Laserfiche WebLink
on the PB process and make recommendations about its future use in Kitchener. The UW <br />observations are a key part of this discussion, and their report is attached to the staffreport to <br />provide additional contextand more detailed information.Some portions of the staff report <br />include content from the UW report. <br />REPORT: <br />The Process <br />In its original form, a traditional PB process would set aside a definedamount of funding and <br />allow residents to allocate the funds for whatever purposes they deem most important. As noted <br />in an earlier report, PB has taken different forms as it has been implemented in North America, <br />with no specific “best practice” emergingas the municipal standard. <br />Given the lack of a standard PBpractice and this being Kitchener’s first foray into the PB space, <br />Council decided to take a measured approach and directed thePBengagement be limited to <br />twopark rehabilitation projects. Having a defined scope for the PB pilots is consistent with other <br />North American applications of PB, and it still allowedresidents to have confidence in the <br />process because of a transparent voting process. <br />Given Council’s directionto focus on the two parks projects,UW and staff developed a Made- <br />in-Kitchener approach for the PB pilots. The overall processwas similarfor each parkand <br />included three rounds of voting, which are listed and then described below. <br />Round 1 – Idea generation <br />Round 2 – Idea prioritization <br />Round 3 – Final Vote <br />Round 1 – Idea generation <br />Residentswere asked to share theirideas to improve to their neighbourhoodpark. Participants <br />were asked four open ended questions to prompt their input about what they like/don’t like about <br />the park and what should be added/removed from the park. City of Kitchener Landscape <br />Architects then reviewed the submissions to identify specific issues, screen responses for <br />feasibility, and group similar ideas.This process identified 23 different park elements for <br />ElmsdalePark and 25 for Sandhills Park (elements are listed in the attached UW report). <br />Round 2 – Idea prioritization <br />In Round 2,participants were asked to review the list of ideas that were generated in Round 1 <br />andvote for which ideas they would prioritize.The Landscape Architects attached a cost <br />estimate to each idea and these were listed on the Round 2 ballots. This approach allowed <br />participants to consider trade-offs due to the budget constraints. The inclusion of costs hadthe <br />benefit of educating participants on the difficult decisions that staff and Council must make as <br />well as helping participants to spend the budget efficiently and effectively. Once the votes were <br />cast, the University of Waterloo team converted participantrankings into distinct park design <br />bundlesusing different vote-calculation algorithms. <br />4 - 2 <br />