki (5%).

Use or interest was highest for email management systems (92% were already using or interested), followed by electronic surveys (85% were already using or interested), mobile devices (84% were already using or interested), web-based video conferencing (82% were already using or interested), digital video-conferencing (78% were already using or interested), and social networking media (72% were already using or interested). Use or interest in Wiki was much lower (53% were already using or interested).

Respondents were most interested in learning about digital video-conferencing (27%), followed by web-based video conferencing (26%), Wiki (20%), social networking media (19%), mobile devices (13%), electronic surveys (8%), and email management systems (6%).

Best Way to Communicate New Information

When asked to indicate the best way for Municipal Affairs to communicate new

information to them in the future, the vast majority (88%) indicated that email was best.

General Comments

All respondents were invited to provide additional comments and 30% provided

comments on a wide range of different topics. Comments were edited to ensure anonymity and have been provided to Municipal Affairs under separate cover.

Municipal Administrators’ Survey 2013 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 2013, Alberta Municipal Affairs commissioned Resinnova to conduct a multi-mode (online and telephone data collection) census survey of the municipal administrators of provincial municipalities in order to gain feedback and input on employment, education and training of municipal administrators; municipal priorities; and the programs and services offered by Alberta Municipal Affairs. In 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 Alberta Municipal Affairs commissioned similar surveys. This report outlines the results of the 2013 survey and, when appropriate, compares the results of previous surveys. The 2013 survey of Alberta’s municipal administrators was designed to meet the following objectives:

To determine the demographic trends of municipal administrators in Alberta, such as education levels, local government work experience, training needs, human resource planning needs, and shifts in municipal administrators’ priorities within the different types of municipalities;

To serve as a vehicle for evaluating the effectiveness of selected Municipal Affairs programs and services; and

To explore current issues in the municipal sector.

3.0 METHOD HIGHLIGHTS

A census survey of Alberta’s municipal administrators using a combination of

online and telephone data collection methods. A copy of the final survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. The list of municipal administrators was provided by Alberta Municipal Affairs. A total of 310 municipal administrators were included on the list provided by

Alberta Municipal Affairs. Of these, a total of 253 participated in the 2013 survey. Hence, the overall participation rate among municipal administrators was 82%, compared to 83% in 2010, 80% in 2007, 85% in 2004, and 84% in 2001.

The initial contact with municipal administrators was by e-mail. If there was no response to the email invitation and reminders, then attempts were made to contact and interview the municipal administrator by telephone. A total of 240 municipal administrators, or 95%, participated online, and 13 (5%) participated by telephone.


4.0 SURVEY FINDINGS

This section presents the results of the 2013 survey based on the topic areas addressed in the survey questionnaire. Trends and changes since previous surveys (2010, 2007, 2004 and 2001) are identified whenever they are substantial and meaningful.

4.1 Employment, Education and Training

4.1.1 Profile of Respondents

A profile of the characteristics of all 2013 respondents (n=253) is provided in Table 1, along with a profile of the characteristics of respondents to the last survey (2010). Highlights of the characteristics of respondents include: Thirty-four percent (34%) administrate Alberta towns, 28% villages, 25% rural

municipalities, 7% summer villages, and 7% cities or specialized municipalities. When broken down by the 2012 official municipality population counts, 18%

administrate a municipality with a population of 300 or less, 22% a municipal population of 301 to 1,000, 30% from 1,001 to 5,000, 14% from 5,001 to 10,000, and 15% more than 10,000.

The profile of respondents to the 2013 survey is very similar to the profile of the 2010 survey respondents.


Table 1

Profile of Respondents

Percent of

Respondents 2013

(n=253) 2010

(n=262)

Municipal Type: City / Specialized Municipality 7 6 Town 34 36 Village 28 29 Summer Village 7 7 Rural Municipality (Municipal Districts / Improvement Districts /

Specialized Areas) 25 22

Population Size: 300 or less 18 18 301 to 1,000 22 24 1,001 to 5,000 30 30 5,001 to 10,000 14 14 More than 10,000 15 15

4.1.2 Employment Experience

In 2013, 29% of respondents have been a CAO in an Alberta municipality for less than 4 years, 40% between 4 to 10 years and 32% for more than 10 years (Table 2). As seen in Table 2, while there was an increasing trend from 2001 to 2010 in the proportion who had been a CAO for less than 4 years (from 25% in 2001, up to 39% in 2010), there has been a large decrease since 2010 in the proportion who have been a CAO for less than 4 years (from 39% in 2010, down to 29% in 2013), and a corresponding large increase in the proportion who have been a CAO for 4 to 10 years (from 29% in 2010, to 40% in 2013). In 2013, municipal administrators, as a group, have more experience as a CAO of an Alberta municipality than they had in 2010.


Table 2

How long have you been a CAO in an Alberta municipality?

Percent of Respondents

2013 (n=253)

2010 (n=262)

2007 (n=255)

2004 (n=273)

2001 (n=273)

Less than 4 years 29 39 34 29 25

4 to 10 years 40 29 31 29 34

More than 10 years 32 32 35 41 42

Chart 1 shows that 12% of respondents have been a CAO in another province, territory or state besides Alberta, with little change in these results since 2010 (14%).

Chart 1

14%

12%

86%

88%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=262)

2013 (n=253)

Yes No

Have you been a CAO in another province, territory or state

besides Alberta?


All respondents were asked to indicate the description of the most recent job they held prior to their current position, both by employer type as well as job type. Almost three quarters (72%, up substantially from 66% in 2010) of respondents’ last jobs were with a municipal government, including 32% who worked in another position within their current municipality, 32% (up substantially from 27% in 2010) whose last job was in another Alberta municipality, and 8% whose last job was in another municipality outside of Alberta. Sixteen percent (16%) of respondents’ last jobs were in the private sector, 9% in the non-municipal public sector, and 4% with another type of employer (see Table 3). Almost half (45%) of respondents’ last jobs were as a CAO or other comparable position, and 31% worked in Corporate Services. The other types of last jobs are listed in Table 3.

