HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Agenda - 2019-03-04 SJeff Bunn
0s Manager, Council & Committee Services/Deputy City Clerk
Corporate Services Department
200 King St. W. — 2nd Floor
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
•ate Ph. 519-741-2200 Ext. 7278
TTY 1-866-969-9994
Jeff. Bunn(ukitchener.ca
www.kitchener.ca
March 1, 2019
Mayor B. Vrbanovic and Members of Council
Re: Special Council Meeting —Monday, March 4, 2019
Notice is hereby given that Mayor B. Vrbanovic has called a special meeting of City
Council to be held in the Conestoga Room on Monday, March 4, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. to
consider the following:
Strategic Session
a. Council Input on the Development Services Review — M. Love (90 mins)
Development Services Department report DSD -19-048 is attached.
b. Corporate Customer Service Strategy — J. Miller (60 mins)
Community Services Department report CSD -19-002 is attached.
Yours truly,
J. Bunn
Manager, Council / Committee Services &
Deputy City Clerk
c: Corporate Leadership Team
C. Tarling
D. Saunderson
J. Rodrigues
Records
Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you
require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or
TTY 1-866-969-9994.
Staff Report-
lu i�.rr�:.ve,R
Development Services Department wwwkitchenerca
REPORT TO: Council
DATE OF MEETING: March 4, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Love, Manager of Service Coordination & Improvement, 519-
741-2200 ext. 7042
PREPARED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, 519-741-2200 ext. 7646
WARD (S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: February 27, 2019
REPORT NO.: DSD -19-048
SUBJECT: Council Input on the Development Services Review
RECOMMENDATION: For discussion.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Detailed Planning phase for the Development Services review began in October 2018 and
will conclude in late May 2019 at which point, the Collaborative Delivery phase will commence.
The Collaborative Delivery phase will include a detailed review of selected processes, the
development of an improvement strategy and a recommendation report to Council.
The purpose of this strategy session is to provide an overview of key project planning activities
to -date as well as to obtain feedback from Council on establishing:
• A shared vision and set of guiding principles for development services
• The scope for the first-year detailed review phase (June 2019 — May 2020)
Questions for Council:
QUESTION 1A: Do the draft vision statements and set of guiding principles sufficiently
reflect the stakeholder feedback and Council's expectations?
QUESTION 113: Are they ready to validate with the public and development community
stakeholders?
QUESTION 1C: Does Council see itself defining any actions? If so, what commitments
would you like to make?
QUESTION 2: Do you feel the prioritized processes (site plan and public engagement)
accurately reflects the bodies of work that should be reviewed in the first year? If not,
what is missing?
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-1
Staff Report
Development Services Department
BACKGROUND:
wwwkitchen er. c a
In September 2017, Dan Chapman shared five priorities that he would be pursuing in his first
year as the City's new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). One of those priorities involved
undertaking an organizational review to ensure that the City's organizational structure supports
the City's strategies and vision. As a result of this review, like -functions were aligned strategically
and the Development Services Department was created and includes five divisions: Building,
Economic Development, Engineering, Planning, and Transportation Services.
In parallel to the organizational review, preliminary work began on developing a high-level scope
for the development services review. The purpose of the development services review is to look
at how development functions interact and are coordinated, and to identify if that coordination
can be improved in a way that results in clearer accountability, stronger collaboration, and
ultimately an even better customer experience. As part of the draft scope for the review, five
objectives were identified:
1. Establish a Shared Vision for Economic Growth, City Building, Sustainability, and
Development Interests: With a variety of disciplines involved in the delivery of development
services, representing functions with competing interests at times, it is important that staff
are working towards common goals and understand how their contribution supports the
results that we are trying to achieve within the city. Starting from existing strategies, plans
and policies, staff will need to establish shared goals, objectives and principles to guide
effective and consistent decision making.
2. Align Work Processes to Support the Development Services Vision: Selected
development processes will be reviewed end-to-end on a prioritized basis using Lean
methodologies to ensure a clear and consistent focus on delivering customer value, efficient
services, and streamlined customer interactions.
3. Enhance Team Building, Collaboration and Creative Problem Solving: The most
challenging development opportunities require all stakeholders to work together in trusting
and respectful relationships that support the best results for the community.
4. Take a Coordinated Approach to Development: Support less experienced applicants to
more easily navigate the process. Engage the community in a coordinated way to build a
holistic vision for their neighbourhoods. Coordinate staff resources to reduce wait -times,
hand-offs and work backlogs.
5. Communicate Clearly and Effectively: Applicants and members of the public should have
a clear understanding of the requirements and expectations, the steps, timelines and costs
involved, and how they can engage constructively with the City in the development process.
The development services review is currently in the Detailed Planning phase, as identified in the
project timeline that is depicted in Figure 1.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-2
Staff Repod
Development Services Department
Life Cycle
Preparation
Establishing a project governance
framework and initiating the project.
Detailed Planning
Oct 2018 - May 2019: Identifying the
project scope and schedule for the
detailed review phase, as wel I as
articulating a shared vision for the
delivery of our development
services.
Collaborative Delivery
June 2019 - May 2020: Undertaking a
detailed review of selected processes
end-to-end on a prioritized basis,
identifying opportunities for
improvement, developing an
implementation strategy, and
reporting to Council.
tmplementatioWSustainment
August 20W -onward: Execution of
the implementation strategies,
monitoring/reporting key
performance outcomes, and
undertaking iterative improvements,
where required.
Closure
August 2020: Project close-out
activities, including a final report to
Council.
1
KiixCR
wwwkitchen er ca
Figure 1. Project Life Cycle for the Development Services Review
Stakeholder Engagement As part of the Detailed Planning project phase, input was solicited
from 183 internal and external stakeholders in October and November 2018. This was done
predominantly through the completion of open-ended interviews and online surveys. The
purpose of this engagement was to learn about stakeholder needs, priorities, and expectations
related to the review. Stakeholders were contacted and engaged in a variety of ways over a 2 -
month period. A summary is included, below.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-3
Staff Repod K�nu-*`NFR
Development Services Department wwwkitchenerca
Internal Stakeholders
• Presented at Corporate Management Team meeting on September 25, 2018; obtained
feedback on lessons learned from similar projects and recommendations for one-on-one
interview candidates
• Targeted one-on-one interviews with staff based on Project Steering Committee and
Corporate Management Team recommendations, as well as "snowball" recommendations
from other interviewees (Oct 2018)
• Online survey, with a KHUB and email invitation (Nov 2018)
• Attended staff meetings for project kick-off to promote engagement (Oct — Nov 2018)
External — General Outreach (Public and Development Community)
An online survey was advertised in the following ways:
• Facebook (Nov 2018)
• Twitter (Nov 2018)
• City of Kitchener website (Nov 2018)
• Feedback cards at front counters: engineering, planning, building, transportation,
economic development and at industry related events (Nov 2018)
• Attended advisory committee meetings that have a touch -point with development services,
and distributed survey cards (Oct — Nov 2018)
External — Development Community
• Targeted invitations for one-on-one interviews were distributed in November 2018, per
Steering Committee recommendations to:
o Development Associations
o Builders
o Architects
o Consultants
o Developers
• Targeted survey invitations were distributed per Project Steering Committee
recommendations (Nov 2018)
• Attended Home Builder's Liaison Meeting to provide a project update and promote
engagement (Oct 2018)
• Attended Industry Workshop to promote the survey (Nov 28th)
External — Public
• Targeted interview invitations per Project Steering Committee and Community Services
recommendations, as well as "snowball" recommendations from other interviewees (Nov
2018)
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-4
Staff Reportw�CR
Development Services Department www.kitchenerca
• Each Neighbourhood Association received a targeted invitation to participate in an
interview or online survey (Nov 2018)
• Other: see External — General Outreach, above
External — Other
• Targeted interview invitations distributed, based on staff and Advisory Committee
recommendations, including Business owners and the Public Sector (e.g. Region)
• Targeted survey invitations sent to agencies (e.g. Conservation Authority), utilities, non-
profit organizations
Council
• One-on-one or small group interviews (Oct 2018)
A summary, by stakeholder group and method of engagement, is provided in the table below.
Table 1. Engagement Summary by Stakeholder Group and Method
1 Prior to municipal election
z Includes development associations, builders, architects, consultants, and developers
3 Includes a cross-section of managerial and front-line staff from Corporate Services, Community Services,
Development Services, Infrastructure Services and Financial Services
4Includes citizens, neighbourhood association members, advisory committee members
5 Includes businesses, agencies, utilities, public sector, non-profit organizations
The primary goal in engaging stakeholders was to ensure quality of data, not quantity. While
efforts were made to engage all stakeholder groups in a variety of ways, as identified above, the
number of public, "other", and development community respondents was lower than the number
of staff respondents. However, the project team is confident that the engagement that was
undertaken was meaningful, and can be used to inform the priorities for the development
services review. In an effort to obtain detailed feedback on development -related processes,
those who had previous experience engaging with development services were targeted for in-
depth, one-on-one interviews (e.g. submitted an application, participated in public consultation,
advocated for, or opposed, a proposal in their neighbourhood, participated in an appeals
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-5
Stakeholder Group
Method of Engagement
Development
Council'
Community2
Staff3
Publico
Others
Interview
9
22
47
8
4
Survey — Full Completion
0
9
46
11
3
Survey — Partial
Completion
0
1
13
9
1
(Q1/Q2 only)
TOTAL
9
32
106
28
8
1 Prior to municipal election
z Includes development associations, builders, architects, consultants, and developers
3 Includes a cross-section of managerial and front-line staff from Corporate Services, Community Services,
Development Services, Infrastructure Services and Financial Services
4Includes citizens, neighbourhood association members, advisory committee members
5 Includes businesses, agencies, utilities, public sector, non-profit organizations
The primary goal in engaging stakeholders was to ensure quality of data, not quantity. While
efforts were made to engage all stakeholder groups in a variety of ways, as identified above, the
number of public, "other", and development community respondents was lower than the number
of staff respondents. However, the project team is confident that the engagement that was
undertaken was meaningful, and can be used to inform the priorities for the development
services review. In an effort to obtain detailed feedback on development -related processes,
those who had previous experience engaging with development services were targeted for in-
depth, one-on-one interviews (e.g. submitted an application, participated in public consultation,
advocated for, or opposed, a proposal in their neighbourhood, participated in an appeals
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-5
Staff Repod
Development Services Department
I
K;_(TIFNFR
wwwkitchen er ca
process, etc.). In December 2018, the data was reviewed and grouped into themes, and a
Stakeholder Engagement Report was prepared (attached as Attachment A to this report).
Common themes quickly emerged within stakeholder groups, and alignment was confirmed with
the corporate -wide Customer Service Review, which represented a significantly larger and
broader engagement campaign.
Additional internal and external stakeholder engagement will take place when selected
processes are reviewed end-to-end (part of the Collaborative Delivery phase).
Staff were also engaged in a series of workshops from November 2018 — January 2019 to lay
the groundwork for achieving Objective 1 - Establishing a Shared Vision - this work is described
later in this report.
Environmental Scan In December 2018, the project team began reaching out to General
Managers of development services departments across municipalities in Ontario as part of an
Environmental Scanning exercise. They are being asked about their vision for building a future -
ready city, what they are doing well, and what their top priorities are for improving their
development services department. As part of completing an Environmental Scan, the project
team also met with the City's Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) to complete a strengths -
weaknesses -opportunities -threats (S -W -O -T) exercise. As interviews are currently on-going, a
summary of the Environmental Scan will be provided in a future report to Council (May 2019),
prior to the commencement of the Collaborative Delivery phase.
REPORT:
The focus of the Detailed Planning phase is to establish a shared vision (Objective 1, as defined
above), as well as to select and prioritize the processes that will be reviewed in the Collaborative
Delivery project phase (Objective 2).
Objective 1: Establishing a Shared Vision The goal in establishing a shared vision is to
achieve broad alignment across all stakeholder groups (e.g. Council, Development Community,
Citizens, Staff, etc.). In other words, the shared vision is not intended to be created by staff/for
staff; it is intended to be collectively developed and shared between all stakeholders. Figure 2
provides a summary of the Shared Vision structure. Once established, any future process
improvement recommendations would be aligned to, and reviewed against, the shared vision.
