The City of St. Albert says a new bylaw that would allow the city to opt out of advertising public notices in The Gazette will help the city tailor the medium to the message.
Through the Municipal Government Act (MGA), Alberta's communities are required to advertise bylaws, council meetings, and public hearings through local papers, however a 2017 change to the MGA allows municipalities to outline their own methods for advertising these public notices.
St. Albert city council passed the first reading of a bylaw on April 19 that would allow the city’s chief administrative officer (CAO) to choose between one or a combination of the following methods for advertising: on the city's website, the city's official social media sites, and on local media outlets’ official websites or social media sites.
A public hearing where residents can speak to the change is currently scheduled for Aug. 15. After this meeting, council will vote on whether to approve the bylaw.
The city would not provide The Gazette with an interview on the ad bylaw, but answered questions sent via email, with answers attributed to Paul Pearson, director of strategic services and communications.
According to the city’s recent 2021 community satisfaction survey, a majority (68 per cent) of respondents rely on The Gazette to receive information about the city. The next most popular source is the city’s website (44 per cent), with 39 per cent receiving notice on social media.
When asked whether allowing the city to potentially select a less popular communication method for a public notice aligns with the city’s goal to reach as many people as possible, Pearson said the bylaw “does not exclude the newspaper as a communication mechanism.”
“Instead of removing channels from our toolkit, the bylaw allows the city more flexibility in how it shares information with residents,” Pearson said in an email. “More tools, more flexibility, more transparency, and in turn a better return on investment for the city and taxpayers.”
However, the methods outlined in the bylaw — social media, the city’s website, and a local publication — are already available for the city to use as communication methods, if it simultaneously publishes these notices in the newspaper.
According to the MGA, before passing the bylaw, council must be “satisfied that the method the bylaw would provide for is likely to bring the notice to the attention of substantially all residents in the area to which the bylaw, resolution, or other thing relates.”
When asked why the city is not pursuing a strategy that would have it using all methods currently available to it to get the word out, Pearson again highlighted the need for flexibility.
“Using all methods all the time is not the goal,” Pearson said. “Having the flexibility to use the right method at the right time is the most strategic way to share the message and thus have as many people as possible see the advertisement.”
Another benefit of the ad bylaw, according to a backgrounder included with the April 19 motion, is an increased ability to use lower-cost methods of advertising.
When asked how much the city is looking to potentially save through the ad bylaw, Pearson said the city “has not identified a set amount of money.”
“The city is considering adopting an advertising bylaw to provide more flexibility in how it shares information with residents,” Pearson said.
Tailoring the medium, message
According to the backgrounder, the bylaw would allow the city “to tailor the medium and message to connect with specific audiences according to the type and content of the notification.”
“Methods will be selected based on which are most appropriate for the audience in question,” the backgrounder reads.
Pearson said what metrics the city uses depend on the goal of the advertisement, for example whether the goal is awareness, engagement, or increased revenue).
“It is all about picking the best channels to hit the right people at the right time,” Pearson said. “This ensures audiences are seeing messages when they should, which increases transparency.”
Asked whether selecting who sees certain messages could lead to transparency concerns, Pearson said transparency involves ensuring “the right people are seeing your message at the right time.”
“For example, if a young person looks to social media for information, rather than a newspaper, they would miss public notices that were advertised exclusively in the locally circulated paper,” Pearson said. “The advertising bylaw … allows the city to share information with residents in a timely manner, via the channels that best align with that audience.”
Bylaw 'communications best practice'
The backgrounder included with the ad bylaw outlined that other Albertan municipalities have adopted similar legislation to the one St. Albert is pursuing, which allows electronic notification as a method in lieu of newspaper advertising.
“A review of similar bylaws in the Edmonton metropolitan region and elsewhere in Alberta shows that permitting alternative methods of legal advertising is in line with municipal best practices,” the bylaw says.
When asked how the city defines municipal best practices, Pearson said it is “not simply municipal best practices, but advertising and communications best practice in general” to match up communications with “where you can meet your audience with the right information at the right time.”
“If we are unable to distribute information in a timely fashion, we are failing our residents in supplying them with valuable information,” Pearson said in an email.
As for whether there has been a time in the past where the city could not get information to residents under the current communications plan, Pearson said currently the only metrics that can be used to measure the reach of public notices are newspaper subscribership and letters sent.
“These metrics allow the city to see how much information was pushed out, but not consumed,” Pearson said.
Bylaw moves power to CAO
One further change within the city’s advertising bylaw involves how public hearing dates are set, taking approval out of the hands of council and making it the responsibility of the city’s CAO.
When asked about the reasoning for the change, the city said in an email that “setting a date for a public hearing is an operational task best left to administration.”
“It is council’s responsibility to direct a public hearing be held, in accordance with the MGA, and it is more appropriate for administration to take care of this administrative task on behalf of council,” the city said in an email.
Coun. Wes Brodhead echoed the city in saying the task of setting public hearing dates should fall under administration's purview.
Brodhead noted administration already suggests public hearing dates when council passes the first reading of a motion, and to his knowledge council has never overridden the dates selected.
"As it stands, if council had a problem with the date that was set, we can, by motion, change it," Brodhead said. "Having said that, we want to be an efficient and effective organization, and you want to make the decisions at the level that they're best made at.
"We're about governance, and the date setting of a particular action appears to me to be more administrative in nature."