Table 3

Which one of the following describes the most recent job you held prior to your current position as CAO?


2013

(n=253)

2010

(n=262)

Employer Type: Municipal Government 72 66

Another position within current municipality 32 29 Another Alberta municipality 32 27 Another municipality outside of Alberta 8 10

Private Sector 16 19 Non-municipal public sector 9 11 Other 4 5

Job Type: CAO/other 45 46 Corporate Services (e.g. HR, IT, accounting, finance) 31 33 Community Services (e.g. recreation, culture, social services) 9 8 Planning and Engineering 9 5 Operations (e.g., water, sewer, sanitation, transportation) 3 5 Protective Services (e.g., police, fire, ambulance) 2 1 Not stated 1 1


4.1.3 Future Employment Plans

Approximately half (47%) of all respondents (n=253) anticipate working as a CAO in an Alberta municipality for six more years or less, 19% for seven to ten more years, and 26% for more than 10 more years. Eight percent (8%) did not provide a response. There has been little change in these results since 2010, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4

How many more years do you anticipate working as a CAO in an Alberta municipality?


2013 (n=253)

2010 (n=262)

2007 (n=254)

2004 (n=273)

2001 (n=273)

6 years or less 47 51 53 44 34

7 to 10 years 19 17 19 23 25

More than 10 years 26 26 18 23 41

Don’t know 8 6 10 10 NA NA=Not Asked


More than half (53%) of all respondents plan to leave the municipal CAO profession in the next 10 years, as shown in Chart 2. There has been little change in these results since 2010.

Chart 2

55%

53%

45%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=262)

2013 (n=253)

Yes No

Do you have a plan to leave the municipal CAO profession in

the next 10 years?


The main reason provided by those planning to leave the CAO profession in the next 10 years (n=133) was retirement (79%). Substantial proportions also mentioned reasons relating to having a better work/life balance (25%), a desire to seek new challenges (20%), that the work environment is too demanding (14%), and that the compensation is inadequate (11%). Other reasons were provided by less than 10% of respondents. See Table 5 for details.

Table 5

What would be your reasons for leaving the municipal CAO profession?

Percent of Respondents Who Have

a Plan to Leave the Profession 2013

(n=133) 2010

(n=145)

Retirement 79 77

Work/life balance 25 34

Seek new challenges 20 15

Work environment too demanding 14 17

Inadequate compensation 11 14

Work in another sector 8 5

Work in another profession 4 8

Personal health 4 4

Other 5 5

Not stated 0 1

Total 170* 180*

* Adds up to more than 100% due to multiple mentions.


4.1.4 Educational Background

When asked to indicate their highest level of formal education, approximately half (51%) of all respondents have some formal university education, including 13% who have some university education and 38% who have a university undergraduate or graduate degree. Less than half have college or technical school training (43%), or high school or less (6%) as their highest level of formal education. As show in Table 6, there has been a large increase since 2001 in the proportion who have graduated from university (from 22% in 2001, to 38% in 2013).

Table 6

Which one of the following best describes the highest level of formal education you have obtained?


2013 (n=253)

2010 (n=262)

2007 (n=255)

2004 (n=273)

2001 (n=273)

High school or less 6 9 10 10 10

College/Technical School 43 44 47 48 68

Some university 13 15 15 14

University undergraduate / graduate degree

38 32 28 28 22


Those with post secondary training (n=226) were asked to indicate in which field or fields they hold a university degree or college diploma. The highest percentage of respondents had a degree or diploma in the field of Business or Commerce (37%), followed by Public Administration (21%), General Arts and Humanities (13%), and Recreation (10%). As shown in Table 7, there has been a substantial decrease since 2010 in the percentage who have a degree or diploma in the field of Public Administration (from 27% in 2010, to 21% in 2013).

Table 7

In which of the following fields do you hold a university degree or college diploma, if any?

Percentage of Respondents with Post-secondary

Education 2013

(n=226) 2010

(n=229)

Business/Commerce 37 41

Public Administration 21 27

General Arts and Humanities 13 9

Recreation 10 9

Science/Education/Law 8 5

Engineering 6 7

Planning 6 6

Other 20 24

Total 121* 128*

*Adds up to more than 100% due to multiple mentions.


For each field of study, respondents were asked to indicate if they had a college diploma, undergraduate degree, or graduate degree. As shown in Chart 3, 54% of all fields of study (n=274) were diploma programs, 30% were undergraduate degree programs, and 15% were graduate degree programs.

Chart 3

54% 30% 15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2013 (Number of

Fields=274)

College Diploma Undergraduate Degree Graduate Degree

Type of Degree or Diploma Across all Fields of Post-secondary

Education?


Table 8 provides a breakdown of the type of diploma or degree for each post-secondary field of study completed by municipal administrators.

Table 8

Type of Degree or Diploma for Each Field of Post-secondary Education?

Number of Respondents with a Post-secondary Education

in that Field College Diploma

Undergraduate Degree

Graduate Degree

Business/Commerce (n=84) 48 19 17

Public Administration (n=48) 32 10 6

General Arts and Humanities (n=30) 6 19 5

Recreation (n=22) 8 13 1

Engineering (n=14) 10 3 1

Planning (n=13) 7 3 3

Science/Education/Law (n=18) 7 9 2

Other (n=45) 31 7 7

Total 149 83 42


All respondents were provided a list of municipal management courses, workshops, or seminars and asked to identify which ones they have taken within the past three years. As shown in Table 9, about half (49%) have taken an association sponsored conference or workshop, followed closely by 48% who have taken an Alberta Municipal Affairs (MA) workshop. Substantial proportions have taken a Municipal Administrators Leadership Workshop (27%), National Advanced Certificate in Local Authority Administration (NACLAA) Level I (18%), a Let’s Resolve workshop (15%), NACLAA Level II (12%), and the Certificate in Municipal Management and Leadership (CMML) (10%). Other courses, workshops or seminars were taken by less than 10% of respondents.