Staff from across the Development Services Department and Infrastructure Services Parks and
Cemeteries Design & Development teams participated in three intensive workshops over the
months of November 2018 (48 staff), December 2018 (71 staff) and January 2019 (60 staff) to
work on the first objective of the development services review. The goal at the end of the three
workshops was to develop draft potential shared vision statements and a set of guiding principles
that would then be aligned to key issues/themes from the interview and survey data collected in
Oct/Nov 2018. This body of work will be refined through this Strategy Session with Council, as
well as workshops with citizens and the development community planned for March/early April
2019.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-6
Staff Repod
Development Services Department
wwwkitchen er ca
Vision Statement
What are stakeholders collectively working towards and why?
Goal: 1 shared vision statement that represents all stakeholder groups
Guiding Principles
What shared principles will guide stakeholders in delivering on
this vision?
Goal: Approx. 5 shared priniples that represent all stakeholder groups
Stakeholder Actions
What specific actions can stakeholders take in response to each
principle?
Goal: Approx. 2-3 example actions for each stakeholder group per principle
Figure 2. Shared Vision Structure
As identified in Figure 2, the shared vision statement is intended to provide a description of what
stakeholders are collectively working towards and why, and the set of accompanying principles
is intended to describe how stakeholders will collectively work together to achieve alignment with
the vision.
The goal of the vision statement is to be action -oriented, future -state and easy to remember.
The top three potential vision statements are:
Vision Statement #1:
Working together to build a community we share
Vision Statement #2:
Growing today to benefit tomorrow
Vision Statement #3:
Together we will bring our best to make Kitchener the best
A set of draft, guiding principles were also developed through a series of workshop exercises.
As the principles should also be memorable, a maximum of five core principles are being
recommended, and concise statements were crafted. Since the vision statements and principles
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-7
Staff Report
Development Services Department
R< vF,R
wwwkitchen er. c a
have been drafted in a manner that intends to capture all development stakeholders
perspectives, example actions for City Staff were then aligned to each principle, based on the
interview/survey feedback obtained in Oct/Nov 2018 (see Table 2, below). Note that the process
of developing the vision, shared principles and actions list may be refined in this session as well
as development industry and public consultation. Through consultation with Council and external
stakeholders, actions will be included, where appropriate, for each stakeholder group.
Table 2. Draft Principles for how stakeholders will work together to achieve alignment with the
shared vision
Shared Principles
Examples of Staff Actions
Leadership
.
Foster a customer service culture
Together we commit to
.
Solutions -oriented leadership
building a great community
.
Leading-edge policies/guidelines
•
Work together toward a common vision
Collaboration
Foster a flexible, solutions-
•
Look for opportunities to be flexible in
oriented approach
processes
•
Take a proactive approach to working
with stakeholders
Communication
clear, open and
•
Easy access to information
transparent with each
Efficient, timely responses to inquiries
+�
other
•
Seek to listen first, follow-up and follow
through
•
Processes and expectations are clearly
Accountability
We will all act with the best
articulated at outset
!
interest of the community
•
Roles/responsibilities defined for all
in mind
participants
•
Integrated policy/decision-making
framework established
Build a foundation of trust
•
Be purposeful with interactions with
Trust/Respect
by respecting each other's
stakeholders
expertise, experience and
Engage stakeholders in meaningful
18110
perspectives
ways
•
Focus on the big picture
The first activity for Council is to individually rate each of the three draft vision statements and
set of five guiding principles, using the scale depicted in Figure 3. Each member of Council will
be provided with a sheet of sticky dots, and will be asked to place a dot on each scale according
to their preference. Members of Council will be able to see each others' ratings, as the scales
will be provided in a large -print format and placed on easels in the strategy session meeting
room.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-8
Staff Repold
Development Services Department
Does not
Has potential,
resonate
but needs a
with me
lot of work
On the Good, but
right track missing
something
I
K;_(TIFNFR
wwwkitchen er ca
I like it!
Figure 3. Scale for rating draft vision statements and guiding principles
Following this activity, Council is being asked to comment on the following three questions.
QUESTION 1A: Do the draft vision statements and set of guiding principles sufficiently
reflect the stakeholder feedback and Council's expectations?
Question 1113: Are they ready to validate with the public and development community
stakeholders?
QUESTION 1C: Does Council see itself defining any actions? If so, what commitments
would you like to make?
Objective 2: Identifying, Selecting and Prioritizing Development Services Processes to be
Reviewed
Emerging themes from stakeholder engagement
The Stakeholder Engagement Report, as described earlier, and attached as Attachment A,
provides a detailed summary of feedback received from internal and external stakeholders on
their needs, expectations and where they think the City should prioritize efforts for the
development services review. Several themes from the report have been noted in bullet -points,
below:
Broad themes:
When asked "What do you expect/want to gain from the development services review? /
What needs to occur for you to consider the review a success?", the top six themes, as tallied
across all respondents, were:
(i) streamline processes (55%)
(ii) establish a collaborative/coordinated approach to delivering services (50%)
(iii) define and articulate processes and service levels (35%)
(iv) define roles/responsibilities and ensure there is accountability (34%)
(v) improve communication (30%), and
(vi) establish a shared vision for development services (28%)
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.a.-9
Staff Report
Development Services Department
R< vF,R
wwwkitchen er. c a
While there was general alignment across staff, Council, the development community and
"other" stakeholders (e.g. businesses, agencies, utilities, public sector, non -profits), the
public/citizens identified a distinct set of priority themes:
(i) transparency and access to information (54%)
(ii) meaningful engagement (39%)
(iii) closing the loop (32%), and
(iv) eliminate technical jargon (29%)
Development Services Processes:
When asked "What would be your first and second choice for the development process
review?", two clear themes emerged. The site plan process was identified as the top priority
by Council (78%), the development community (74%) and staff (24%), and while there was
alignment between these three stakeholder groups with respect to prioritizing the site plan
process (refer to pages 12 and 13 of Attachment A), it is noteworthy that citizens and "other"
stakeholders identified customer service* (37% and 57%, respectively) and public
engagement (32% citizens) as the top priority areas for the review.
*Customer Service does not represent one process in development services; rather it is
woven throughout all processes.
A detailed summary of the engagement feedback is provided in Section 6 of the Stakeholder
Engagement Report (Attachment A to this report).
Prioritized Processes for the First -Year Detailed Review Period (June 2019 — May 2020)
Based on anticipated resource capacity, two processes are being prioritized for review within the
first-year detailed review period (June 2019 — May 2020): (i) the site plan process and (ii) public
engagement. If there is capacity, additional processes will be identified for review using the
criteria presented later in this report.
Processes that do not form part of the first-year review period will be considered as part of an
on-going body of continuous improvement work, as described below.
It is important to note that, where appropriate, process improvements identified as a result of
these reviews could potentially be transferred to other similar processes (as an example there
are hand-off procedures in subdivision planning that are the same as site plan, so an
improvement in one area would translate to the other).
Site Plan:
The site plan process has been prioritized for a variety of reasons: (i) the process involves all
business units within the Development Services Department, as well as many other business
units across the corporation; (ii) the high volume of submissions received annually; (iii) the
complexity of the process; (iv) the large number of external stakeholders engaged in the process;
(v) the large number of file hand-offs; (vi) the potential for process improvement (based on
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1. a. - 10
Staff Report
Development Services Department
wwwkitchen er. c a
feedback); and, (vii) it was identified as the top priority for three of five stakeholder groups (refer
to pages 12 and 13 in Attachment A for a detailed summary).
It is important to note that this review will focus on processes, not individuals, and while specific
staff teams oversee significant parts of the site plan process, it should not be inferred that
individuals or teams are being "centred out" for review. Rather, opportunities for process
improvement will be identified, explored and implemented.
As the Site Plan process represents a large and complex process, determining the scope for the
first-year review period will be a critical first step. Work will be undertaken by the project team
and project Steering Committee to identify if parts, or all, of the site plan process warrants review.
Based on the engagement results, the project team would endeavor to address the following
challenges within the site plan process, at a minimum:
• Clear communication of processes/process maps
• Service commitments identified/articulated
• Establish a collaborative/coordinated approach to delivering services
• Review overall file management (e.g. file liaison, hand-offs, etc.)
• Review processes for queueing/processing files
• Review the City's requirements at various stages throughout the application process,
and based on the scale and complexity of a project
• Define roles/responsibilities and ensure there is accountability
• Review alignment of corporate priorities across divisions/departments
• Define and articulate service levels
• Streamline processes
• Evaluate the merit of developing a different process for different types of applicants
(e.g. less experienced vs. experienced)
Other considerations for the site plan process review are included on pages 12 and 13 of
Attachment A.
It is noteworthy that while 23% of the development community identified the site plan process
as a current strength (with aspects like the two-stage process being identified as a strength), the
site plan process also represented the highest priority for the development community (74%).
Public Engagement:
Citizens identified public engagement, notifications, and access to information, as it relates to
development services as a priority area for the review. This could include engineering, planning
or transportation -related consultation, notices and information, for example. In response to
interview questions 1 and 2 (see Appendix A, in Attachment A), 44% of Councillors also identified
that reviewing current engagement practices/new models of engagement should be a priority for
the review, to ensure that the City engages in effective and meaningful ways. While public
engagement was not identified by any other stakeholder group in a significant way, the project
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1. a. - 11
Staff Reportw�CR
Development Services Department www.kitchenerca
team and Corporate Leadership Team felt that there is merit in reviewing processes around
public engagement for the following reasons:
• Public engagement has a significant impact on a stakeholder group with major
interests
• There are opportunities to engage in more meaningful ways and these should be
explored
• Objectives of engagement are often unclear
• Roles in engagement differ and are often unclear (e.g. impact that engagement
may/may not have with respect to shaping decisions)
• There are opportunities to explore new ways to "close the loop" after engagement
(e.g. what was heard, how it is being used, next steps)
• Development processes are complex and can be confusing
• It is often difficult to access information
• There is too much technical jargon in presentations, reports, and public notices
• Legislated notices are not palatable and/or easily understood by the public
• Engagement is perceived as being rushed or takes place too late in a process
Other considerations for the public engagement review are included on page 13 of Attachment
A.
As public engagement is a part of a large number of process areas in development services,
determining the scope for the review will be a critical first step. Work will be undertaken by the
project team and project Steering Committee to identify specific processes for review.
A report back to Council on the final scope for the first-year review period, as it relates to site
plan and public engagement, is anticipated in May 2019.
QUESTION 2: Do you feel the prioritized processes (site plan and public engagement)
accurately reflects the bodies of work that should be reviewed in the first year? If not,
what is missing?
On-going body of continuous improvement work:
A foundation for a continuous improvement culture in development services will be built
throughout this project. The development services review will create a framework (i.e.
methodology for selecting and prioritizing projects for review), knowledge base (i.e. through
trained, Lean Green Belt designated staff), and build momentum for an on-going body of
continuous improvement work. It will be important to "pull' a process through a Lean review, find
and implement improvements, and then repeat, incrementally transforming and improving the
service culture in development services.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1. a. - 12
Staff Report
Development Services Department
wwwkitchen er. c a
Areas to exclude from the scope of the first-year detailed review period:
The following five processes were identified in at least one stakeholder group's list of priorities
for the review, however, rationale for not prioritizing these processes for consideration as part of
the first-year detailed review period (June 2019 — May 2020) is provided below. It is important to
note that these processes may be considered for review as part of a future, on-going body of
work, using the methodology presented in this report.
• Subdivisions: The low number of application submissions per year coupled with the
declining amount of greenfield lands within the City
• Transportation Services: Comments related largely to the pace of implementing
current initiatives (e.g. Cycling and Trails Master Plan) and work is underway in this
area through a separate project; frustrations did not appear to be process -related
• Customer service: There is currently a significant body of work being led by the
Community Services department on corporate -wide customer service - avoid
duplication or interference with this work in initiating a separate review
• Parks & Open Space — Comments related largely to the pace of implementing parks
& open space initiatives (particularly in the downtown), which will be addressed
through core services and long-range planning initiatives on an on-going basis
• Development Fees - This did not emerge as a dominant priority for the review
It is noteworthy that the Building Division (e.g. customer service culture, leadership, processes)
was identified as a development services strength by all stakeholder groups, and was not
identified as a high priority for the development services review by any stakeholder group; as
such, processes within the Building Division are not being recommended for review at this time.
Creating a framework for selecting and prioritizing sub -processes within site plan and
public engagement for review, as well as creating a future, on-going body of work in
continuous improvement
For assisting with prioritization of sub -processes within site plan and public engagement as well
as planning for on-going future reviews, a weighted framework is being proposed.
