HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-19-048 - Council Input on the Development Services Review
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
QUESTION 1B: 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.
BACKGROUND:
In September 2017, Dan Chapman shared five priorities that he would be pursuing in his first
hief Administrative Officer (CAO). One of those priorities involved
undertaking an organizational review to ensure that organizational structure supports
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.
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.
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
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)
engagement (Oct 2018)
th
Attended Industry Workshop to promote the survey (Nov 28)
External Public
Targeted interview invitations per Project Steering Committee and Community Services
recommendations, ees (Nov
2018)
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
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
Stakeholder Group
Method of Engagement
Development
1345
Council Staff Public Other
2
Community
Interview 9 22 47 8 4
Survey Full Completion 0 9 46 11 3
Survey Partial
0 1 13 9 1
Completion
(Q1/Q2 only)
TOTAL 9 32 106 28 8
1
Prior to municipal election
2
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
4
Includes 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 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.
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 (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.
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 eachstakeholder 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.
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
Look for opportunities to be flexible in
Foster a flexible, solutions-
processes
oriented approach
Take a proactive approach to working
with stakeholders
Easy access to information
Communication
Be clear, open and
Efficient, timely responses to inquiries
transparent with each
Seek to listen first, follow-up and follow
other
through
Processes and expectations are clearly
Accountability
articulated at outset
We will all act with the best
Roles/responsibilities defined for all
interest of the community
participants
in mind
Integrated policy/decision-making
framework established
Be purposeful with interactions with
Build a foundation of trust
Trust/Respect
stakeholders
Engage stakeholders in meaningful
expertise, experience and
ways
perspectives
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. 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.
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
Question 1B: 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.
While there was general alignment across staff, Council, the development community and
-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
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.
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
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 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.
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)
lose the loop
(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 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.
Areas to exclude from the scope of the first-year detailed review period:
The following five processes were identified in at lpriorities
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
No. of submissions/inquiries per
Process Impact/Volume 40
year
The potential savings that could be
Time/Cost Savings 25
gained by improving the process
The process was mentioned as a
Alignment with Interview and
15 pain point by one or more
Survey Feedback
stakeholder groups
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Criteria Criteria Weight (%) Description
A review can be readily
Ease of Implementation 10
undertaken
The process involves a broad
Cross-Functionality 10
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
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.
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.
Attachment A
Development Services Review
Stakeholder Engagement Report
Prepared by: Margaret Love
Approved by: Justin Readman
January 16, 2019
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
Appendix A Summary Tables ............................................................................................................... 15
Appendix B Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................ 22
ii
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 Development Community)
- 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 ide a project update and promote the
survey (Oct 2018)
th
o Attended Industry Workshop (Nov 28) 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
3
- 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
Councillors:
- 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
234
Engagement
Council Development Staff Public Other
1
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 32 106 28 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.
4
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
5
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 means,
howor 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)
6
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);
7
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.
8
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?
Staff (106) Development (32)
OVERALL
Top Responses: Top Responses:
56% Streamlined, efficient, timely 69% Streamlined services/reduced red
COMMENTS
processes and services tape
66% Coordinated/collab. approach
50% Coordinated/collaborative
approach to problem-solving
56% Establish a shared vision
31% of all responses (295 of
943) were related to working
42% Roles and responsibilities defined; 56% Processes and service levels clear
collaboratively and building strong stakeholder accountability
53% Consistent responses/decisions
relationships
31% Processes and service levels
50% Expectations clear; no moving goal
clearly defined and articulated
posts
28% of all responses (264 of
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
943) identified timely and efficient
Staff want to be brought into
Should feel like a partnership
services as a priority for the review
discussions at the right time
Provide process maps/macro timeline
Break-down silos and refocus on an
Processes need more flexibility
26% of all responses (242 of
What is the value in each step of our
Too much architectural control
services and how do we sell that
943) were related to the
Try to innovate but process stalls
back to the customer?
Clarify what staff should be
importance of good
Reduce redundancy and ensure staff
reviewing/commenting on
communication
Council (9) Public (28) Other (8)
TopResponses: Top Responses: Top Responses:
89% Streamlined, efficient, timely 54% Transparency/access to 63% Streamlined, efficient, timely
processes and services information processes and services
78% Coordinated/collab. approach
46% Improve Communication 63% Reduced Red Tape Create
78% Improved communication
flexible and reasonable
39% Review current/new models for
processes/policies
78% Processes and service levels clear
engagement
67% Expectations clear at outset
50% Improved Communication
32% Close the loop on engagement
56% Roles and responsibilities Clear
50% Coordinated/collaborative
56% Establish a shared vision 29% Eliminate technical jargon
approach to problem-solving
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
Pathways to info on website are Embed sustainability in all processes
Need to establish a threshold for
convoluted
Need remote access to services
notifying the public, even if they
Make all studies/drawings available
Employ common sense approach in
online
Need access to timely information
Close the gap between mixed
Develop genuine processes
Clarify must-haves vs. nice-to-haves
wait until legislated period is over to
Have public meetings before staff
Open Site Plan process to the public provide a list of missing items
establish a position on applications
Expand buffer radius on notices
Allow flexibility in processes
Complete end-user/empathy analysis
Look at affordable housing
9
Q3. What would you consider to be the key risks for the development services review?