Table 9

Which of the following municipal management courses, workshops, or seminars have you taken within the past three years?

Percent of

Respondents

(n=253)

Association sponsored conferences or workshops 49

Alberta Municipal Affairs (MA) workshops 48

Municipal Administrators Leadership Workshop 27

National Advanced Certificate in Local Authority Administration (NACLAA) Level I/Local Government Certificate Program

18

Let’s Resolve workshops 15

NACLAA Level II 12

Certificate in Municipal Management and Leadership (CMML) 10

Banff Centre Leadership Development Program 6

Muniversity 2

Royal Roads University’s Local Government Leadership 2

Other 25

None 21

Total 235* * Adds up to more than 100% due to multiple mentions.

Respondents who took at least one municipal management course, workshop, or seminar within the last three years (n=199) were asked to identify which one was the most valuable, which one was the second most valuable, and which one was the third most valuable. Table 10 shows that, of the courses, workshops and seminars on the list provided to respondents, respondents were most likely to choose a course, workshop or seminar that was not on the list provided (50% mentioned another course, workshop or seminar that was not on the list) as being one of their top three most valuable. About half (49%) indicated that an association sponsored


conference or workshop was one of their top three most valuable, followed by 8% who indicated the National Advanced Certificate in Local Authority Administration (NACLAA) Level I/Local Government Certificate Program (8%), and 8% who indicated Alberta Municipal Affairs (MA) workshops.

Table 10

Most Valuable Municipal Management Courses, Workshops, or Seminars Taken within the Last Three Years

Percent of Respondents Who Took Courses,

Workshops or Seminars

(n=199)

Most Valuable

Second Most

Valuable

Third Most Valuable

In Top Three*

Association sponsored conferences or workshops

34 30 24 49

National Advanced Certificate in Local Authority Administration (NACLAA) Level I/Local Government Certificate Program

3 3 2 8

Alberta Municipal Affairs (MA) workshops 3 3 3 7

NACLAA Level II 2 2 2 5

Certificate in Municipal Management and Leadership (CMML)

4 0 0 4

Banff Centre Leadership Development Program

3 1 1 4

Let’s Resolve workshops 1 1 2 3

Municipal Administrators Leadership Workshop

0 0 0 0

Muniversity 0 0 0 0

Royal Roads University’s Local Government Leadership

0 0 0 0

Other 33 33 23 50

None 19 29 45 19

When probed as to what “other” or what association sponsored course, workshops or seminars were in their top three most valuable, Local Government Administration Association (LGAA) annual conference and courses, workshops and seminars were mentioned most often (16% indicated they were in their top three), followed by 15% who mentioned courses, workshops and seminars on the subject of law, 13% who mentioned courses, workshops and seminars on the subject of leadership and management, 11% who mentioned Society of Local Government Managers (SLGM/CLGM) annual conference and courses, workshops and seminars, and 8% who specifically mentioned the SLGM Kananaskis Mountain Refresher. A long list of other courses, workshops and seminars were mentioned.


4.1.5 Education and Training Budget

Approximately one-third (32%) of respondents indicated that their municipality budget allocation for CAO education and training is under $1,500, 32% indicated it was between $1,500 and $3,499, and 36% indicated it is $3,500 or more. Since 2010, there has been a large increase in the percentage who have a budget of $3,500 or more (from 25% in 2010, to 36% in 2013), as shown in Table 11.

Table 11

What is your municipality budget allocation for CAO education and training?


2013 (n=253)

2010 (n=262)

Under $1,500 32 34

$1,500 to $3,499 32 39

$3,500 or more 36 25

(Don’t know/Not stated) 0 1

4.1.6 Education and Training Interests

All respondents were asked to rate their municipality’s level of interest (on a five point scale, where "1" was "not at all interested" and "5" was" very interested”) with various areas of training. The results are provided in Table 12. A majority (from 56% to 71%) were interested (4 and 5 ratings) in the following areas:

Strategic thinking and business planning skills (71% interested); Knowledge of the Municipal Government Act/other legislation (68%

interested); Municipal roles and responsibilities (68% interested); Financial management and budgeting skills (65% interested); Interpersonal communication skills (65% interested); Human resource management practices (60% interested); Project management skills (56% interested); and Skills in drafting by-laws, policies and minutes (56% interested).

A minority (14% to 49%) of respondents were interested (4 and 5 ratings) in the following areas:


Mediation and negotiation skills (49% interested); Public/media relations skills (48% interested); Tax recovery process (42% interested); Written communication skills (44% interested); Returning Officer training during non-election years (20% interested); and Municipal census training (14% interested).

Table 12

How interested* are you in… ?

Mean


(n=253)

Interested (4 or 5 Rating)

Neutral (3 Rating)

Not Interested

(1 or 2 Rating)

Strategic thinking and business planning skills 3.98 71 18 11

Knowledge of the Municipal Government Act/ other legislation

3.90 68 21 11

Municipal roles and responsibilities 3.82 68 19 13

Financial management and budgeting skills 3.81 65 21 14

Interpersonal communication skills (with staff and council)

3.78 65 22 13

Human resource management practices 3.63 60 23 17

Project management skills 3.57 56 28 15

Skills in drafting by-laws, policies and minutes 3.54 56 26 19

Mediation and negotiation skills 3.37 49 27 24

Public/media relations skills 3.33 48 26 26

Tax recovery process 3.23 42 30 28

Written communication skills (correspondence and reports)

3.20 44 28 28

Returning Officer training during non-election years

2.36 20 23 58

Municipal census training 2.35 14 32 54 * On a scale from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ is ‘not at all interested’ and ‘5’ is ‘very interested’.