Through an internal workshop, the following criteria and associated weights were developed:
Table 3. Criteria and Criteria Weights for Selecting and Prioritizing Processes/Sub-Processes
for Review
Criteria
Criteria Weight (%)
Description
Process Impact/Volume
40
No. of submissions/inquiries per
year
Time/Cost Savings
25
The potential savings that could be
gained by improving the process
Alignment with Interview and
The process was mentioned as a
Survey Feedback
15
pain point by one or more
stakeholder groups
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1. a. - 13
Staff Reportw�CR
Development Services Department www.kitchenerca
Criteria
Criteria Weight %
Description
Ease of Implementation
10
A review can be readily
undertaken
Cross -Functionality
10
The process involves a broad
stakeholder group
NEXT STEPS:
Key next steps for the project include:
• Focus -grouping the draft vision statements and guiding principles with external
stakeholders (March/early April 2019)
• Finalize a draft plan for the first-year detailed review project phase (April 2019)
• Report to Council on final scope for first-year detailed review period (May 2019)
• Initiate first-year detailed review (June 2019 — May 2020)
• Implementation/Sustainment (Aug 2019 onward)
• Project Closure (Aug 2020); Implementation may be on-going
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority: Effective and Efficient City Services
Strategy: CS74 — Development Services Review*
* A report to Council on January 21, 2019 recommended that the above -noted Business Plan
project be added to the 2019-2020 Business Plan
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital budget has been allocated to this project in both 2018 and 2019 for the purpose of
undertaking the review. There is no additional funding requested at this time.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
• This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
• A project presentation was delivered in Fall 2018 at Advisory Committee meetings
(including a question and answer period)
• Project updates will be shared through a public -facing Engage Kitchener project page
CONSULT
• 183 stakeholder interviews and online surveys were completed (see Section 3 of the
Engagement Report in Attachment A for additional information)
• The Engage Kitchener platform will be used to engage stakeholders across the life cycle
of the project — upcoming opportunities include obtaining input on establishing a shared
vision and obtaining input from stakeholders on the direction/scope of the project.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1. a. - 14
Staff Repod
Development Services Department
wwwkitchen er ca
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Stakeholder Engagement Report
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1. a. - 15
Attachment A
Development Services Review
Stakeholder Engagement Report
Prepared by: Margaret Love
Approved by: Justin Readman
January 16, 2019
1. a. - 16
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................3
2. Purpose of Engagement............................................................................................................................3
3. Description of Engagement.......................................................................................................................3
4. How to read this report............................................................................................................................
6
5. Linking the Engagement Results to the Established Objectives for the Development Services Review..6
6. Summary of Engagement Results.............................................................................................................8
7. APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................15
AppendixA — Summary Tables...............................................................................................................15
Appendix B — Lessons Learned................................................................................................................
22
1. a. - 17
1. Introduction
This report presents a summary of internal and external stakeholder interview and survey data, collected
for the purpose of informing the Detailed Planning phase of the Development Services Review.
2. Purpose of Engagement
The purpose of undertaking the interviews and surveys discussed in this report was to identify the project
requirements for the Development Services Review. In particular, the questions were intended to tease
out the needs/expectations of stakeholders, individual priorities for the review, risks, strengths, as well as
other project requirements (e.g. communication, transition, etc.).
3. Description of Engagement
Internal and external stakeholders were contacted and engaged in a variety of ways over a 2 -month period
(Oct — Nov 2018):
Internal Stakeholders
- Targeted one-on-one interviews with staff based on Project Steering Committee
recommendations, as well as "snowball" recommendations from other interviews (Oct 2018)
- Online survey, with a KHUB and email invitation (Nov 2018)
- Attended staff meetings for project kick-off to promote engagement (Oct — Nov 2018)
External — General Outreach (Public AND Develooment Communit
- An online survey was advertised in the following ways:
o Facebook (Nov 2018)
o Twitter (Nov 2018)
o City of Kitchener website (Nov 2018)
o Feedback cards at front counters: engineering, planning, building, transportation,
economic development (Nov 2018)
o Attended advisory committee meetings that have a touch -point with development
services, per the approved project engagement plan, and distributed survey cards (Oct —
Nov 2018)
External — Development Community
- Interviews: Targeted invite per Project Steering Committee recommendations sent to
Associations, Builders, Architects, Consultants, and Developers (Nov 2018)
Survey:
o Targeted emails per Project Steering Committee recommendations (Nov 2018)
o Attended Home Builder's Liaison Meeting to provide a project update and promote the
survey (Oct 2018)
o Attended Industry Workshop (Nov 28th) to promote the survey
External — Public
- Interviews: Targeted invite per Project Steering Committee and Community Services
recommendations (Nov 2018) Note: each ward received targeted invitations
1. a. - 18
- Survey:
o Emailed all neighbourhood associations
o Other: see External — General section, above
External — Other:
- Interviews: Targeted invites based on staff and Advisory Committee recommendations (e.g.
Business owners), Public Sector (e.g. Region)
- Surveys: Invitations to agencies (e.g. Conservation Authority), utilities, non-profit organizations
Cnuncillnrs-
- One-on-one or small group interviews (Oct 2018)
In total, 183 surveys and interviews were completed. A summary, by stakeholder group and method of
engagement, is provided in the table below.
Method of
Stakeholder Group
Engagement
Council
Development
Staff
Public3
Other'
Community'
Interview
9
22
47
8
4
Survey — Full
0
9
46
11
3
Completion
Survey —
0
1
13
9
1
Partial
(Q1/Q2 only)
(Q1/Q2 only)
(Q1/Q2 only)
(Q1/Q2 only)
Completion
TOTAL
9
32
1 106
1 28
1 8
1 Includes development associations, builders, architects, consultants, and developers
2 Includes a cross-section of managerial and front-line staff from Corporate Services, Community Services, Development
Services, Infrastructure Services and Financial Services
3 Includes citizens, neighbourhood association members, advisory committee members
4 Includes businesses, agencies, utilities, public sector, non-profit organizations
All survey and interview questions were open-ended. A commitment was made to keep the identity of
participants as well as all collected raw interview/survey data confidential. As such, this report provides
an aggregate summary of the findings only and NOT individual responses/quotes.
Consultation began at the beginning of October with staff interviews. 47 staff were interviewed and
asked questions 1-3 and 5-11 (below). When the survey was launched, the set of questions was
streamlined to questions 1-6, based on feedback from Corporate Communications and the Project
Steering Committee and question 4 was introduced to seek input on existing strengths. As such, you will
see that the total number of respondents varies accordingly across the 11 questions.
1. a. - 19
Question 1: What do you expect/want to gain from the development services review? AND
Question 2: What do you need to have happen to consider the DSR a success?
Total Number of Responses
Respondent Type
106
Staff
32
Developer
28
Public
9
Council
8
Other
183
TOTAL
Q3. What would you consider to be the key risks for the development services review?
Total Number of Responses
Respondent Type
93
Staff
31
Developer
19
Public
9
Council
7
Other
159
TOTAL
Q4. What aspects of the City's existing development -related services do you consider to be the
City's strength?
Total Number of Responses
Respondent Type
46
Staff*
31
Developer
19
Public
9
Council
7
Other
112
TOTAL
*Staff that participated in interviews were not asked this question (this question was added when the
online survey launched)
Q5. What would be your first and second choice for development process review and Q6.
Where should the City focus efforts to bring the greatest impact/improvement?
Total Number of Responses
Respondent Type
93
Staff
31
Developer
19
Public
9
Council
7
Other
159
TOTAL
1.a.-20
Q7. Why do you feel this project is being undertaken/what need is it intended to address? (47 Staff)
Q8. Of the 3 project constraints, which is the most important to achieve for this project? (47 Staff)
Q9. What hand-off procedures/training do you feel will be required? (47 Staff)
Q10. What Project Management requirements do you have (e.g. communication, engagement,
process)? (47 Staff)
Q11. Do you have any lessons learned that you would like to share? (47 Staff + CMT)
See Appendix B.
4. How to read this report
It is important to recognize that the interview and survey questions were open-ended. Participants were
not guided in their responses/forced to respond is a certain way. In the interviews, however, participants
may have been asked to elaborate on their response(s) and/or asked for clarification. Like-
responses/common phraseologies were grouped and summed (see Appendix A). The statistics presented
in this report were based on what was shared/articulated by participants. When reading the results, the
inverse of a statement should NOT be inferred in ANY case. For example, 28% of the total number of
interview/survey respondents identified that establishing a shared vision should be a priority for
development services review. This DOES NOT mean that 72% said that it wasn't important — it means,
however, that 72% of respondents didn't specifically articulate or describe a shared vision in their
responses.
5. Linking the Engagement Results to the Established Objectives for the
Development Services Review
1. Objective #1: Establish a Shared Vision for Economic Growth, City Building, Sustainability, and
Development Interests
• 28% of the total respondents (52 of 183) identified that establishing a shared vision
should be a priority for the development services review. The following is a break -down
based on stakeholder group:
o Staff: 22%
o Development Community: 56%
o Public: 14%
o Council: 56%
o Other: 25%
2. Objective #2: Align Work Processes to Support the Development Services Vision
• The following four processes were the highest ranking processes that were identified by
interview/survey respondents:
o Site Plan: 35% (55 out of 159)
o Subdivision: 19% (30 out of 159)
o Transportation: 14% (23 out of 159)
1. a. - 21
o Customer Service/Communications: 13% (21 out of 159)
A more detailed break -down, by stakeholder group, can be found in Section 6 of this report.
3. Objective #3: Enhance Team Building, Collaboration and Creative Problem Solving
• 50% of respondents (91 of 183) identified that taking a coordinated/collaborative
approach to problem -solving and sharing information should be a priority for the
development services review. This was a top priority for four out of five stakeholder
groups: Staff (50%), Development Community (66%), Council (78%), and Other (50%).
4. Objective #4: Take a Coordinated Approach to Development
• Support less experienced applicants to more easily navigate the process
o 33% of Council respondents identified that they believe there is merit in
reviewing the appropriateness of a service model based on type of applicant
(e.g. less experienced); and,
o 22% of Council respondents, 16% of Development Community respondents, and
13% of Other respondents identified that they believe there is merit in
reviewing the appropriateness of a service model based on the scale/complexity
of an application.
• Engage the community in a coordinated way to build a holistic vision for their
neighbourhoods
o 39% of Public respondents and 44% of Council respondents identified that a
review of existing engagement methods/evaluating new models for
engagement should be a priority for the review to ensure that engagement is
meaningful.
• Coordinate staff resources to reduce wait -times, hand-offs and work backlogs
o 55% of all respondents (101 of 183) identified that they want to achieve
streamlined, efficient, and timely processes;
o 19% of Development Community respondents stated that they would like staff
to explore/improve team structures and functions; and,
o 33% of Council respondents and 13% of Development Community respondents
identified that a good protocol for file/task management between
divisions/departments should be established.
5. Objective #5: Communicate Clearly and Effectively
o 30% of all respondents identified that improved communication should be an
outcome of the development services review (22% Staff; 22% Development
Community; 46% public; 78% Council; 50% Other);
1.a.-22
o 35% of all respondents indicated that processes and service levels need to be clearly
defined/articulated (e.g. process map, timeline) (31% of Staff; 56% Development
Community; 14% Public; 78% Council; 25% Other)
o 50% of Development Community respondents, 67% of Council respondents, and
25% of Other respondents identified the need to have expectations/requirements
clearly articulated at the outset, with no moving goal posts (e.g. studies, # meetings
required, costs)
6. Summary of Engagement Results
A summary of the engagement results begins on the next page. Additional detail can be found in
Appendices A and B.
1.a.-23
Question 1: What do you expect/want to gain from the development services review? AND Question 2:
What do you need to have happen to consider the DSR a success?
OVERALL
COMMENTS
Council (9)
Top Responses:
89% Streamlined, efficient, timely
processes and services
78% Coordinated/collab. approach
78% Improved communication
78% Processes and service levels clear
67% Expectations clear at outset
56% Roles and responsibilities Clear
56% Establish a shared vision
What we heard:
• Need to establish a threshold for
notifying the public, even if they
don't have a say in a process
• Need access to timely information
• Clarify must -haves vs. nice -to -haves
• Have public meetings before staff
establish a position on applications
• Allow flexibility in processes
• Look at affordable housing
5tatt (106)
Top Responses:
56% Streamlined, efficient, timely
processes and services
50% Coordinated/collaborative
approach to problem -solving
42% Roles and responsibilities defined;
stakeholder accountability
31% Processes and service levels
clearly defined and articulated
What we heard:
• Staff want to be brought into
discussions at the right time
• Break -down silos and refocus on an
integrated/shared "CoK approach"
• What is the value in each step of our
services and how do we sell that
back to the customer?
