The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFCS-17-094 - Participatory Budgeting Follow Up REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: May 29, 2017 SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning 519-741-2200 x 7353 PREPARED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning 519-741-2200 x 7353 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: May 5, 2017 REPORT NO.: FCS-17-094 SUBJECT: Participatory Budgeting Follow Up ___________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to conduct two participatory budgeting engagement pilot projects for the redesign of Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park; and that The participatory budgeting engagement process regarding park redesign be complete by the end of 2017; and further that The focus of the participatory budgeting engagement beon improving accountability & trust, and increasing community engagement. BACKGROUND: direct control ove with the University of Waterloo to test the viability of PB concepts within Kitchener, and sought input from Council about running PB pilots at the Strategic Session held February 27, 2017. The Strategic Session yielded much dialogue and input from Council about PB, but did not include a resolution of how to move forward. Staff are now returning to Council for direction about the PB pilot projects after having received endorsement for the recommendation from the Safe & Healthy Advisory Committee. REPORT: During the Strategic Session in February, Council was asked to provide their input relating to the PB pilots. The input from this session is summarized in Appendix 1 to this report.S PB working group (which includes partners from the University of Waterloo), to help shape the proposed PB pilot. The rationale for the recommendation is provided below. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 3 - 1 Recommendation 1: That staff be directed to conduct two participatory budgeting engagement pilot projects for the redesign of Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park. After the Strategic Session with Council, the idea of using PB consultation methods around parks rose to the forefront as the leading candidate area for the pilot project for the following reasons: Parks are a valued City asset with a long lifespan and something the local community cares strongly about, which should encourage input by neighbourhood residents. Findings from the PB pilots could potentially be replicated year after year (within the context of planning parks), meaning there is a higher probability the PB pilot would have a long-standing impact on City processes rather than just being a one-time exercise. A review of consultation around parks rehabilitation projects was already identified through the Neighbourhood Strategy and had been planned for 2017 through the Parks, Playgrounds and Trails Community Engagement Review. Findings from the PB pilots will help inform this review. traditional park consultation process and what it could look like using PB concepts instead. In the PB process, residents are more involved with developing ideas for the park elements and ultimately have the final say in what elements are installed in the park. Staff are still involved in the consultation, but their role changes from one of leading to one of facilitation. Traditional Park Consultation {ƷğŅŅ ĭƚƓƭǒƌƷ ǞźƷŷ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚǒƩŷƚƚķ Ʒƚ ķĻƷĻƩƒźƓĻ ƦğƩƉ ƓĻĻķƭ Њ {ƷğŅŅ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦ ĭƚƓĭĻƦƷǒğƌ ƦƌğƓƭ ĬğƭĻķ ƚƓ źƓƦǒƷ Ћ {ƷğŅŅ ĭƚƓƭǒƌƷ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚǒƩŷƚƚķ ƚƓ ĭƚƓĭĻƦƷǒğƌ ƦƌğƓƭ Ќ {ƷğŅŅ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦ ŅźƓğƌ ķĻƭźŭƓ ƦƌğƓ ğƓķ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźĭğƷĻ ŅźƓğƌ ķĻƭźŭƓ ε ƓĻǣƷ ƭƷĻƦƭ Ʒƚ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚǒƩŷƚƚķ Ѝ 3 - 2 PB Park Consultation Example bĻźŭŷĬƚǒƩŷƚƚķ ĬƩğźƓƭƷƚƩƒƭ źķĻğƭ ŅƚƩ ƦğƩƉ źƒƦƩƚǝĻƒĻƓƷƭ Њ {ƷğŅŅ ǝĻƷ źķĻğƭ ŅƚƩ ƩĻğƭƚƓğĬźƌźƷǤ ğƓķ ŅĻğƭźĬźƌźƷǤ ΛĻ͵ŭ͵ ķƚĻƭ ğƓ źķĻğ ŅźƷ ǞźƷŷźƓ ƷŷĻ ĬǒķŭĻƷ ĭƚƓƭƷƩğźƓƷƭͪΜ Ћ źğĬƌĻ źķĻğƭ ğƩĻ ƦƩĻƭĻƓƷĻķ źƓ ğ ĬğƌƌƚƷ ŅƚƩƒ ğƓķ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚǒƩƭ ǝƚƷĻ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻźƩ ƦƩĻŅĻƩƩĻķ ƦğƩƉ ĻƌĻƒĻƓƷƭ Ќ ƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƷğƌƌźĻķ ğƓķ ǞźƓƓźƓŭ ĻƌĻƒĻƓƷƭ ğƩĻ źƓĭƚƩƦƚƩğƷĻķ źƓƷƚ ŅźƓğƌ ƦğƩƉ ķĻƭźŭƓ Ѝ {ƷğŅŅ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦ ŅźƓğƌ ķĻƭźŭƓ ƦƌğƓ ğƓķ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźĭğƷĻ ŅźƓğƌ ķĻƭźŭƓ ε ƓĻǣƷ ƭƷĻƦƭ Ʒƚ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚǒƩŷƚƚķ Ў The two specific parks being targeted for the PB pilots are Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park (maps of parks provided below). These parks were chosen because: The projects were already identified for 2017 consultation (with 2018 construction), so the workload related to piloting PB will more easily fit within planned work effort than creating new workload. Funding for these projects was already earmarked from the Neighbourhood Park Rehabilitation and the Central Area Park Rehabilitation capital accounts, so there is no new funding request tied to the PB pilots. experimentation between these two geographic areas of the city. Total funding for each project ($100,000 each, $200,000 total) is more substantial than the $20,000/pilot project originally contemplated in the Strategic Session report, so staff are recommending only conducting two pilot projects instead of the four discussed with Council at the Strategic Session. Staff and their partners at the University of Waterloo also believe conducting more pilot project consultations would be difficult to achieve by the end of the year. 3 - 3 Sandhills Park Elmsdale Park Recommendation 2: Theparticipatory budgeting engagement process regarding park redesign be complete by the end of 2017. cated a timeline of 6-12 months was preferable, which would be towards the end of 2017/early 2018.Finishing the PB consultation