Chart 4 shows the percentage of respondents who were interested in each area of training in 2010 and 2013. As shown, there have been substantial increases since 2010 in the percentage who are interested in the following:

Municipal Government Act/other legislation (from 62% interested in 2010, to 68% in 2013),

Human resource management practices (from 52% interested in 2010, to 60% in 2013), and

Returning Officer training during non-election years (from 15% interested in 2010, to 20% in 2013).


There were no areas with a substantial decrease since 2010 in the percentage who are interested.

Chart 4

Interest* in Various Areas of Training (Percentage of respondents who are interested, that

is, provided a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’)

71%

68%

65%

65%

60%

56%

56%

49%

48%

42%

44%

20%

14%

69%

62%

65%

66%

61%

52%

54%

57%

47%

47%

43%

44%

15%

68%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strategic thinking/business

planning

Municipal Government

Act/legislation

Municipal

roles/responsibilities

Financial

management/budgeting

Interpersonal

communication

HR management

Project management

Drafting by-laws/

policies/minutes

Mediation/negotiation

Public/media relations

Tax recovery

Written communication

Returning Officer

Municipal census

2013 (n=253) 2010 (n=262)

* On a scale from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ means ‘not at all interested’ and ‘5’ means ‘very interested’.


4.2 Responsibilities

4.2.1 Time Commitments

All respondents were provided with a list of areas of responsibility and asked to identify if, over the past three years or since they assumed the position of CAO, the amount of time they devote to each area has increased, stayed the same or decreased.

As shown in Table 13, a majority (a range of 51% to 63%) indicated increases in the amount of time they devote to the following:

Interacting with neighboring municipalities (63% increased); Administration (57% increased); Management of staff and dealing with staff issues (54% increased); Strategic planning/Business planning (54% increased); Interacting with council (51% increased); and Land use planning/development (51% increased).

The area with the highest proportion of respondents who indicated that the amount of time they devote has decreased is accounting (16% decreased). Table 13

Please indicate whether the amount of time you devote to each of the following areas has decreased, stayed about the same, or increased over the

past three years (or since you assumed the position of CAO). Has the amount of time you devote to… ?


(n=253)

Increased Stayed the

same Decreased

Interacting with neighboring municipalities 63 33 4

Administration 57 39 4

Management of staff and dealing with staff issues 54 41 5

Strategic planning/Business planning 54 40 6

Interacting with council 51 47 2

Land use planning/development 51 42 8

Finance and budgeting 48 45 7

Interacting with the public 47 47 5

Managing services and programs 40 55 5

Accounting 34 49 16

Drafting by-laws and policies 31 56 13


Table 14 provides the 2010 and 2013 results for the percentage of respondents who said that the amount of time that they spend has increased. In 2013, respondents were more likely to say that the amount of time spent on the following has increased:

Management of staff and dealing with staff issues (from 47% who said it had increased in 2010, to 54% in 2013).

In 2013, respondents were less likely to say that the amount of time spent on the following has increased:

Interacting with neighbouring municipalities (from 69% who said it had increased in 2010, to 63% in 2013);

Strategic planning/Business planning (from 61% who said it had increased in 2010, to 54% in 2013);

Land use planning/development (from 57% who said it had increased in 2010, to 51% in 2013);

Finance and budgeting (from 56% who said it had increased in 2010, to 48% in 2013);

Accounting (from 46% who said it had increased in 2010, to 34% in 2013); and Drafting bylaws and policy (from 37% who said it had increased in 2010, to

31% in 2013).

Table 14

Changes Since 2010 in the Percentage Who Spend an Increased Amount of Time Devoted to Selected Areas.


2013 (n=253)

2010 (n=262)

Change in Percentage

from 2010 to 2013

Interacting with neighbouring municipalities 63 69 -6

Administration 57 60 -3

Management of staff and dealing with staff issues 54 47 +7

Strategic planning/Business planning 54 61 -7

Interacting with council 51 51 0

Land use planning/development 51 57 -6

Finance and budgeting 48 56 -8

Interacting with the public 47 46 +1

Managing services and programs 40 44 -4

Accounting 34 46 -12

Drafting bylaws and policy 31 37 -6

Substantial increases in the percentage who spend an increased amount of time are highlighted in green and substantial decreases are highlighted in red.


4.2.2 Sources of Timely Information

Respondents were provided with a list of sources of information, and asked to indicate which is most beneficial, second most beneficial, and third most beneficial to them when they are addressing a time-sensitive issue that they have not previously confronted. The vast majority (90%) indicated that phoning a colleague in another municipality was the most (41%), second most (35%) or third most (14%) beneficial source of information. A majority of respondents mentioned the following additional sources of information as one of their top three sources of information for time-sensitive information:

Discussing the issue with their staff (mentioned by 57% as one of their top three sources of information); and

Calling municipal advisors at Municipal Affairs (mentioned by 56% as one of their top three sources of information).

The percentage who mentioned each source is provided in Table 15.


Table 15

Most Beneficial Sources of Information When Addressing a Time-Sensitive Issue that They Have Not Previously Confronted


(n=253)

Most Beneficial

Second Most

Beneficial

Third Most Beneficial

In Top Three

Phoning a colleague in another municipality 41 35 14 90

Discussing the issue with your staff 23 21 13 57

Calling municipal advisors at Municipal Affairs

25 16 15 56

Accessing information about the issue on the internet (e.g. Google)

6 12 22 40

Checking the Municipal Affairs website 1 8 17 26

Referring to publications/articles/books 2 2 6 11

Calling one of the Associations 0 2 7 9

The Municipal Excellence Network < < 2 3

Lawyer/free legal aid line < 1 1 3

Using the Peer Network for Municipal Dispute Resolution

< < < 1

Network of municipal contacts/professionals/ LGAA members

0 0 1 1

Discuss with council/mayor 0 1 0 1

Consult non-municipal colleague/predecessors < 0 0 <

Other 2 4 4 8

Depends on the issue/whoever is affected < 1 0 1

Not stated 0 < < 0

‘<‘=Less than 0.5%*


Table 16 shows the percentage, in each survey year, who mentioned each source as being their most beneficial source when addressing a time-sensitive issue that they have not previously confronted. Since 2010, there has been no substantial change in results.