• Reduce redundancy and ensure staff
are asking for "must haves"
Public (28)
Top Responses:
54% Transparency/access to
information
46% Improve Communication
39% Review current/new models for
engagement
32% Close the loop on engagement
29% Eliminate technical jargon
What we heard:
• Pathways to info on website are
convoluted
• Make all studies/drawings available
online
• Close the gap between mixed
messages (eg. LoveMyHood/Dev't)
• Open Site Plan process to the public
• Expand buffer radius on notices
• Complete end-user/empathy analysis
Development (32)
Top Responses:
69% Streamlined services/reduced red
tape
66% Coordinated/collab. approach
56% Establish a shared vision
56% Processes and service levels clear
53% Consistent responses/decisions
50% Expectations clear; no moving goal
posts
What we heard:
• Should feel like a partnership
• Provide process maps/macro timeline
• Don't need gold standard for all dev't
• Processes need more flexibility
• Too much architectural control
• Try to innovate but process stalls
• Clarify what staff should be
reviewing/commenting on
• Don't rely as much on checklists
Other (8)
Top Responses:
63% Streamlined, efficient, timely
processes and services
63% Reduced Red Tape—Create
flexible and reasonable
processes/policies
50% Improved Communication
50% Coordinated/collaborative
approach to problem -solving
What we heard:
• Embed sustainability in all processes
• Need remote access to services
• Employ common sense approach in
applying req'ts
• Develop genuine processes — don't
wait until legislated period is over to
provide a list of missing items
1.a.-24
Q3. What would you consider to be the key risks for the development services review?
OVERALL
COMMENTS
Council (9)
Top Responses:
78% Managing stakeholder
expectations
33% No substantive changes
made/status quo
33% Unbalanced outcome for
stakeholders
33% Added bureaucracy (more rigid
processes, too many steps, too much
time)
What we heard:
• Establishing an approach that all
stakeholders will adopt will be
challenging
• Recommended changes will need to
be approved by Council
• Need flexibility in processes while
still having consistent outcomes
(avoid minutia and focus on broad
objectives in each application)
Staff (93)
Top Responses:
18% Managing stakeholder
expectations
17% Staff fear/stress related to the
review and possible changes
16% Unbalanced outcome for
stakeholders
What we heard:
• Many competing interests will be
difficult to manage
• Stress related to demand on staff
time
• Concern that City will relax
standards to the point that we are
not developing responsibly
Public (19)
Top Responses:
32% Stakeholders left behind in the
process/not properly consulted or
included
26% Unbalanced outcome for
stakeholders
21% Added bureaucracy (more rigid
processes, too many steps, too much
time)
What we heard:
• Data will not be shared openly with
the public
• Opportunity to change will be
rejected
• That we will not engage beyond the
survey
• That we will lose focus on what is
good for the broader community
Development (31)
Top Responses:
42% No substantive changes
made/status quo
39% Added bureaucracy (more rigid
processes, too many steps, too much
time)
What we heard:
• Want to see a reduction in
review/approval timeframe
• Concerned that the process will
become so rigid that staff will fear
informal dialogue (already
happening)
Other (7)
Top Responses:
29% Resistance to Change
29% Unachievable City standards
implemented resulting in frustration/
reduced investment
What we heard:
• Concern that changes will not be
implemented
• Applicants will break the rules when
processes are too onerous and
requirements are too difficult to
meet
1.a.-25
Q4. What aspects of the City's existing development -related services do you consider to be the City's
strengths?
OVERALL
COMMENTS
Council (9)
Top Responses:
56% Building Division
33% Strong technical skills/expertise in
DSD
33% Customer Service
33% Staff who genuinely care/want to
make a difference
What we heard:
• Ability to engage the community
sooner than we used to
• Have seen positive changes in
planning staff who are often the
applicant's first point of contact
• Attentive staff who go above and
beyond, think outside of the box
Staff (46)
Top Responses:
33% Customer Service
30% Collaborative and solutions -
oriented staff
What we heard:
• Face-to-face customer service
• Staff willing to assist without an
appointment
• Staff value their relationships with
stakeholders
• Staff do their best to find solutions
that work for all stakeholders
Public (19)
Top Responses:
26% Collaborative and solutions -
oriented staff
21% Staff who genuinely care/want to
make a difference
What we heard:
• The Planning group is strong
• Responsive staff
• Staff work to achieve a positive
outcome and complete timely
reviews
Development (31)
Top Responses:
35% Customer Service
26% Building Division
23% Site Plan Process
What we heard:
• Building Division has fair and
transparent processes — work with
this group to develop a customer -
oriented culture in DSD
• Site Plan process works fairly well
but could be improved, Can a 2 -
stage process be applied in
subdivisions and condos?
Other (7)
Top Responses:
29% in the following five categories:
• Collaborative and solutions -
oriented staff
• Strong leadership
• Good standards, practices,
guidelines, and initiatives
• Building Division
• Staff who genuinely care/want
to make a difference
What we heard:
• PDF mark-ups in Building Division
are convenient low-cost and
environmentally friendly— look to
use this in other areas of DSD
• Strong leadership is evident
• Requirement for a sustainability
report is a positive step
• To// building design guidelines are
good
1.a.-26
Q5. What would be your first and second choice for development process review AND Q6. Where should the City
focus efforts to bring the greatest impact/improvement?
OVERALL COMMENTS
Staff (93)
Top Responses:
24% Site Plan Process
18% Subdivision Process
14% Transportation Services
Development (31)
Top Responses:
74% Site Plan Process
39% Subdivision Process
What we heard.
Site Plans and Subdivisions:
• Review O&M costs associated with infrastructure to be assumed by City
• Review/clarify processes, including staff roles, responsibilities, and hand-offs
• Include a buffer between internal/external consultation meetings
• Create a process for by-law enforcement for non-compliant applicants
• Review process around Schedule C agreement (Site Plan)
• Give public/Council more of a role in Site Plan process
• Review processes around engineering reviews
Transportation:
• Establish clear processes for sidewalk infill and traffic calming
• Bring transportation asset owners on board in the process
• Ensure capital engineering projects integrate BP in active transportation
• Greater collaboration with stakeholders
• Numerous comments on creating more active transportation networks
What we heard:
Site Plans and Subdivisions:
• Identify requirements upfront and provide a process map and timeline
• Need flexibility in the process
• Need agreement on conditions and the order to clear conditions (no surprises)
• Apply a project management framework in managing files
• A file liaison/advocate to shepherd a file and triage issues would be ideal
• Review the process for deeming applications complete
• Review the process for engineering reviews
• Overuse of checklists — would like to see more genuine, collaborative problem -solving
• Provide status updates
• Reduce overall number of drawing submissions — too much back and forth
• Final sign -off is a significant pinch point
• Would like to see staff accountability in moving files forward
• Facilitate electronic drawing review
1.a.-27
Q5/Q6 Continued....
Council (9)
Top Responses:
78% Site Plan Process
22% Development Fees
22% Parks and Open Spaces
22% Transportation Services
Public (19)
Top Responses:
37% Customer Service
32% Public Engagement
26% Transportation Services
Other (7)
Top Responses:
57% Customer Service
What we heard:
Site Plans:
• Give public/Council more of a role in the Site Plan process
• Ward Councillorshould be invited to Site Plan meetings
• Better communication/information sharing with Councillors
• Clear expectations/requirements identified at the outset of an application
• Reduce bottlenecks in the process
Development Fees:
• Review potential to scale fees according to complexity of application
• Streamline payment for applicants (fewer cheques)
Parks and Open Spaces:
• Plan more greenspaces, particularly in the core
Transportation Services:
• Review active transportation policies/initiatives
• Develop a plan for infill and parking
What we heard:
Customer Service:
• Open access to data in a user-friendly way
• Update website — avoid convoluted pathways
• Review our human resource policies to foster a customer service culture
• Provide timely responses to inquiries, with complete/accurate information
• Transparency and building trust in the community is important
Public Engagement:
• Review new models of engagement to ensure that it is meaningful
• Make the Site Plan process open to the public
• Provide consistent information across all application types
• Eliminate technical jargon
• Close the loop
Transportation Services:
• Numerous comments about the need for new public/active transportation initiatives
What we heard:
• The central focus of the Development Services Review should be on customer service
• Would like to see a City liaison/advocate to guide processes from beginning to end
• Would like to see the City build a customer service culture
• Evaluate if the City has the capacity to provide the best customer service to clients
1.a.-28
Q7. Why do you feel this project is Q8. Of the 3 project constraints, Q8. What hand-off
being undertaken/what need is it which is the most important to procedures/training do you feel will
intended to address? achieve for this project? be required?
Staff (47)
Top Responses:
43% Identify efficiencies in
process/service delivery
36% Eliminate silos/integrate
development functions
32% Leverage opportunities in new
department (DSD)
28% Strengthen customer service
approach/culture
Q10. What Project Management
requirements do you have (e.g.
communication, engagement)?
Staff (47)
Top Responses:
63% Want to receive project updates
39% Interested in being involved in the
project
28% Ensure engagement has clear
purpose/objectives
Staff (47)
Top Responses:
83% Quality
19% Deliver on time
6% Deliver within approved budget
Staff (47)
Top Responses:
30% Supporting documentation (e.g.
process maps)
28% Clear communication
28% Training specific to process
changes
47 staff, as well as attendees at the CMT meeting on September 25, 2018 were asked if they had any lessons from similar
projects that they would like to share. See Appendix B for a summary of their feedback.
1.a.-29
v
H
f6
E
WE
W �
U ,7;
p I
z a
W x
a a
a
a Q
Q-
<
a
Z
a
3 N.
> v
`u
u
v h
u m
Z �
N�
D
c v
Y
d
C4
O
j C
v u
� a0+
v
Y �
CL
O O'
d
2 m
L
C
c
j
H
M
L
C
Q
Y 0
O.
_
M y
C.
O
>FU
c
L
H
tc
w 0
v o
in
o
4
a
u
0
CL
v
v
0
> t
O
O
O
� 3
d
N
3 C
O
M
O
N
Q.
a
c
cr
v
E
Z
m
o''
10
1.a.-30
3
v
v
u
h
c
E
CLd
O
d
"O
L
O
Y
N
Y
�
C
C
Y
�
Q
O
v
v_
c
0
u
K
y
�
in
o
a
u
0
0
>
�
3
O
a
d
rn
m
O
m^
L
L
s
3
Z
0
O
H
1. a. - 31
0
r
O
v
0 0
O
00
u
N
v
� L
CLv
C
O
>
v
v u
c
0
—
c
w
m
r
0
>
u
C
v
0
in
o
a
u
0�
v
.t.