Staff (93) Development (31)
OVERALL
Top Responses: Top Responses:
COMMENTS
18% Managing stakeholder
42% No substantive changes
expectations
made/status quo
33% of all responses (102 of
306) were related to managing
17% Staff fear/stress related to the
stakeholder needs
39% Added bureaucracy (more rigid
review and possible changes
processes, too many steps, too much
time)
19% of all respondents (31 of
16% Unbalanced outcome for
159) identified no substantial
stakeholders
changes/status quo to be a key risk
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
18% of all respondents (29 of
Many competing interests will be Want to see a reduction in
159) identified unbalanced
difficult to manage review/approval timeframe
outcomes as a risk
Stress related to demand on staff Concerned that the process will
time become so rigid that staff will fear
informal dialogue (already
Concern that City will relax
18% of all respondents (28 of
happening)
standards to the point that we are
159) identified managing
not developing responsibly
stakeholder expectations as a risk
for this project
Council (9) Public (19) Other (7)
Top Responses: Top Responses: Top Responses:
78% Managing stakeholder
32% Stakeholders left behind in the
expectations
process/not properly consulted or
29% Resistance to Change
included
33% No substantive changes
made/status quo
26% Unbalanced outcome for
29% Unachievable City standards
stakeholders
implemented resulting in frustration/
33% Unbalanced outcome for
reduced investment
stakeholders
21% Added bureaucracy (more rigid
processes, too many steps, too much
33% Added bureaucracy (more rigid
time)
processes, too many steps, too much
time)
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
Data will not be shared openly with Concern that changes will not be
Establishing an approach that all
the public implemented
stakeholders will adopt will be
Opportunity to change will be Applicants will break the rules when
challenging
rejected processes are too onerous and
Recommended changes will need to
requirements are too difficult to
That we will not engage beyond the
be approved by Council
meet
survey
Need flexibility in processes while
That we will lose focus on what is
still having consistent outcomes
good for the broader community
(avoid minutia and focus on broad
objectives in each application)
10
Q4. What aspects of the City's existing development-related services do you consider to be the City's
strengths?
Staff (46) Development (31)
OVERALL
Top Responses: Top Responses:
COMMENTS
35% Customer Service
33% Customer Service
29% of all respondents (32 of
26% Building Division
112) identified customer service as
30% Collaborative and solutions-
an existing strength
oriented staff
23% Site Plan Process
24% of all respondents (27 of
112) identified collaborative &
Solutions-oriented staff as a
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
strength
Face-to-face customer service Building Division has fair and
transparent processes work with
Staff willing to assist without an
this group to develop a customer-
appointment
oriented culture in DSD
Staff value their relationships with
21% of all respondents (24 of
Site Plan process works fairly well
stakeholders
112) shared that Building Division
but could be improved; Can a 2-
Staff do their best to find solutions
stage process be applied in
that work for all stakeholders
and their customer-oriented focus
subdivisions and condos?
is a strength
Council (9) Public (19) Other (7)
Top Responses: Top Responses: Top Responses:
29% in the following five categories:
56%Building Division
26% Collaborative and solutions-
Collaborative and solutions-
oriented staff
33%Strong technical skills/expertise in
oriented staff
DSD
Strong leadership
Good standards, practices,
21% Staff who genuinely care/want to
33%Customer Service
guidelines, and initiatives
make a difference
Building Division
33%Staff who genuinely care/want to
Staff who genuinely care/want
make a difference
to make a difference
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
The Planning group is strong PDF mark-ups in Building Division
Ability to engage the community
are convenient, low-cost and
Responsive staff
sooner than we used to
environmentally friendly look to
Staff work to achieve a positive
Have seen positive changes in
use this in other areas of DSD
outcome and complete timely
planning staff who are often the
Strong leadership is evident
reviews
Requirement for a sustainability
Attentive staff who go above and
report is a positive step
beyond; think outside of the box
Tall building design guidelines are
good
11
Q5. What would be your first and second choice for development process review ANDQ6. Where should the City
focus efforts to bring the greatest impact/improvement?