Table 16

Most Beneficial Source of Information When Addressing a Time-Sensitive Issue that They Have Not Previously Confronted


2013 (n=253)

2010 (n=262)

2007 (n=255)

2004 (n=273)

2001 (n=273)

Phoning a colleague in another municipality

41 38 40 47 46

Discussing the issue with your staff

23 23 22 27 24

Calling municipal advisors at Municipal Affairs

25 27 28 16 23

Accessing information about the issue on the internet (e.g. Google)

6 4 5 4 2

Checking the Municipal Affairs website

1 2 NA NA NA

Referring to publications/ articles/books

2 1 2 2 1

Calling one of the Associations 0 1 1 3 1

The Municipal Excellence Network

< 1 1 1 0

Using the Peer Network for Municipal Dispute Resolution

< NA NA NA NA

‘<‘=Less than 0.5% NA=Not Asked


4.2.3 Capital, Financial and Sustainability Planning

Approximately three-quarters (77%) of respondents identified that their municipality has a council approved capital plan, with no substantial change since 2010 (73%). See Chart 5.

Chart 5

73%

77%

27%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=262)

2013 (n=253)

Yes No

Does your municipality have a council approved capital plan

covering three years or more?


Among those who indicated that their municipality has an approved capital plan (n=194), most (84%) have a financial plan to provide the planned capital spending, with little change in these results since 2010.

Chart 6

85%

84%

15%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=191)

2013 (n=194)

Yes No

Does your municipality have a financial plan to provide the

planned capital spending?(Among those with a council approved capital plan)


All respondents were asked if their municipality had, or was in the process of preparing, an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) or Municipal Sustainability Plan (MSP). The vast majority (91%) have or were preparing an ICSP or MSP. There has been little change in these results since 2010, as shown in Chart 7.

Chart 7

89%

91%

11%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=262)

2013 (n=253)

Yes No

Does your municipality have, or is it in the process of preparing,

an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) or

Municipal Sustainability Plan (MSP)*?

* In 2010, respondents were asked only about an ICSP, and not about a MSP.


4.2.4 Priorities and Issues

As shown in Chart 8, 83% of respondents anticipate intermunicipal concerns to be a priority in the future, with little change in these results since 2010 (80%).

Chart 8

80%

83%

20%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=262)

2013 (n=253)

Yes No

Do you anticipate intermunicipal concerns to be a priority in the

future?


Among those who indicated intermunicipal concerns will be a priority in the future (n=211), 75% were considering new approaches, such as formal intermunicipal protocols or guidelines, as a means of addressing intermunicipal concerns. There has been little change in these results since 2010 (79%), as shown in Chart 9.

Chart 9

79%

75%

21%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=209)

2013 (n=211)

Yes No

Are you considering new approaches such as formal

intermunicipal protocols/guidelines as a means of addressing

intermunicipal concerns?(Among those who anticipate intermunicipal concerns to be a future

priority)


Respondents were asked to identify the three major issues on which their municipality will focus over the next three years. Infrastructure was mentioned most frequently as the issue on which they will focus (by 72% of respondents, including 42% who indicated they will focus on it most, 22% second most, and 8% third most), followed by financial shortfalls (42%, including 14% who indicated they will focus on it most, 15% second most, and 13% third most). Other major issues are listed in Table 17.

Table 17

Issues on Which Municipalities Will Focus Most Over the Next Three Years


(n=253)

Will Focus on Most

Will Focus on Second

Most

Will Focus on Third

Most

In Top Three

Infrastructure 42 22 8 72

Financial shortfalls 14 15 13 42

Long-term capital planning 7 7 9 23

Attracting new businesses 5 5 12 22

Developing relationships with neighboring municipalities

5 7 9 21

Land development 4 7 8 18

Lack of qualified staff 3 6 7 16

Growth management 4 6 5 15

Developing regional service delivery arrangements

5 5 4 15

Increased cost of projects 1 5 7 12

Recreation facilities 2 4 6 12

Succession planning 3 3 6 11

Annexation 3 2 3 8

Affordable housing 0 1 2 4

Environmental concerns < 2 1 4

Staff education < 1 1 2

Water/wastewater management < 0 < 1

Intermunicipal/intergovernmental relations/ conflict management

< 0 0 <

Community sustainability 0 0 < <

Other < 1 < 1

Not stated 0 0 < 0

‘<‘=Less than 0.5%


Chart 10 shows the percentage who mentioned each issue as one of their top three issues in 2013 and 2010. As shown, there were substantial increases since 2010 in the percentage of respondents who mentioned the following issues:

Infrastructure (from 67% who mentioned it as one of their top three issues in 2010, to 72% in 2013);

Financial shortfalls (from 35% who mentioned it as one of their top three issues in 2010, to 42% in 2013); and

Lack of qualified staff (from 10% who mentioned it as one of their top three issues in 2010, to 16% in 2013).

There were substantial decreases since 2010 in the percentage of respondents who mentioned the following issues:

Developing relationships with neighbouring municipalities (from 29% who mentioned it as one of their top three issues in 2010, to 21% in 2013); and

Land development (from 23% who mentioned it as one of their top three issues in 2010, to 18% in 2013).


Chart 10

Issues on Which Municipalities Will Focus Most

Over the Next Three Years(Percentage of respondents who mentioned the issue

as one of their top three issues)

72%

42%

22%

21%

18%

16%

15%

15%

12%

12%

11%

8%

4%

4%

2%

67%

35%

23%

19%

29%

23%

10%

16%

12%

15%

11%

7%

4%

7%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Inf rast ruct ure

Financial short f alls

Long-t erm capit al planning

At t ract ing new businesses

Relat ionships wit h neighboring municipalit ies

Land development

Lack of qualif ied st af f

Growt h management

Developing regional service delivery

Increased cost of project s

Recreat ion f acilit ies

Succession planning

Annexat ion

Af f ordable housing

Environment al concerns

St af f Educat ion

2013 (n=253) 2010 (n=262)


4.2.5 Opportunities for Advancement

Respondents were asked to rate the opportunities for advancement within their municipality for a new employee with management potential, on a scale of 1 to 5 where "1" means "very poor" and "5" means "excellent". Forty-one percent (41%) provided a high rating (4 or 5) on the opportunities for advancement within their municipality, 28% provided a neutral rating (3), and 30% provided a low rating (1 or 2). There has been little change in these results since 2010, as shown in Chart 11.