O
o
C
m
0
C
m
a
E
m
r
Z
O'
0
~
dj
4a
�a
�p
Pa
J/P40/Sai/P�/a PJ
O�aa/9P y��P�
yJ S
a?i P
,� s�4a ZaS %,
4�S Paa auO BOJ
a�J/ �a4 s�J
a O /S'/i I,/
O
/a
t,
ry+iP/
iyS40 p�4/
7oc // /'�N'�/i
dJ�
O
Gd OS dy'/Pp4P�s4 �JJ`
s p
40/��/O �apPd 00�
/a7
/4o�40�'�J`
of
T
a+ L
C 0
U �
3
w v
c ,m o
a) n Z
� T T
J � �
O � c C O O V C
in in c 0 0 0 C O O 0 C 0' o O
0 0 O 0# a 5' y w C C
a z v z y
0 o z ° a a=� z"R
CL a
a a# o o o
z z>> a a>> t t
a a n n as as u u 0 0
1. a. - 32
aJ
S
saJ' 4�0
Zas p4P
4
4
'4
G�44P/o, P/aa� 4P�
00 �PJ4 N�
4,44 a� ay
P �o
'o 74d
SOV a�2
4
of
a a
4'0
J
sJ44a4''OG s4'7�4�4asGo
a a� o
�4p4a(4 64Px p40J
P �P
9�
s 71
4
7p
9
JG sGP 7S
d
°ia �a JS
a
�a0 4�0 os
S�'�i� a'vssa�7OO
aas4i o is��
s 7�
4 00
a i
OJ/aJ/ o0P'�G� a
a0
c
J
Zas
�9�
m
3 E
O�
S�
v �
J
0
c
u
°
CL
3
v
u E
°
c
m
o
.
n
Z
O
t
�
T
T
J
�
�
�
c m
C
C
v
v
CL
c E
._
0
0
E
v
O
y m
>
v �
v v
''
«O
W
u a
p,
0
H
u Y
� N
c
d
r
u
h m
c
w
>
r
H
c u
m u
in
o
a
u
0
w
w
0 U
d
c
y
Y
0
O
CL
v
L
° J
K
O
O N
3 i
s
Omi
m
Ol
n
N
m r
E
�j
Z
o
aJ
S
saJ' 4�0
Zas p4P
4
4
'4
G�44P/o, P/aa� 4P�
00 �PJ4 N�
4,44 a� ay
P �o
'o 74d
SOV a�2
4
of
a a
4'0
J
sJ44a4''OG s4'7�4�4asGo
a a� o
�4p4a(4 64Px p40J
P �P
9�
s 71
4
7p
9
JG sGP 7S
d
°ia �a JS
a
�a0 4�0 os
S�'�i� a'vssa�7OO
aas4i o is��
v
O
# a 0 O. d V C 0 d d
O c a O O V C
O O 0
CL
0 z ' z v
a o
v z
O O C ° C C
O , ,
u u 'u 'u
1.a.-33
s 7�
4 00
a i
OJ/aJ/ o0P'�G� a
a0
J
Zas
�9�
�a� a
O�
S�
J
c
u
°
3
v
°
c
m
o
.
n
Z
t
�
T
T
J
�
�
C
C
v
v
0
0
v
O
# a 0 O. d V C 0 d d
O c a O O V C
O O 0
CL
0 z ' z v
a o
v z
O O C ° C C
O , ,
u u 'u 'u
1.a.-33
C
Y
O
CL
E
0
E
r
L
3
C
Nt C
M
�
M
o
d� c
�
C
v
C
�
a o
a o
m m
H � �
1.a.-34
C. m
s
P�JiG
Ga
4/a�0
'rJ
�o '/0
10,
'
000 %G/
O
yJa� 4P 4a/G 10 JiG so/J
c
�GOJ
Gis,G
'(N '.6ss d/J.,ap
�s/Go aJO�O'. o/'PO
a/Pa �Pa/J
/'�P Pl/J 9is,G y
E
O
oa
u
S�Ga J/Za �Ga/p• O,�P CGd a�j O
�•
10
p' Cla P OG, JO ./O
�Gj yJ 7s A�
ocP !G
�
.�G aJ of 7°s 7J`
P/�, AGO aoa. a0s,
�P
GO a y
io
J,s °,r G, /G,
m
GN Aa 4,N P�
a C
GO
a
9P 150
JSaS
GP/ '�EJG
a�Ga(G aha/ J,��aGG
o�
a�PGP
O
00
O
ao0
M ti
T
N
M Y
GP
yJ
C
°'
3
a
v
°
C m o
y in Z
� T T
J � �
C C
O1 O1
O O
a a
.
00
1.a.-35
N
�J
4
''tea' 'rJj
a/O.,
a� O
C
A,
a,,.6 OSP dyJ
OJ
/s/a�i�J a/iP't OJa`rP Oy�''�7
d
v
�a ski fid, BGG
O
.0
00/a JJa/O O•P a��P /,P� .,,SSG
m n
•c
y'la'Oa
so/J/ y�G/ Py�G a/q> Asa
rn
E
sa
N
sa, pa a
u
o
Oq
/'/J �G(G 7G PpC 7G
'� Ga
a
0,
Ga 7s
w
m
SPO' '�Ga 4'a ov
sGP �Ga qGi sG�
js °Pop oat
PI)
w
E
M o
00
',a
v m
m
00 o
/ O
•�
d�
u
O
C �
w �
o
U
,m
z
N T T
OJ
C
C O.
O C
a`
a a
O
CL C
m a
o
L a
a o
3 a
o E
O• U
^ �;
m
1.a.-36
Staff Repod
Community Services Department
REPORT TO:
Council Strategy Session
DATE OF MEETING:
March 4, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Miller, Director, Corporate Customer Service,
519-741-2200 ext. 7231
PREPARED BY:
Christine Baker, Supervisor, Customer Experience,
519-741-2200 ext. 7328
WARD (S) INVOLVED:
All
DATE OF REPORT:
February 27, 2019
REPORT NO.:
CSD -19-002
SUBJECT:
Corporate Customer Service Review
RECOMMENDATION:
For discussion only:
www.kitchener.ca
The draft recommendations contained in Appendix A are based on a detailed review and
analysis of input received from more than 3,500 citizens and 1,700 staff.
The recommendations to reduce red tape and improve e -services are ambitious bodies of work
to be undertaken with limited staff resources. To help staff prioritize implementation of those
specific recommendations:
A) When you look at the list of red tape reviews included in Recommendation #8,
what are your highest and lowest priorities?
B) When you look at the list of e -services included in Recommendation #10, what are
your highest and lowest priorities?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of our continuous improvement efforts, from December 2017 through August 2018, the
City conducted a comprehensive Customer Service Review as a way of determining successes
and needed improvements.
Through that review, City staff engaged more than 3,500 citizens about their service experiences
and expectations with the City through a statistically -representative phone survey, an online
survey, a social media campaign, comment cards and surveys completed in person with a street
team at City facilities and events. Additionally, the review engaged more than 1,700 City staff
through an online and paper survey to all staff, divisional staff interviews and staff workshops.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.b.-1
Staff have spent the past few months aggregating and analyzing all of the input received through
that citizen and staff engagement and formulating recommendations through a number of
facilitated sessions with various staff groups. As a result of all this work, the review findings and
recommendations contained in Appendix A of this report are strongly grounded in the input
received from staff and citizens.
Key Review Findings
• "Staff making every effort to meet customer needs" is by far the number one driver of
customer satisfaction, specifically — getting service in a reasonable amount of time,
dealing with knowledgeable staff, and getting the answer they need the first time.
• The City must maintain a multi -channel approach (phone, in-person and online) to
service delivery. Almost 70% of citizens indicated that they continue to access City
services in person or by phone.
• Six of the top ten frustrating experiences identified by citizens involve getting or sharing
information with the City.
• When asked why they experienced frustration when accessing City services, the most
frequently cited source of frustration was `Not knowing who to reach/call/talk to answer
my questions or inquiries.'
• Staff indicated a need for training on dealing with customers with mental health
challenges, dealing with difficult situation/de-escalation, service standards, and customer
service practices.
Based on all of the input gathered through the Customer Service Review, a corporate
customer service framework was developed for the City that focuses on four key areas:
1. Empathetic staff: Empathy in customer service — the ability for a staff person to `step
into a customer's shoes' to better appreciate what they may be feeling or experiencing —
is a critical component to creating an excellent service experience.
2. Service Standards: Customer service standards spell out expectations for all staff as
they conduct any customer service transaction, and inform and shape the customers'
service experience with the City. Similarly, clearly defined service levels enable the
sharing of key information such as when citizens can expect specific services will be
performed, where, how often and what factors (e.g. weather) might delay service and
reduce the need for them to follow up.
3. Easy processes: Simplifying processes where possible to reduce customer frustration
will enhance their overall experience with the City.
1.b.-2
4. Convenient tools: As the notion of e -services and self-service continue to evolve in the
private sector, government is increasingly expected to deliver faster, easier, real-time self-
service customer experiences.
This new corporate customer service framework will enable the City to make decisions and
allocate funding and staff resources to these high priority areas to ensure investments have the
highest and most positive impact on our customers' experiences.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
Council previously provided input into the Customer Service Review at the February 26, 2018
Strategy Session where report CSD -18-050 provided an update on corporate customer service
initiatives and asked Council for specific input into the review.
Additionally, during the consultation phase of the review, one-on-one interviews were conducted
with members of Council to understand their perspectives on customer service at the City, and
those expressed to them by their constituents.
All of the previous Council input was considered alongside the citizen and staff input as
recommendations were drafted.
BACKGROUND:
Corporate Customer Service Division
In early 2018, a new organizational structure for the City was introduced to realign departments
to function optimally and enhance service delivery. One of the priorities of that reorganization
was to speed up the pace of the City's corporate customer service agenda and increase the
capacity to move this work forward.
To that end, when the new organizational structure came into effect, it included a new Corporate
Customer Service Division that provides dedicated leadership and resources to the corporate
customer service agenda and will enable a more specific focus on:
1.b.-3
• Removing red tape for citizens and involving them in service solution design
• Shifting the City towards a more anticipatory/proactive approach to providing customer
service through service data analysis, customer feedback analysis, and the development
of new online tools and services
• Developing and implementing a Corporate Customer Feedback Program
• Building a foundation for corporate reporting and analysis of customer service
transactions to enable more data -driven decisions and service improvements in the future
• Expanding the services of the Corporate Contact Centre to more areas within the
organization
As one of the first initiatives of this new division, the City conducted a comprehensive Customer
Service Review, talking to more than 3,500 citizens about their service experiences and
expectations with the City, and more than 1,700 City staff, to learn more about the barriers and
challenges they regularly find when providing services to citizens each day.
The recommendations from that review (Appendix A) strongly reflect the input of citizens and
staff and are intended to enhance the customers' experience while also building the City's
service -first culture by ensuring staff understand and reflect what is expected of them and that
they have the training and tools they need to offer quality, consistent, seamless service
experiences to citizens in every interaction. These recommendations will form the bulk of the
work plan for the new Corporate Customer Service Division — with some work being done by
other key areas of the organization — over the next four years.
Customer Service or Citizen Service?
While consideration was given to using the "citizen service" terminology prior to the launch of
the new division, staff elected to continue with the term "customer service" for several reasons:
• Internal and External Service Providers: "Citizen" terminology does not reflect the work
of the hundreds of City staff who primarily serve internal customers (e.g. Human
Resources, Information Technology, Accounting). Additionally, it doesn't account for how
so much of the work staff does to support our external customers has a critical
dependence on the customer service staff provide to each other as coworkers. Internal
customer service delivery directly impacts service to our customers in the community and
it's critical to building a service -first culture that all staff see themselves as service
providers.
• Inclusivity: "Citizen" terminology is not inclusive of all the people the City services (e.g.
business customers, out of town users).
• Clarity: Staff and citizens know exactly what we mean by "customer service". The term
"Citizen Service" is not well known and requires time and effort to explain the concept.
1.b.-4
• Definition: "Customer service" refers to when someone has paid for a service and they
are asking us to do something in exchange for that payment (e.g. taxes, user fees).
Approach to Service: "Customer" denotes how we want to treat those who use our
services. Its use suggests their importance and the focus given to this work by the
organization. The commitment to improving customer service and service delivery was
one of the key goals for the City's reorganization in 2018.
As work was being completed to launch the 2018 corporate reorganization, staff reached out to
several Canadian municipalities to learn about their roles, structure, focus and how they were
referring to themselves as it relates to "citizen service" or "customer service." Of the eight
municipalities that responded, only one (Region of Waterloo) had moved to "citizen service" in
its name. Six of the eight — Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, York Region, Hamilton and
Mississauga — continued to use "customer service" in the descriptions of their respective
divisions and/or departments, in most of their job titles and in their web content. Saskatoon's
equivalent is housed in a division called Communications and Customer Experience.
REPORT:
Project Governance
In 2017, a project team of staff was established to guide the Corporate Customer Service
Review. Overall guidance and support was provided by a staff team consisting of the project
champion, project sponsor, project manager, project team and a staff advisory committee with
broad divisional representation.
Staff from all areas of the corporation, including many frontline staff who deliver services directly
to both internal and external customers, were included throughout the review.
Engagement Process
To ensure that the recommendations for continuous service improvement at the City were built
on the direct input of residents and staff, the project team undertook an extensive three-phase
community and staff engagement process — known as "Kitchener Wants to Serve You Right."
Phase 1 — Statistically -Representative Environics Survey
The foundation of the engagement process, the Environics Survey, was conducted with
600 citizens. The findings, which were presented to Council at a Strategy Session in
February 2018, created the basis for the second and third phases of engagement — a
deeper dive with staff and citizens on key issues.
