Culture, Economy, Community: A Cultural Plan for Chatham-Kent

Jointly funded by the Municipality of Chatham-Kent,

Community Futures Development Corporation of Chatham-Kent

Federal Department of Cultural Arts and Heritage

To view the complete document visit chatham-kent.ca

Municipality of Chatham-Kent

• Amalgamated in 1998• 23 incorporated towns, villages and townships

into one• 256 elected officials to 18• Second largest municipal land mass – 2,494 sq.

kilometres, 105 kms x 72 kms• One hour from Windsor, Sarnia and London• 56 internal business units, not including PUC

and C-K Energy• Inventory of 825 bridges

• Our mission: We work in partnership with business, all levels of government and the community at the large, to actively promote, encourage and facilitate community economic development in Chatham-Kent

• Federally funded by Industry Canada, Fed Nor• Serving rural communities of less than 40,000

population• 61 CFDC’s in Ontario (5 are Native)

C F D C’s

• Small business loans of up to $150,000 • Community economic planning and

development with some grant funding NOTE: CFDCCK financed the first business plan for the Capital Theatre project. The Board championed the pursuit of doing the Cultural Masterplan and contributed $20,000.00 to the project

• Goal is to create job opportunities• Incorporated not for profit, volunteer Board

of Directors

Decision to EmbarkStrategic Planning –

CFDC’s mandated by Industry Canada to do strategic planning. Initial consultation with Board identified Culture/Tourism and Agriculture as a projected focus of activities

The Discovery - Municipal Cultural Forums

The Promotion - Selling the idea to pursue a formal process of cultural mapping

Grant opportunity – ‘go for it!’ – NOTE: Council would not have pursued the Cultural Mapping process without partnership funding

Why Now in C-K

• After 10 years with great progress in meeting infrastructure needs i.e. roads, water, sewer, energy, bridges we have no identity

• 2 logos, no branding

• Need to come together for a common goal

• Loss of local community identity and pride• Economic Development issues (Smokestacks!)

The Reality

• Grant approval came before Council’s strategic planning sessions

• Buy in from the bottom up• Budget concerns override strategic

priorities• Many ‘don’t get it!’ – not only cultural

planning but strategic planning• Breaking down the silos difficult, internal

and community wide

The Difference of our Cultural Mapping Project

• Had to be concrete, focus on ‘economy’

• Second consultant, Steven Thorne, assessed C-K for cultural tourism opportunities

• “Culture-nomics”

Challenges of the Process

• More staff time required than anticipated• IT/GIS department not included in RFP • Summertime• Volunteer vs. staff, who is going to be

responsible in the long term to implement• Buy in from senior management and Ec Dev• Working in silo’s internally and externally,

volunteer and public sector, will require leadership

• Concept not truly understood by majority

Desired Outcomes• Identity, branding, signage – a process has begun to address

signage issues• Tourism strategy, Steven Thorne, implement ideas for market

development of tourist opportunities – Council has funded a product development person to begin to implement suggestions contained in the report

• Develop a culture of thinking strategically and implement accordingly, proactive vs. reactive – new CAO in place as of Nov. 1, changes are in the works

• Establish a non-political mechanism for Communities to work together while maintaining their individuality – Project Coordinator in the process of forming Create CK and CAT’s

• Council buy-in with $$$$ - asked for 150,00 in ’08 received half• Create solid partnerships between business, the not-for-profit sector

and funding partners to build a community movement to implement Cultural Plan – slowly forming

Create C-K3 Part Program

Create C-K Consortium

5 Regional Action Teams – CATs

Create C-K Strategic Summit

Cultural Action Teams - CATS

• The following regional titles were generated to mitigate the stigma of a forced amalgamation. The areas boundaries would be fluid and based on historical development of the region and their culture – Syndenham– Thames-St. Clair– Land Between the Lakes– Erie Ridge– Upper Thames (Fairfield

Ongoing Challenges

• Keeping momentum - Leadership• Beaurocracy – governments move too

slowly for the volunteer sector• Politics – keeping focussed on the big

picture • Resources – continued financial support

for staff (based on a political budget process)

• Perception of Culture – ‘elitism’ vs. ‘culture-nomics’

“Low Hanging Fruit’

• ‘ArtSpace’ -new artist co-op in downtown Chatham, joint partnership of Thames Art Gallery, CFDC, a local entrepreneur and artist’s

• ‘Tecumseh Parkway’ – a 1812 legacy project

• ‘Promised Land’ – a 5 year, 5 million dollar research project on Black History

• Heritage Tax relief bylaw; Church inventory• Ridgetown rejuvenation committee based on

cultural assets• ‘White Paper’ Cultural Symposium – Feb.

If I had to do it all over again….

• Formed a strong cross departmental team ie. Oakville

• Worked harder on educating Council• Appointed members to interim committee prior to

the end of the project ie. Oxford• Found corporate partners in the beginning• Had a communication person (volunteer or staff)

educating and promoting the concept • Had Ec-Dev firmly on side before going forward

Recession = Opportunity

• Acting strategically, using a Cultural Masterplan, municipalities have an opportunity to ‘re-tool’ their economic base

• “Quality of life is good economics, focus on the real fundamentals that make your community attractive to corporations.” Dr. Mark Partridge, Swank Professor in Rural-Urban Policy, Ohio State University

Thank you.Anne Gilbert

annegilbert@chatham-kent.ca

Chair, Community Futures DevelopmentCorporation of Chatham-Kent

Councillor, Ward 6, ChathamMunicipality of Chatham-Kent

519-676-4333