Chart 11

43%

41%

28%

28%

28%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=262)

2013 (n=253)

High Rating (4 or 5) Neutral (3) Low Rating (1 or 2)

How would you rate* the opportunities for advancement

within your municipality for a new employee with management

potential?

* On a scale from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ means ‘very poor’ and ‘5’ means ‘excellent’.


Those who provided poor ratings (1 or 2) for the opportunities for advancement within their municipality for a new employee with management potential (n=77) were asked to provide reasons for their rating. Approximately two-thirds (68%) mentioned their municipality is small or that there are a limited number of positions, followed by 19% who mentioned that they currently hold the most senior position, and 16% who mentioned that there is very little turnover. See Table 18 for other responses.

Table 18

Please indicate why you feel the opportunities for advancement within your municipality are poor.

Percent of

Respondents

(n=77)

Small community/limited number of positions 68

Already holding the most senior position 19

Very low rate of turnover 16

Limited budget for salary increases/new positions 5

Lack of training/mentoring opportunities 4

Other 5

Not stated 6



4.2.6 Succession Planning

All respondents were asked if they have a formal succession plan in place. Although more than half (53%) of all respondents plan to leave the municipal CAO profession in the next 10 years (see Chart 2), only 13% of all respondents have a formal succession plan in place. There has been no change in these results since 2010 (Chart 12).

Chart 12

13%

13%

87%

87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=262)

2013 (n=253)

Yes No

Do you have a formal succession plan in place?


4.2.7 Staff Recruitment

The vast majority (85%) of respondents recruited staff within the past three years. The same results were found in 2010, as shown in Chart 13.

Chart 13

85%

85%

15%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=262)

2013 (n=253)

Yes No/Not stated

Did you recruit any staff within the past three years?

Those who hired staff in the past three years (n=216) were asked which positions were most difficult to fill. Public works, gas, and utilities staff were most frequently mentioned, with 43% of respondents mentioning it was most difficult (19%), second most difficult (21%), or third most difficult (8%) difficult to fill (note: the total is less than the sum of its parts due to respondents selecting a similar position as first, second and third most difficult to fill). Other positions that were difficult to fill are listed in Table 19.


Table 19

Most Difficult Positions to Fill with the Past Three Years

Percent of Respondents Who Recruited Staff

(n=216)

Most Difficult

Second Most

Difficult

Third Most Difficult

In Top Three

Public works/gas/utilities staff (foreman/ general manager/superintendent/ maintenance)

19 21 8 43

Planner/planning and development/ economic development officer

12 8 6 24

Finance officer/director/CFO/accountant 12 6 5 21

Water treatment plant operator/staff 8 5 5 17

CAO/assistant CAO/management 13 3 1 17

Trades/maintenance workers/equipment operators/agricultural fieldmen

4 6 8 14

Parks and recreation/tourism staff (director, operator, lifeguard, maintenance)

2 4 5 11

Engineers 3 5 2 10

Community peace officer/by-law enforcement/protective services

3 3 5 10

Executive/administrative/CAO assistant/ municipal clerk

4 2 3 9

Director of operations/infrastructure 4 < 2 6

Assessor 1 2 1 5

Director of corporate/community/municipal services

3 2 1 5

Casual/seasonal staff/summer students 0 1 2 3

Fire/safety/animal control officer 1 2 0 3

IT/geographic information system (GIS) staff 0 2 1 3

Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) staff

0 1 1 2

HR staff 0 2 < 2

Reception/front end staff 1 1 0 2

Communications 1 < < 2

Other 2 1 3 6

None/was able to fill all positions 1 4 6 1

Not stated 7 19 33 7

‘<‘=Less than 0.5%


The positions that respondents were unable to fill within the past three years are listed in Table 20.

Table 20

What positions were you unable to fill within the past three years, if any?


Who Recruited Staff (n=216)

Public works/gas/utilities staff (foreman/ general manager/superintendent/ maintenance)

2

Planner/planning and development/ economic development officer

2

Parks and recreation/tourism staff (director, operator, lifeguard, maintenance)

2

Trades/maintenance workers/equipment operators/agricultural fieldmen

2

Water treatment plant operator/staff 1

Engineers 1

Director of operations/infrastructure 1

Finance officer/director/CFO/accountant 1

CAO/assistant CAO/management <

Assessor <

Other 1

None/was able to fill all positions 63

Not stated 22 ‘<‘=Less than 0.5%


4.3 Programs and Services

4.3.1 Likelihood of Participating in Municipal Internship Programs

Within the next three years, 39% of respondents who were eligible to participate in the Municipal Internship Program for Administrators (n=191) indicated that they were likely (4 or 5 ratings) to apply to participate. Within the next three years, 30% of respondents who were eligible to participate in the Municipal Internship Program for Land Use Planners (n=125) indicated that they were likely (4 or 5 ratings) to apply to participate. See Table 21. Table 21

Within the next three years, how likely is that your municipality will apply to participate in the Municipal Internship Program for… ?

Mean

Percent of Respondents Likely

(4 or 5 Rating)

Neutral (3 Rating)

Not Likely

(1 or 2 Rating)

Administrators (among 191 respondents who were administrators of a municipality with a population of 700 or more)

3.14 39 24 37

Land Use Planners (among 125 respondents who were administrators of a municipality with a population of 5,000 or more)

2.82 30 30 38

* On a scale from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ is ‘not at all likely’ and ‘5’ is ‘very likely’.