• Phase 2 — Staff Consultation
1.b.-5
1,700 staff were engaged about the barriers and challenges to providing excellent
customer service; where they see "pain points" for citizens and how the City might
address them. This phase of the process engaged staff from all areas of the corporation
through methods including: intranet stories, posts and blogs, online and paper surveys,
one-on-one interviews with frontline staff, workshops/focus groups, and presentations to
various staff groups.
During this phase, members of Council were also individually interviewed for their
perspective on service at the City. City Councillors were also engaged in a February
2018 strategy session where they provided input.
• Phase 3 — Citizen Consultation
3,500 citizens were engaged about their customer experiences with the City, their "pain
points", what they'd like to be able to do more of online and what service -related
concerns they most want the City to improve.
To make it as easy as possible for anyone to participate, a variety of methods were
used to inform and engage citizens, including: a social media campaign on Twitter and
Facebook, print ads, online survey, street teams at all major summer events conducting
in-person interviews, paper surveys at all Community Centres and City Hall service
counters, print ads and stories in City publications. For citizens without computers, a
dedicated phone line was advertised where they could leave their comments.
The charts on the next page indicates how and where citizens and staff were informed
and engaged in the review.
1.b.-6
q •.
Cit E -newsletters sent Golf, Kitchener Market, Arts, The Aud
•
11,187 households
Kitchener Life ad and stories
60,000 households
Active Kitchener ad
65,000 households
At Events
At City locations
Survey drop boxes
•
Tri -Pride
0
Downtown CC
0
Kingsdale CC
•
Summer Lights
0
Centreville -Chicopee CC
0
Rockway CC
•
Tame the Lane
0
Mill -Courtland CC
0
Mill -Courtland CC
•
Forest Heights Family Fun
0
Breithaupt Centre
0
Victoria Hills CC
Day
0
Rockway CC
0
Country Hills CC
•
King StrEATery food truck
0
Kingsdale CC
0
Centreville -Chicopee CC
festival
0
Stanley Park CC
0
Stanley Park CC
•
Multicultural Festival
0
Country Hills CC
0
Williamsburg CC
•
KW Veg Fest
0
Williamsburg CC
0
Forest Heights CC
•
Rock n' Rumble
0
Chandler -Mowatt CC
0
Downtown CC
•
Blues Festival
0
Bridgeport CC
0
Lyle Hallman Pool
•
KidsPark
0
Kitchener Market
0
Cameron Heights Pool
•
Kiwanis Park
0
Forest Heights Pool
•
Harry Class pool
0
Bridgeport CC
•
Victoria Park
0
Chandler -Mowatt CC
playground/splash pad
0
Breithaupt Centre
•
The Aud
•
City Hall service counters:
• Information Desk
• Revenue (main floor)
• Legislative Services
• Office of Mayor/Council
• Revenue (3rd floor)
• Building
• Community Services
• Planning
q •.
Cit E -newsletters sent Golf, Kitchener Market, Arts, The Aud
•
11,187 households
Kitchener Life ad and stories
60,000 households
Active Kitchener ad
65,000 households
Facebook reach how many individuals sawposts)
25,391
Total
161,578
• 1 . $ -
Engage Kitchener online survey
• - • • -
Street team and service counter surveys completed
7774
7Twitter
polls
44
Statistically representative Environics survey
Survey of City volunteers
142
Total # of citizens providing feedback
3,510
Staff survey included all staff)
• •-•• -
1,160
Divisional staff interviews
102
Staff advisory committee meetings
44
Staff workshops 6
116
Supervisors, Managers, Directors, CLT 2 LEAD workshops)
286
Total # of staff providing feedback
1,708
1.b.-7
Summary of Review Findings
With the participation of more than 5,000 citizens and staff, substantial valuable input and insight
into the key objectives outlined for the Customer Service Review was received. This insight has
enabled staff to better understand both the successful and the frustrating aspects of the
customer experience — from a citizen and staff perspective.
Details of the input received through this review can be found in the attached summary of the
online and paper public surveys (Appendix B), and staff survey (Appendix C).
Summary of review findings:
• 88% of citizens were very or somewhat satisfied with their service experience when
dealing with the City.
• 88% of citizens agreed that staff were courteous and polite, and 84% agreed that staff
were knowledgeable.
• Staff making every effort to address their needs was the number one driver of satisfaction
for citizens, specifically getting service in a reasonable amount of time, dealing with
knowledgeable staff, and getting answers the first time.
• Citizens continue to value the personal touch. Almost 70% of citizens indicated that they
access City services in person or by phone.
• When asked why they experienced frustration when accessing City services, the most
frequently cited source of frustration was `Not knowing who to reach/call/talk to answer
my questions or inquiries.'
• When asked why they experienced frustration when accessing City services, the second
most frequently cited source of frustration was `The services 1 want are not online.'
• Six of the top ten frustrating experiences identified by citizens involve getting or sharing
information with the City.
• Several themes emerged when citizens were asked about their service experiences with
the City including not getting a response from the City/response takes too long and getting
bounced around from staff to staff.
• Staff reported low rates of agreement (64/60% respectively) with the following statements
— `staff are easy to get a hold of when I need them' and `staff respond quickly with the
information that I need.'
• Staff indicated a need for training on dealing with customers with mental health
challenges, dealing with difficult situation/de-escalation, service standards, and customer
service.
CUSTOMER SERVICE VISION, FRAMEWORK AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on all of the detailed feedback provided by staff and citizens, preliminary work on the
City's (1) customer service vision was completed and a (2) framework and (3) recommendations
were developed to address the key themes that emerged.
1.b.-8
1: Customer Service Vision
An engaging customer service vision articulates what we promise to do, deliver or become — it's
an expression of what we want people to experience when they're served by our organization.
It is intended to not only motivate staff, but to raise the bar on our service delivery and
expectations, and give customers something to hold us accountable to. Essentially, a customer
service vision is the foundation of our service culture, allowing staff to channel purpose into
everything we do.
Based on the strong themes that emerged from citizen and staff input, substantial work was
done to identify the City's subsequent service promise and the desired customer experience
underlying the City's vision for customer service. They include:
We promise to...
• Have clear and consistent service standards and communicate them to residents and
staff.
• Have citizen -centered systems and processes that are easy for customers to understand
and use.
• Provide customers with the tools and service channels that meet their individual
preferences.
• Hire, onboard, train, and recognize the right people (innovative, empathetic).
• Give staff the tools, time and autonomy to provide high quality service.
So that our customers have
• A positive experience when interacting with the City (convenient, easy, fast, friendly,
complete).
• Confidence that staff have made every effort to meet their needs.
• Trust in their municipal government.
With the desired state articulated, more work will now be done to develop a single phrase or
sentence that captures our vision for customer service and makes it simple, relevant and
memorable for staff and citizens. The new vision will become a major focus for staff training in
the future.
2: Corporate Customer Service Framework:
After a comprehensive review and analysis of all of the input gathered through the Customer
Service Review, staff developed a clearly articulated framework to paint the bigger picture of
how review outcomes come together to create the foundation, areas of focus, key objectives and
1.b.-9
outcomes that will guide the City's customer service work over the next four years. The new
Corporate Customer Service Framework is also intended to provide guidance when making
decisions and allocating funding and staff resources to ensure those investments have the
highest and most positive impact on our customers' experiences.
With an ongoing focus on creating an ideal service culture being fundamental to any
organization's ability to deliver exceptional service experiences, the Corporate Customer Service
Framework is founded on our organizational service culture. The four key areas of focus
identified within the framework and discussed more in-depth below — Empathetic Staff, Clear
Standards, Easy Processes and Convenient Tools — were developed after extensive review and
analysis of all of the input as well as the overall themes that emerged from the recommendations
themselves.
Focusing on continuous improvement in those four key areas is intended to enable the City to
achieve its main objective and the key desired outcomes of all of its customer service efforts —
to ensure friendly, easy, positive customer experiences for citizens and, ultimately, to build their
trust in municipal government and increase their participation and involvement in municipal
government.
The Corporate Customer Service Framework (shown below), which was workshopped and
tested with staff groups — along with the review recommendations — is an important part of
making the City of Kitchener a more customer -focused organization.
a
E
v
u
0
O
1 Empathetic Clear Easy Convenient
` Staff Standards Processes Tools
1. b. - 10
CUSTOMER SERVICE REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS:
Each area of focus within the Corporate Customer Service Framework above lists the key
recommendations and other initiatives for that area. This section of the report highlights key
findings for each area of focus and provides one example recommendation within that area.
Note: For a comprehensive list of all review recommendations, see Appendix A.
1. Empathetic Staff
Empathy in customer service — the ability for staff to step into a customer's shoes to better
appreciate what they may be feeling or experiencing — is a critical component to creating an
excellent service experience. Not surprisingly, empathy emerged as a strong theme when staff
were asked what receives the most positive feedback from customers.
Staff said that putting themselves in their customers' shoes, specifically taking the time to listen
and understand, following up and following through, responding in a timely manner, and making
every effort to address the customer's needs frequently receive the most positive response from
citizens.
We also heard from staff that it is important to equip them to be ambassadors of customer
service, to hire right for a customer service mindset, and then train right. The most frequently -
mentioned training needs were dealing with customers with mental health challenges, dealing
with difficult situations/de-escalating conflict, service standards, and customer service training.
For this reason, one of the recommendations that supports the theme of empathetic staff is
(Appendix A — Recommendation #4):
➢ Create a corporate -wide customer service training program for all City staff that
focuses on the following key elements:
• The City's customer service vision, standards, and performance expectations of staff
• Treating customers with empathy
• Serving diverse customers (including those with mental health challenges)
• De-escalating conflicts with customers
2. Clear Standards
A key area of improvement identified through the Customer Service Review is related to helping
customers understand what they can expect when they are dealing with the city.
Service Level Agreements
A component of the overall review focused on identifying specific areas where citizens are
initiating frequent follow-ups with the City for updates. To reduce the need for follow-up, staff
1.b.-11
have identified and recommended key service areas that require improved information sharing
with citizens, through the development and communication of Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
SLAs document and enable the sharing of key information such as when citizens can expect
specific services will be performed, where, how often and what factors (e.g. weather) might delay
service.
To determine where to focus these efforts, staff conducted interviews with Corporate Contact
Centre and Office of the Mayor and Council staff, a review of service request volumes (when
someone contacts the City and a work order is created), social media inquiries, Kitchener.ca
searches and page views. As a result, work will be done to document and communicate service
level expectations for the five most frequently asked about service areas. To support this work,
staff are recommending the following (Appendix A — Recommendation #6):
➢ Set specific service levels that are clearly communicated to residents and staff for
the following frequently asked about or accessed City services:
• Tree maintenance: pruning, inspection, removal, replacement
• Parking: long-term, private parking, prohibited area, blocked driveway
• Property standards complaints
• Snow clearing: roads, sidewalks, trails
• Grass cutting: parks, Sportsfields, boulevards
3. Easy Processes
During the customer service review, citizens were asked to identify processes that were
frustrating based on "red tape" or barriers. Six of the top 10 frustrating experiences identified
involved getting or sharing information with the City.
When asked what would make it easier to access City services, citizens frequently indicated that
trying to navigate departments and find the right staff person is difficult, they were frequently
bounced around from staff to staff, and were looking for improved communication between
departments and functions.
Key areas identified by citizens as frustrating have been recommended for Customer Experience
Reviews which are focused on working with citizens directly to identify specific pain points within
services and create solutions that improve their experience. To support this work, staff are
recommending the following (Appendix A — Recommendation #8):
➢ Implement a comprehensive program of Customer Experience Reviews to help
ensure services are easy and convenient to access from the customer's
perspective. That program should start by focusing on the following areas of red
tape often identified by customers:
1. Customers calling the city are bounced between staff.
2. Checking the status of a service request is difficult.
1.b.-12
3. Getting updates on roadwork/closure is difficult.
4. Providing feedback to the City is frustrating.
5. It's unclear when someone should call Kitchener Utilities vs. Revenue.
6. Applying for Leisure Access Card is really complex.
4. Convenient Tools
The Internet has revolutionized the way people around the world access information and conduct
routine business on a daily basis. As e -services and self-service options continue to evolve in
the private sector, governments are also under increasing pressure to respond to customer
expectations to deliver faster, easier, real-time self-service customer experiences online.
Not surprisingly, citizens identified a number of areas where services and/or information sharing
could be improved, as well as services they would like to be able to access online, including an
online customer service portal that would centralize a citizen's online service interactions with
the City in one place. Work has begun on the portal with Council recently approving the required
resources for its development.
Satisfaction with our current e -services was generally good, with rates ranging from 57 — 80%.