on the parks projects by the end of 2017 will work well as this timeline aligns with the typical consultation timeline for park projects planned for 2018 construction anyway. As well, the agreement between the City and the University of 3 - 4 Waterloo runs until the end of 2017, so this is a natural deadline for the PB pilot consultation work to be completed. It should be noted work on the PB pilots may extend beyond 2017 as there would likely be benefit in conducting a post-construction evaluation survey of residents in the pilot locations, to gain an understanding of how they viewed the process, the impact on their local park, identify lessons learned, and how the process could be improved in future iterations. Recommendation 3: The focus the participatory budgeting engagement be on improving accountability & trust, and increasing community engagement. The fthe Strategic Session. The themes of improving accountability & trust and increasing community engagement were the most prominent incorporated into the pilot projects. Other top-two voted themes mentioned by specific Councillors included: Education Participation All of the themes are important Safe & Healthy Advisory Committee Endorsement In advance of coming back to Council for direction, staff sought and received endorsement of the proposed PB pilot projects from the Safe & Healthy Advisory Committee. The purpose of this committee as articulated in its terms of reference aligns well with the proposed PB pilot projects. The Safe & Healthy Advisory Committee advises Council and Staff on policies and strategies that enhance and maintain a safe and healthy community. Specifically, provide advice on the development and/or strengthening of municipal policies, programs and services relating to: Neighbourhood facilities and spaces, Community programs and services Capacity building and empowerment, and Community well-being. Next Steps Upon receiving approval for the PB pilot projects from Council, City staff and their partners from the University of Waterloo will design the pilot engagement process over the summer months before conducting the PB engagement in the fall. A summary report about the PB engagement will be provided to the Safe & Healthy Advisory Committee and to Council (likely in 2018), and further direction about PB will be sought from Council. 3 - 5 ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Priority: Open Government Strategy: 1.3 Create more opportunities for citizen dialogue on community issues and introduce new ways for people to get involved in decisions that affect them. Strategic Action: #OG10 Participatory Budgeting FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None.Funding for these parks projects is already included in the capital budget and forecast, so no additional funding is required to run the PB pilots. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: COLLABORATE The recommended approach for the participatory budgeting pilot includes collaboration with the designated communities in developing ideas for how identified funds could be spent. ENTRUST The recommended approach for the participatory budgeting pilot will entrust neighbourhood park users with the decision on the specific park elements to be included in the park rehabilitation.. PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER: Report CAO-16-031: 2017-2019 Business Plan Strategic Actions identified participatory budgeting as an approved priority for 2017. Report FCS-17-028:Participatory Budgeting was discussed at the February 27, 2017 Council Strategic Session. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Dan Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance and Corporate Services 3 - 6 Appendix 1 - Council Input on Participatory Budgeting Council Attendance: Mayor: Berry Vrbanovic Ward 6: Paul Singh Ward 1: Scott Davey Ward 7: Bil Ioannidis Ward 2: Dave Schnider Ward 8: Zyg Janecki Ward 3: John Gazzola Ward 9: Frank Etherington Ward 4: Yvonne Fernandes Ward 10: Sarah Marsh Ward 5: Kelly Galloway-Sealock Responses to Questions: QuestionDirectionCouncillor #1: Important Education & improved accountabilityFernandes Outcomes (1) Accountability & trustGalloway-Sealock (2) Community engagement (3)Effectiveness in engagement (4) Education (5) Promotion of co-operation Increased participation & community Etherington engagement All 5 are importantMarsh Tied to neighbourhood strategyIoannidis (1) AllGazzola (2) Effectiveness of budget allocation Improved accountability and trustDavey (1) Improved accountability and trustSingh (2) Education of process Improved accountability & trust, Vrbanovic community engagement #2 Population 2 neighbourhoodsFernandes SegmentThematic: 1for youth and 1 for seniors Areas with lowest voter participationGalloway-Sealock Neighbourhoods & youth: for NH, there Etherington is a trend where smaller groups within NH are very active Neighbourhoods and youth (build on Marsh current engagement activities) Age friendly communities, seniors (snow Ioannidis removal) Everyone in the wardGazzola Youth and non-votersDavey Youth and new members of communitySingh 3 - 7 (1)A couple of neighbourhoods: oneVrbanovic with a mix and one with areal mix in terms of diversity and socioeconomic. (2)Supportive of youth. Also supportive involved anyways #3 Number of Pilots4Fernandes Galloway-Sealock win Etherington Could be less than 4 if ideas are bigger Marsh budget items Every single ward: 10Ioannidis All wards: 10Gazzola 2Davey 4 seems on low end. Better if there are a Singh few more to engage and on multiple levels more widely in community 10 is probably overwhelming. 3-5 is Vrbanovic probably reasonable. Eventually work towards doing this across the city #4 Timelines6 monthsFernandes 6 months to 1 year depending on value Galloway-Sealock of money. If we get to 1 million it might take longer than with just $100,000 Etherington 4-12 monthsMarsh Summer 2017Ioannidis Not importantGazzola Not concerned with thisDavey Singh strategy 6 months to 1 yearVrbanovic 3 - 8