Chart 14 shows that there has been little change since 2010 in the likelihood of participating in the Municipal Internship Program for Administrators. There has been a substantial decrease since 2010 in the likelihood of participating in Municipal Internship Program for Land Use Planners (from 35% likely to participate in 2010, to 30% in 2013).

Chart 14

35%

37%

30%

39%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Land Use Planners

Administrators

2010 2013

Percent of Eligible Respondents Who Are Likely to Participate

within the Next Three Years in the Municipal Internship Program

for…?


Respondents who were eligible but not likely (1 and 2 ratings) to apply to participate in the Municipal Internship Program for Administrators (n=71) were asked to provide reasons for their rating. The most frequent reason (45%) was that they do not have the budget or the resources to commit, followed by 31% who do not have the time, 15% who are not interested in the program and 13% who do not think they would be selected for the program. Other reasons are listed in Table 22.

Table 22

Why will your municipality not be likely to apply to participate in the Municipal Internship Program for Administrators?

Percent of Eligible

Respondents (n=71)

Do not have the budget/resources to commit 45

No time available 31

Not interested in the program 15

Do not think we would be selected as hosts 13

Poor previous experience with an intern/feel program is flawed 6

Not enough work/challenge/appeal for interns 6

No expertise to pass on to an intern 4

Already have an intern/recently participated/just filled that position 4

Do not have the office space 3

Other 1



Respondents who were eligible but not likely (1 and 2 ratings) to apply to participate in the Municipal Internship Program for Land Use Planners (n=47) were asked to provide reasons for their rating. The most frequent reasons were that they do not do their own planning (32%), do not having the budget or resources to commit (23%), do not have time (19%), do not have any expertise to pass on to an intern (11%), and are not being interested in the program (11%). Other reasons are listed in Table 23.

Table 23

Why will your municipality not be likely to apply to participate in the Municipal Internship Program for Land Use Planners?

Percent of Eligible

Respondents

(n=47)

We do not do our own planning 32

Do not have the budget/resources to commit 23

No time available 19

No expertise to pass on to an intern 11

Not interested in the program 11

Just filled that position 9

Do not think we would be selected as hosts 4

Do not have the office space 2



4.3.2 Assessment of Municipal Grants Advisory Resources

In 2013, new questions were added to the survey to assess the services and materials provided by Alberta Municipal Affairs’ Municipal Grants advisory resources. Chart 15 shows the percentage of all respondents who, over the past three years, received the various services provided by Municipal Grants advisory resources. As shown, most respondents had a conversation with program staff (81%) and/or corresponded with program staff (65%). A minority had visited a trade show booth at a convention (40%), met with program staff at a municipal conference (35%), and/or attended a presentation by program staff (32%). Nine percent (9%) did not receive any services from Municipal Grants advisory resources.

Chart 15

9%

32%

35%

40%

65%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None of the above

Attended a presentation by

program staff

Met with program staff at a

municipal conference

Visited a trade show booth at

a convention

Corresponded with program

staff

Had a conversation with

program staff

2013

Please indicate the services that you received over the past three

years from Municipal Grants advisory resources.


Satisfaction with the level of service provided was high, regardless of the type of service received (81% to 93% were satisfied, and 0% to 1% were dissatisfied). See Table 24. Table 24

How would you rate* your satisfaction with the level of service you received from Municipal Grants advisory resources when you...?

Mean

Percent of Respondents Satisfied (4 or 5 Rating)

Neutral (3 Rating)

Dissatisfied (1 or 2 Rating)

Had a conversation with program staff (n=205) 4.42 93 7 <

Corresponded with program staff (n=165) 4.42 93 7 1

Attended a presentation by program staff (n=80)

4.36 90 10 0

Met with program staff at a municipal conference (n=89)

4.31 85 13 1

Visited a trade show booth at a convention (n=101)

4.18 81 18 1

* On a scale from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ is ‘very dissatisfied’ and ‘5’ is ‘very satisfied’. ‘<‘=Less than 0.5%

Chart 16 shows the percentage of all respondents who, over the past three years, received or used the various municipal grant program materials provided by Municipal Grants advisory resources. As shown, almost all (96%) received or used the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) capital program guidelines, followed by the MSI operating program guidelines (93%), the MSI capital application form (92%), the MSI capital Statement of Funding and Expenditures (SFE) (91%), the MSI operating SFE (83%), and the MSI operating spending plan (79%). Over half (55%) received or used the Regional Collaboration Program (RCP) program guidelines. A minority received or used the RCP program application form (35%) and the RCP reporting package (27%).


Chart 16

Please indicate the municipal grant program

materials that you received or used over the past

three years

96%

93%

91%

83%

79%

55%

35%

27%

2%

1%

92%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

M unicipal Sustainability Init iat ive (M SI) capital

program guidelines

M SI operat ing program guidelines

M SI capital applicat ion form

M SI capital Statement of Funding and Expenditures

(SFE)

M SI operat ing SFE

M SI operat ing spending plan

Regional Collaborat ion Program (RCP) program

guidelines

RCP program applicat ion form

RCP report ing package

None of the above

Not stated

2013 (n=253)


Respondents’ level of satisfaction with the grant program materials that they received or used over the past three years is provided in Table 25. Satisfaction was highest for the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) capital program guidelines, with 88% satisfied (4 or 5 rating) and 2% dissatisfied (1 or 2 rating). Satisfaction was lowest for the RCP reporting package, with 61% satisfied, and 6% dissatisfied. Table 25

How satisfied* are you with...?