However, citizens indicated that there remains room for improvement with some of our current
e -services, and also generally in the areas of making our services easier to find, access and
use.
To support this work, staff are recommending the following (Appendix A — Recommendation
#10)..
➢ Improve the City's offering of e -services by introducing or enhancing the
following priority online services:
1. Online Payments (new)
2. Close the Loop Expansion (improve existing)
3. Online Portal (new)
4. Online Forms (improve existing)
5. Viewing what's been plowed (new)
6. Hourly Parking Payments (new)
7. KU Appointment Booking (improve existing)
8. Property Standards Complaints (improve existing)
9. Business Licensing Application (new)
10.ActiveNet Enhancements (improve existing)
11. Book City -Owned Spaces (new)
12. Overnight Parking Exemptions (new)
1. b. - 13
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority: Open Government
Strategy: 1.5 Strengthen a culture within the organization that puts citizens first and improves
the quality of the customer service experience.
Strategic Action: OG12 Customer Service Review
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Proiect Exaenditures
Communication to residents $9,083.69
Resident engagement (including street team) $29,582.82
Staff engagement $2,051.44
Total project expenditures $40,717.95
The Customer Service Review was funded from the Corporate Customer Service capital
account.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
APPENDIX A — SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX B — SUMMARY OF ONLINE AND PAPER SURVEYS OF CITIZENS
APPENDIX C — SUMMARY OF STAFF SURVEY RESULTS
1.b.-14
0
Z
LU
CL
CL
a
U)
O
70
L
N
C 4- O
Q
0
0% 0
(6
Q
O
U U)
�
L
N
O
U
N
O
(-6
O
O
O)
O
N O
O
U)
U
0
U
O
7
(6 U
O
O)
U
N
N
�.
j
_Q
N
U U
L
O
N
(�6
0
>
(-6 L-
-0
(U
O
U
O
O70
0 70U
Q
OE
U
O
N
Q
U O
~
O
N
L
N
N
L
_0'
()
> U p
O
O
N
U
Q
kuO
U�
O 00
E
E
�
L(
OO
U (D 0
O%
O
NU
L
N
(D
E
E
E
m
Q
-0 M
Q
O
E
O
O
O
E
N
N
U) 0
(D
Q
06O1
O
6E
O
U
O
O
Q
N
E M Q
O
(D
0)
N
N
N
p)
O
O
m
U p>
(L6 U E
(L6
_0
p
N
U
O
O
>
O
(L6 U 0 Z3 �_
OL OU
N
(6
U
U)
p)
O
L
O
O
Q(D N
U
O10
O
O
0
>_
o)
>
N
U)
N-
C �_0
0
U
U)
(06
a
4--00
U
(6
N
O
U)
N
>
L
p
N
L
p)
O
U i
O L (�
C:O
O p=
N
O>
Q
•-
U
U
_
U) L
O
r,
0)
O
L
O
N O
O
L
O
�i
(6
U)
O
O
�
U
/��
v)
O
(6 L
E
U
U
1
N :t'
U >�
E
O
U)
U
0)
O
N
�
I
U
(6
N
L O) E
O N
N
-
O)
O
N
`�
O
Q
>
O
O-0�
U O O
Q U =�
�
�L♦
U
O
(6
p
O
_
O
i
(6
N' L U
O L N
p
p
0
0
p
O
U)
to
>,
O
U)
U)
N
m
L
m
O
U U
�' O
to
(6
L
0
U
i
0
O)
0
.
O
0
p�QLJ
O
�"�
>, O
QL_
U
U
O
>
N
O
U O
U
(6
N
X
y--,
0 0
U)o)
O
(6
E.
N .0
V
N 70
0
U
0
�, O1
0
N=
L
U
O E
O
(6
U
>,
�• O N
L U N
O
U
.O
-0
a)
(�
E
N
0�
•O
i
(D(�
N
N
N
N
U
O
Q
OU
U
O
U
(6
W
0 0 m
> Q
U U
>
U)
L
vJ
L
L
O
U
Q
N Q E
0 0
m
L
O
N
L
p
W
(6
O N
�. m
U
U
U)
N
(7
L6
Q
Gi i
Q i
Q
L
ou
E V
E•L
E�
�V)
(D
U
0
U
LU
w0
w
UL
UL
Q
H
cn
U
H
W
2
H
Q
CL
LU
1.b.-15
1. b. - 16
70
C6
U
L
Z3 L
0)
`t
�
OU
EQ0
_
Z3
O
(6
O
L (6
to
�.
O
N O
CU
CU
U
Q (U U
CU
O
O O1
N
O_
U
L
(6 N
�D
N
N
(6
(6
Q
N
U
O
O 0
(6
N
(06 N
L
-Y
L O
-0 UO
CU
(Oj
U --
O in
0-c�
O U
Q
U CU
U 'tA
U U
OO
CU
U
CU
U
CU
> O
Q
U U
O
U
p
LO
��
O
�O
QU
OO
�
CU
>6
V
XZ3
CU OEU
-E>
C/)
-0N
O O(D
U
U
E
N
O
O
Q
U
i
U
O
�
Q CU
>
O
D>
(D O
N Q
O
U
Cn
E
E O
O
U
O U
Q
fn
L
U
`1
-0L
O
U
O Q
N CU
L 0- O%
(6
CU
L
CU
fn L O
Z3
(6
O
(6
U
(6
(U
CU
i
(6
fn
FDO
N O
O1
CU
M
0
L
O
Q
U
O
O
O% O
y--� O CU
MZ3
y--�
Q-0
~"'
Q
O
L
L �--� >>
m
�--�
O
�
O
L
>_
E
(n
Q
U
U
in
L
O
>,.—
CU (6 O
E N N
N
Q ip
�. (6
Q
L
Q
O
U
U
O
�_
U
CU
E
E
O �.
O
O�
>
O
(6
U
fn �
O
^
to
(6
0
i
�
O
CU
>,
O
:-' �.
(6
fn
>,
O1
O Q L
O CU
O Q L
N
U
C
L
(6
Q
O
O
Q
01
U
U O
O
O
4 O
U U `�
�
j
L
(U
N
U
Q
0)
CU
O L
O
O
N
O
0
0
0
U
(6
O
O
0
U
0
O O N
O
>s
O
0U m
to (o
(D�. >,
U
CU
1
L
Q
O
(6
U_
U
N
O N'
N
U U
O U
CU
(U6 ' N�
fn Q)
X
�
OL
O"
L
O
O
O
U�
O Q� U
> c6
O Q Q
CU
U O1
CU O
Q
CL
CL
Cn
U'
E
-
' cn
U
�
N U
L
0
•
•
•
•
•
N
U
(6
LL
CY
CU
w —
C/) 4--
O
Uo7o
L
. Ln
a)
m
CU
m
CU
m
Q
0-
y
Q (V
0
0
J
Cn
� Cn
U cn
cn
D
Q
D
Z
Q
H
cn
Q
W
J
U
1. b. - 16
1.b.-17
O O
> 70
L
O
0 L
O
O
U
O
O
to N O
N
>
OU
N
0
N 0
0-0-
Q(D
(D
a) _0
a)
+�
o
Q V
O V
N
0 U
O
O)
LU O
OUUO
U
O
_0
_
X
0) (D
E E
O
U D
O
U
0
>
N
� U
O
N
L
D L
fn �
-0
_0
"-
(6 U)
C/)U
O
N O N
> O > N
L
O
U
O to
U
D�
O
�
Q U
° o
N L
U
o
L
C: ° E o
O1
N
U
fn
O
O
c:
U
�
-
X
U) Q
O U
U
O
U
U (U6
a)
O N 0 N
>> V
) O
O O
E
Q
O�
O
N (6
O O
O U Q Q X
O O
�. U
O
O
N
Q^
O
O U (n w
m U �)
0 >1
0)-, M
O M
C
U)
� a
L
u) ' (D
E
^^>,
LL
D
Ua)
D
L
J
) a)
0
0 0---
U
S O O O L
L (6 (6
m
U O
M W
?j
L
(L6
O
V
O (6
UC (6
O U O �i ^(6
W O
>1 U)
0 U70
fn y--�
N 0)QO)N�
L
O
�%
O
Q(6
(n
L
O^(6
>S J L
n O^^O
L
O �:
L y"' J LL
^M O� U OCL
0
o). -U
O �
in
LL
�)
�
LL 0 L z I 1 0)
M �
O U
C
0 0
�
�
� � �
�
L � (D � � � L
Q Q
O U
i6 0_
L D=
0000�a-Q
N 2
w
Q
N O
U O vi
—
N
0
00000>2YamQm0
0 0 0
_
0 .O
O c U O>
E (D E
E
—
D ai
>
>,
N . ) L
QL O1-
O �� ��
M-0
�� ��
U-0
��
(D
4--
U U
O N L
O
0-0m-0
U_0
a)
4-- O)L
O
=
(n 0-0
O�
7
Q
O
C6
O
L c
N
Gi
i0 mL
�
�.>
�Q
CL N O
DU MaICL-
Q
w
U cn
cn
J
LU
0
cn
0
c
W
U
z
ww
CL
z
}
w
>
cn
a
z
LU
0
1.b.-17
1. b. - 18
3
�
U)
/
n2f
@70o
m 5
0)2
¢
E
n
k E U
$
m
o $
a 3¢
m
70
E
§
¢
0
3
®
% 3
0
m x
m
0
k
/ a)�
(D
® q
m
m /
k 0
2 0
m
U .g 0-
.g
7 3
E
0
E
o
U
% % m
U 0-70
o
c-
a) ¢ U)2
= q
2.g @
0 §
2 2
E
�o
0 o
0 9
0).%
�
(Dm.�
0)
°
E
F
m/ 2%
s
.E_
2
E m
n
2 2 U
§ 0 2
$ R
m
(
o
0
m
\
°
0
>S 0
@
o.0
2 _0
E U
E n
m k
n
2¢
0>(D 0 E
o
U 3LF-�
= 3
m 2
- §
)
0-
o
0
2 _ o
.§
n m
0- 2/
'�
E¢% '
°
q f¢
= o
U
_ 0¢
-0
0-aj
2 m
Tu-
E 2
¢ n F E
E $@
2 m
0
0
E 2
_
E
M
EU
§
U
-0
-0 2 $ n
%
'0
) ¢
-
E _ ._
n
E
k
�_ 0
_� U
2
_
7 M
°
E/
U?°
2 0
0
2 %
¢ �
E $ §
2
$ -
¢
7
n FD 2
0/ (
/ k
°
� § E
_0 9 3 k
k
E o 0
_0
/ n
Q
/
x 0
LU o.g n
E o
U
U.. .
o
o U(D
L6
0
k2@
o k 0@
O�
@ @_
E� ■
Q@ Q
u
@@
2 E 0 o
m
C 2§§
M�
CL 11
a
2 2 p
k
CL
0�CL
o
r§
E 0@
��
@
@
o U x
o U
m
ma
2
k m m
CL
m
1. b. - 18
APPENDIX B — SUMMARY OF ONLINE AND PAPER SURVEYS OF CITIZENS
1. We'd like to learn more about your experiences with the City of Kitchener. Think of a
recent transaction or experience you had with the City of Kitchener.
What was the nature of your transaction?
How did we do during that transaction? [Exceeded my expectations, Met my
expectations, Did not meet, Needs some improvement]
Options for "Exceeded my expectations" and "Met my expectations" were combined into "Met
or exceeded." Options for "Did not meet" and "Needs some improvement" were combined into
"Below expectations."
Top 10 Transactions (Sorted by response count)
Transaction
Below
expectations
Met or
exceeded
N=
Registered for a program at a community centre or
pool
13.5%
86.5%
141
Paid for City service fees (permits, license, parking
ticket, etc...
40.3%
59.7%
62
Signed up for property tax and/or Kitchener Utilities e-
billing
13.7%
86.3%
51
Requested service from Kitchener Utilities
4.4%
95.6%
45
Asked a question about a City service or event
20.5%
79.5%
44
Reported a problem (i.e. graffiti, potholes, litter)
38.6%
61.4%
44
Reported a property standard or parking complaint
47.7%
52.3%
44
Booked a tee time at a City golf course (boon Valley,
Rockway)
3.7%
96.3%
27
Got an update on roadwork, watermain break, etc...
