Calgary’s fall 2024 citizen survey found declining satisfaction with municipal services and lower confidence in how the city was being run as council prepared for budget discussions. The results offered a statistically designed snapshot of opinion, not a vote on any single policy or councillor.
The headline measures
Sixty-three per cent of respondents said they were satisfied with city services, six percentage points below the previous fall. Forty-two per cent were satisfied with how things were going in Calgary, down 12 points, while positive perceptions of city management fell 14 points to 43 per cent.
Trust in the city was reported at 41 per cent, five points lower than one year earlier. Sixty-six per cent rated quality of life as good, a ten-point decline, and 70 per cent still described Calgary as a good place to make a life.
What residents prioritized
Infrastructure, traffic and roads were identified by 35 per cent as the most important issue group. The economy followed at 18 per cent, homelessness and poverty at 17 per cent, and water supply and infrastructure and zoning and growth each registered 13 per cent.
Percentages from an open-ended priority question need not sum to 100 in the same way as exclusive choices. An issue’s rank also does not tell council what solution or spending level respondents preferred.
Method and uncertainty
Ipsos Public Affairs conducted telephone interviews with 2,500 Calgary residents between August 8 and September 3. The reported margin of error was plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Sampling error does not capture every possible bias, including question wording, non-response and the timing of events. Trend comparisons are most reliable when the survey method and questions remain consistent.
The context of difficult events
The Bearspaw water feeder-main rupture had placed water infrastructure under exceptional scrutiny. Cost pressures, population growth and concern about public safety and housing also influenced how people judged services.
Mayor Jyoti Gondek said people facing hard times often expect government to do more. That explanation was a political interpretation; the survey itself did not prove why each response changed.
Using results in a budget
Council could connect priorities to measurable service levels: road condition, transit reliability, emergency response, water resilience and housing approvals. It should also show the tax and fee consequences of maintaining or improving each level.
Public dissatisfaction does not always mean spending should rise. Residents may want better management, a different allocation or lower taxes. Budget consultations need to test those trade-offs explicitly.
Accountability after the survey
A survey becomes useful when leaders publish what they changed, what they did not change and why. Later surveys can then measure whether service experience and trust improved.
The fall results showed broad decline but also continuing majorities on some measures and greater optimism about the economy than in spring. The accurate conclusion was neither that Calgary had failed nor that concern could be dismissed. Residents reported weaker confidence at a consequential budget moment, giving council a clear obligation to respond with evidence, priorities and transparent costs.