Mean

Percent of Respondents Satisfied (4 or 5 Rating)

Neutral (3 Rating)

Dissatisfied (1 or 2 Rating)

Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) capital program guidelines (n=242)

4.29 88 10 2

MSI operating program guidelines (n=235) 4.19 83 14 3

MSI operating spending plan (n=199) 4.16 81 15 4

MSI capital application form (n=233) 4.15 80 17 3

MSI operating SFE (n=211) 4.14 80 17 3

MSI capital Statement of Funding and Expenditures (SFE) (n=229)

4.06 77 19 4

RCP program application form (n=88) 3.94 69 28 2

Regional Collaboration Program (RCP) program guidelines (n=140)

3.88 68 28 4

RCP reporting package (n=69) 3.80 61 33 6 * On a scale from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ is ‘very dissatisfied’ and ‘5’ is ‘very satisfied’.


When asked to suggest improvements to the programs administered by Municipal Grants, most (71%) did not suggest an improvement. Suggested improvements are provided in Table 26.

Table 26

What improvements do you suggest to any of the programs administered by Municipal Grants (MSI capital, MSI operating, RCP, Grants in Place of Taxes

(GIPOT))?


(n=253)

Simplify the application/reporting process 9

More flexibility/fewer restrictions 8

Leave MSI funding in place/do not merge with RCP 4

More timely form availability/approval/provision of funds 3

Secure/increase the funding 3

Online forms/submission/automated system 2

Provide more information/supports 2

More consistency/fewer changes 1

Other 3

No suggestions 58

Not stated 13



4.3.3 Website Usage and Usability

All respondents (n=253) were asked if they accessed the Municipal Affairs website in the past year. The vast majority (91%, compared to 94% in 2010) have accessed the website. These respondents (n=229) were then asked if they found the information they were looking for. The vast majority (93%, compared to 92% in 2010) did find the information they were looking for. If they found the information (n=212), they were then asked if the information was of value. Almost all (99%, compared to 100% in 2010) indicated that it was of value (see Chart 17).

Chart 17

Yes,

91%

No, 9%

Municipal Affairs Website Usage in the Past Year

No, 7%

Yes,

93%

Did you find the

information you were

looking for?

n=253

n=229

Was the information of

value?

n=212

Yes,

99%

Have you accessed the

Municipal Affairs website in

the past year?

No, 1%

The following subgroups of respondents were much less likely to have accessed the Municipal Affairs website in the past year:

Administrators of cities and specialized municipalities (71% accessed the website, compared to 91% of all administrators); and

Administrators of municipalities with a population of more than 10,000 (77% accessed the website, compared to 91% of all administrators).


Among those who accessed the Municipal Affairs website in the past year (n=229), the majority (64%) provided high ratings (4 and 5) for the usability of the website, 28% provided a neutral rating (3), and 8% provided low ratings (1 or 2). As shown in Chart 18, ratings of the usability of the website have improved substantially since 2010, as 57% provided high ratings in 2010, rising to 64% in 2013.

Chart 18

57%

64%

35%

28%

8%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010 (n=246)

2013 (n=229)

High Rating (4 or 5) Neutral (3) Low Rating (1 or 2)

How would you rate* the usability of the website?(Among those who accessed the website in the past year)

* On a scale from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ means ‘very poor’ and ‘5’ means ‘excellent’.


Of those who accessed the website, the percentage who gave the website a high rating varied by municipality type, as shown in Chart 19. Administrators of cities and specialized municipalities were much less likely to give a high rating (50%, compared to 64% of all administrators who accessed the website).

Chart 19

64%

50%

60%

70%

65% 65%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total (n=229) City / Specialized Municipality (n=12)Town (n=77) Village (n=66)Summer Village (n=17) Rural Municipality (n=57)

* Percent who gave a rating of 4 or 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ means ‘very poor’ and ‘5’ means ‘excellent’.

How would you rate* the usability of the website?(Among those who accessed the website in the past year)


4.3.4 Communication and Information Management Technology

Respondents were provided with a list of several types of communication and information management technology and asked to indicate their interest in each technology. As shown in Table 27, most (72%) are already using an email management system. About half are already using mobile devices (48%) and electronic surveys (47%). A minority are already using social networking media (29%), web-based video conferencing (26%), digital video-conferencing (17%), and Wiki (5%). Use or interest was highest for email management systems (92% were already using or interested), followed by electronic surveys (85% were already using or interested), mobile devices (84% were already using or interested), web-based video conferencing (82% were already using or interested), digital video-conferencing (78% were already using or interested), and social networking media (72% were already using or interested). Use or interest in Wiki was much lower (53% were already using or interested). See Table 27 for details. Respondents were most interested in learning about digital video-conferencing (27%), followed by web-based video conferencing (26%), Wiki (20%), social networking media (19%), mobile devices (13%), electronic surveys (8%), and email management systems (6%).


Table 27 Municipal Affairs makes use of several types of communication and information

management technology. What is your interest in each of the following technologies?


(n=253)

Already using

Already aware of

Interested in learning

Interested but do not

have time to learn

Not interested

Email management system (i.e. Outlook, Lotus Notes, etc.)

72 6 6 8 8

Mobile devices 48 17 13 7 16

Electronic surveys 47 21 8 8 15

Social networking media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.)

29 15 19 8 28

Web-based video conferencing

26 19 26 10 18

Digital video-conferencing 17 17 27 17 22

Wiki 5 15 20 13 47


4.3.5 Best Way to Communicate New Information

When asked to indicate the best way for Municipal Affairs to communicate new information to them in the future, the vast majority (88%) indicated that email was best (see Table 28). Across all subgroups of respondents, email was the best way to communicate, with no major differences in the results by subgroup.

Table 28

What is the best way for Municipal Affairs to communicate new information (e.g., notices, etc.) to you in the future?

Percent of Respondents (n=253)

Email 88

Updates on Municipal Affairs’ website 3

Postal mail 3

Webinars 3

Zone meetings 2

Other <

Not stated < ‘<‘=Less than 0.5%

4.3.6 General Comments

All respondents were invited to provide additional comments and 30% provided comments on a wide range of different topics. Comments were edited to ensure anonymity and have been provided to Municipal Affairs under separate cover.

municipal administrators’ survey 2013 - summary report ... · respondents’ last jobs were in...

Documents