4.8%
95.2%
21
Applied for a building permit
45.5%
54.5%
11
Other
138.8%
161.2%
198
Total
124.7%
175.3%
1588
2. We've heard from citizens that it's important for City staff to make every effort to
address your needs. What does that mean to you? Select your top 3 answers.
1.b.-19
964
860
711
612
456 525
45
Other Receiving Staff working with Staff taking the Getting the answer Dealing with Getting service in a
confirmation that you to find a time to explain you need the first knowledgeable reasonable amount
your inquiry was solution what will be done time staff of time
addressed and why
3. If you completed any of these services online with the City of Kitchener in the last year,
please tell us how satisfied you were with the experience. If you did not access a service
online within the last year, select N/A. [Very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very
dissatisfied, NA]
Online Services
Very sfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
N=
Registered for a program at a
11.2%
11.9%
36.2%
40.7%
268
community centre or pool
Registered for a class or event at the
11.5%
9.2%
39.1%
40.2%
87
Kitchener Market
Reported a problem (e.g. graffiti,
19.9%
20.5%
26.1%
33.5%
161
pothole, litter
Reported a property standard or parking
21.7%
21.7%
28.3%
28.3%
120
complaint
Applied for a building permit
8.6%
11.4%
37.1%
42.9%
35
Signed up for property tax and/or
12.2%
12.2%
32.6%
43.1%
181
Kitchener Utilities e -billing
Paid a parking ticket
17.4%
14.8%
34.2%
33.5%
155
Requested service from Kitchener
11.3%
13.2%
27.2%
48.3%
151
Utilities
Purchased monthly parking
17.2%
10.3%
31.0%
41.4%
29
Booked a tee time at a City golf course
13.8%
8.6%
32.8%
44.8%
58
Doon Valley, Rockwa
Searched or applied for a City job
12.5%
22.9%
38.9%
25.7%
144
1.b.-20
4. Is there anything we could improve about your online experience(s)? (select all that apply)
232 243
194 196
152
53
Other No improvement Provide live support Reduce number of Make services Provide Make services
needed if I need help on the steps required to easier to use on the confirmation that easier to find on the
website or app complete an online website or app my request or website or app
service inquiry has been
received/addressed
5. Are there any City services you'd like to be able to access online through our website or
app that aren't currently available? (select all that apply)
ME
I
126
KIM
89 89 99
192
63
View City Buy Pay for City Pay for hourly Rent City
Pay for Pay green
Access and Track location Other
facility rental swimming facility rentals parking sports fields
building fees or
submit all City of snow
availability passes
permits equipment
application plows during
(rinks,
rentals at City
forms snow event
community
golf courses
(planning,
centres, City
(boon Valley,
licenses)
Hall rotunda)
Rockway)
1. b. - 21
6. Rate these processes on a scale from easy (no red tape or barriers) to frustrating (lots of
red tape of barriers). If you haven't used the service in the last year, please select N/A.
(easy, somewhat easy, neutral, somewhat frustrating, frustrating, NA)
Note: number of respondents indicated within brackets.
(346) Registered for a progra ,.
75.7%
14.5% 5.2°%4.6°l
(228) Signed up for property tax/KU e -billing
70.6%
14.0%
8.8% 6.6%
(220) Requested service from Kitchener Utilities
70.0%
15.9%
8.2% 5.9%
(133) Registered for a class at the Kitchener Market L
67.7%
16.5%
9.0% 6.8%
(100) Booked a tee time at a City golf course
63.0%
22.0%
8.0% 7.0%
(190) Paid City service fees
59.5%
16.3%
12.6%
11.6%
(219) Asked a question about a City service or event
59.4°%
14.6%
14.2%
11.9%
(213) Reported a problem (e.g. graffiti, pothole, litter)
57.3°%
17.4%
13.1%
12.2°%
(80) Rented a City facility
5.0%
21.3%
17.5% 6.3°%
(175) Reported property standard/ parking complaint
21.1°%
11.4°%
j=3%
(77) Applied for or renew a business license
26.0°%
_ 10.4%
(170) Provided feedback on service received
^L -
14.7%
(65) Purchased monthly parking
(187) Got an update on roadwork
(161) Checked status of a service request or inquiry
(78) Applied for a building permit
(63) Booked a City sports field
(18) Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■ Easy and somewhat Easy ■ Neutral ■ Somewhat frustrating ■ Frustrating
1. b.-22
7. If you have experienced frustration when accessing City services and programs, please tell
us your top 3 reasons why it was frustrating.
Not knowing who to reach/call/talk
to answer my questions or inquiries
The services I want are not online
Having to go to City Hall to access services
The online services available to
me need to be improved
Not receiving confirmation that
my service request has been...
Having to visit multiple service
counters or facilities to access...
Lack of response to my questions
by phone
Services are not integrated and I
have to provide the same...
Lack of response to my questions
by email
Not being able to access City
services at the City facility closest...
Lack of response to my questions
by website/social media
8. In a recent survey of Kitchener residents, more than half of all citizens reported visiting a
community centre or pool last year. We want to hear about how you might like to make use
of these facilities. If it was offered, how likely would you be to do the following at the
community centre in your neighbourhood?
Pay a parking ticket
Report a problem like graffiti or pothole
Access services of other levels of government (regional, provincial,..
Make a property standard or parking complaint
Pay a tax or utility bill
Purchase monthly parking
Other
49.3%
9.9%
40.8%
51.9%
13.8%
179
�
52.4%
15.0%
32.6%
142
1
47.7%
M
32.1%
114
32.6%
108
87
77
66
66
45
43
39
8. In a recent survey of Kitchener residents, more than half of all citizens reported visiting a
community centre or pool last year. We want to hear about how you might like to make use
of these facilities. If it was offered, how likely would you be to do the following at the
community centre in your neighbourhood?
Pay a parking ticket
Report a problem like graffiti or pothole
Access services of other levels of government (regional, provincial,..
Make a property standard or parking complaint
Pay a tax or utility bill
Purchase monthly parking
Other
49.3%
9.9%
40.8%
51.9%
13.8%
34.4%
�
52.4%
15.0%
32.6%
39.7%
1
47.7%
M
32.1%
61.2%
32.6%
26.8%
—Very likely and likely Somewhat likely ■ Not at all likely
1. b.-23
9. What would be your preferred method to access and/or complete the following services?
Sign up for property tax/Kitchener Utilities e -billing 7.055.7Y.1%
78.5%
5.7%
Sign up for monthly parking 7.854-70%
79.1%
5.9%
Register for a program (community centre or pool) 13.2%1&2%
74.7%
5.3%
Register for a class at the Kitchener Market 9.852.3v-
79.5%
4.5%
Pay for city service fees 8.7%7.3 /0
76.8%
4b
Access and submit all applications 10.9% 13.0°%.3§/
69.2%
3ff/
0% 10% 20% 30%
40% 50% 60% 70%
80% 90% 100%
In person at another City facility (e.g. community
centre)
In person at City Hall
■ Live online chat
Online (website, app)
■ Phone
1. b. - 24
10. When you have a question or want to report an issue, how would you most like to connect
with us?
a;
Website
21.6%
0
Social media
3.3%
0
Phone
26.4%
E
Live online chat
9.1%
o
In person at City Hall
0.9%
n tia
o
In person at another City facility
� 2.0%
`o
Email
30.0%
0_
City of Kitchener mobile app (pingstreet)
6.7%
Website
19.6%
Social media
■ 2.7°%
CL
Phone
30.3%
0
U
Live online chat
10.3%
In person at City Hall
1.6%
In person at another City facility
1.5%
CL
Email
1 28.7%
City of Kitchener mobile app (pingstreet)
5.4%
Website
30.9%
v
Social media
5.3%
o
Phone
13.4%
U>
Live online chat
� 5.7%
U
In person at City Hall
0.6%
In person at another City facility
1.3%
v
Email
i
°
of Kitchener mobile app (pingstreet)
5.0%
aCity
Y
Website
3 v
Social media
9.3%
o Y
Phone
11.4%
Live online chat
5.4%
o
In person at City Hall
0.5%
o
In person at another City facility
0.9%
0_ ai
' o
Email
25.4°%
3
City of Kitchener mobile app (pingstreet)
6.6%
�o
Website
18.0%
Social media
3.2°%
0
Phone
30.5%
0
Live online chat
i 12.9%
_ i
v aN,
In person at City Hall
N 1.2%
D
0
�o
In person at another City facility
1.8%
N
Email
28.3°%
a
City of Kitchener mobile app (pingstreet)
� 4.2%
37.7%
40.5%
1.b.-25
11. In the last year, have you submitted a complaint to the City in the last year?
If yes:
12. How did you submit it?
13. How satisfied were you with the response? [Very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very
dissatisfied]
How did you submit your
complaint or report a
problem?
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Grand
Total
Phone
31
42
27
15
115
Email
6
16
7
7
36
Pingstreet (City of
Kitchener app)
3
12
6
2
23
Website
4
7
4
2
17
Through social media
(Facebook, Twitter)
4
3
1
1
9
Other
2
2
3
1
8
In person
1
4
0
1
6
Grand Total
1 51
186
148
129
1214
In perso
Through social media (Facebook, Twitter
Websit
Pingstreet (City of Kitchener ap
Phon
Ema
Othe
n 83.3% 0.0% 16.7%
) 77.8°% 11.1°% 11.`1%
e 64.7°x, 23.5% 11.8°%
p) 65.2°% 26.1°% 8.7°%
e 63.5% 23.5% 13.0%
it 61.1% 19.4°% 1[ 19.4%
r 50.0% 37.5° 12.5°%
Very satisfied and satisfied ■ Dissatisfied ■Very dissatisfied
1.b.-26
14. In the last year, did you visit Kitchener City Hall to access a City service?
• If yes, why? (select all that apply)
f
LAN
Pay a tax or Meet with
utility bill City staff
about an
issue or to
get
information
38
34
16
14
8
N
Other Pay a parking Apply or pay
Attend a
ticket for a building
council
permit
meeting
12
g
8
8
r--
F
77
Get a
Buy monthly
Visit the
Apply for or
marriage
parking
Office of the
renew a
license
to come
Mayor and
business
to City Hall
downtown
Council
license
15. What could we improve about your City Hall experience(s)? (select all that apply)
89
35 28
18
Inconvenient Other Couldn't find Had to go to
to come my way various floors
downtown around City to do different
Hall things
16. If no: Why didn't you visit City Hall? (select all that apply)
EM
1. b.-27
146
77
38
18
1 have no
Inconvenient
Can access Other
Service I
need to go
to come
my services
wanted is
to City Hall
downtown
elsewhere
not offered
at City Hall
1. b.-27
APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF STAFF SURVEY RESULTS
1. When you think about the customer service you provide each day, which of the
following statements are most important to you? Rank these statements in order of
importance where 1 = most important and 7 = least important.
Results:
1. Our work makes a difference in the lives of citizens.
2. We strive to understand and appreciate the needs of those we serve.
3. We collaborate and work together because our success depends on all of us.
4. We do what we say we are going to do.
5. We go the extra mile.
6. We innovate to find new and better ways of doing things.
7. We make it easy for citizens to access our programs and services.
2. Rank the same statements where 1 = what we are doing best to 7 = where we can
most improve as an organization.
1. Our work makes a difference in the lives of citizens.
2. We strive to understand and appreciate the needs of those we serve.
3. We collaborate and work together because our success depends on all of us.
4. We go the extra mile.
5. We make it easy for citizens to access our programs and services.
6. We do what we say we are going to do.
7. We innovate to find new and better ways of doing things
3. What has your experience been when getting service from other parts of the
organization?
1. b. - 28
Overall, I'm satisfied with
the service I receive from staff.
Staff treat me with respect
Staff respond quickly with
the information I need.
Staff are easy to get a hold
of when I need them.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree P Agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree/Disagree/Strongly disagree
4. How do you think we do as an organization at delivering service to citizens?
We make it easy for citizens to
access our programs and services.
We respond quickly to citizens
with the information they need.
We make accessing services and
contacting staff easy for citizens.
Overall, we provide excellent
customer service to citizens.
We treat citizens with respect. -
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree/Disagree/Strongly disagree
1. b. - 29
5. When it comes to delivering great service to your customers (internal or external):
(select all that apply)
"I have the training, tools,
and information I need."
"I would like different
or additional tools to
do my job."
"I would like more
customer service
training."
"I would like a clearer
understanding of what
service standards are
expected of me."
"I would like more
job -specific training."
"I would like more
information about what
my customers expect
and experience."
.Ml :.
1. b. - 30