OVERALL COMMENTS
35% of all respondents 14% of all respondents Observations:
selected the Site Plan Process identified Transportation With the exception of staff, comments related
Services to Transportation and Parks centred on
increasing greenspaces and active
transportation; these comments are currently
19% of all respondents chose 13% of all respondents
being addressed through core services at the
the Subdivision Process identified Customer Service
City, and through Business Plan projects.
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
Staff (93)
Top Responses:
{źƷĻ tƌğƓƭ ğƓķ {ǒĬķźǝźƭźƚƓƭʹ
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
24%Site Plan Process
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
18%Subdivision Process
Review processes around engineering reviews
ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓʹ
14%Transportation Services
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
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
Development (31)
Top Responses:
{źƷĻ tƌğƓƭ ğƓķ {ǒĬķźǝźƭźƚƓƭʹ
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
74% Site Plan Process
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
39% Subdivision Process
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
12
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
Council (9)
TopResponses:
{źƷĻ tƌğƓƭʹ
Give public/Council more of a role in the Site Plan process
Ward Councillor should be invited to Site Plan meetings
Better communication/information sharing with Councillors
78% Site Plan Process
Clear expectations/requirements identified at the outset of an application
Reduce bottlenecks in the process
22% Development Fees
5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ CĻĻƭʹ
Review potential to scale fees according to complexity of application
Streamline payment for applicants (fewer cheques)
22% Parks and Open Spaces
tğƩƉƭ ğƓķ hƦĻƓ {ƦğĭĻƭʹ
Plan more greenspaces, particularly in the core
22% Transportation Services
ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ {ĻƩǝźĭĻƭʹ
Review active transportation policies/initiatives
Develop a plan for infill and parking
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
Public (19)
TopResponses:
/ǒƭƷƚƒĻƩ {ĻƩǝźĭĻʹ
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
37% Customer Service
Transparency and building trust in the community is important
tǒĬƌźĭ 9ƓŭğŭĻƒĻƓƷʹ
32% 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
26% Transportation Services
Eliminate technical jargon
Close the loop
ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ {ĻƩǝźĭĻƭʹ
Numerous comments about the need for new public/active transportation initiatives
ŷğƷ ǞĻ ŷĻğƩķʹ
Other (7)
TopResponses:
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
57% Customer Service
13
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 feelwill
intended to address? achieve for this project? be required?
Staff (47) Staff (47) Staff (47)
Top Responses: Top Responses: Top Responses:
43% Identify efficiencies in
process/service delivery
30% Supporting documentation (e.g.
83% Quality process maps)
36% Eliminate silos/integrate
development functions
19% Deliver on time 28% Clear communication
32% Leverage opportunities in new
department (DSD) 6% Deliver within approved budget 28% Training specific to process
changes
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
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.
14
15
Respondent Type StaffDeveloperPublicCouncilOther TOTAL
98
32
Summary Tables
28
106 183
er of Responses
Question 2: What do you need to have happen to consider the DSR a success?
Question 1: What do you expect/want to gain from the development services review? AND
Total Numb
. APPENDICES
7 Appendix A
16
Respondent Type StaffDeveloperPublicCouncilOther TOTAL
97
933119
159
Number of Responses
Q3. What would you consider to be the key risks for the development services review?
Total
17
related services do you consider to be the
-
City's strength?
Respondent Type StaffDeveloperPublicCouncilOther TOTAL
Responses
97
463119
112
Total Number of
Q4. What aspects of the City's existing development
18
Q6.
Respondent Type StaffDeveloperPublicCouncilOther TOTAL
97
933119
159
here should the City focus efforts to bring the greatest impact/improvement?
W
Q5. What would be your first and second choice for development process review and
Total Number of Responses
19
undertaken/what need is it intended to address?
Why do you feel this project is being Of the 3 project constraints, which is the most important to achieve for this project?
Q7.Completed by 47 Staff Q8. Completed by 47 Staff
20
off procedures/training do you feel will be required?
-
Q9. What hand Completed by 47 Staff
21
)
(See Appendix B
Lessons Learned
.
Q10. What Project Management requirements do you have (e.g. communication, engagement, process)?Completed by 47 Staff Q11
Appendix B Lessons Learned
Q.11 Do you have any lessons learned from similar projects that you would like to share with the
project team?
forget to think about the culture that this review will cultivate and build it in to each step
Ensure a good cross-section of cross-departmental staff (as appropriate) are involved in the review
Let staff drive solutions and technology implementation; equip them as necessary
Consider including frontline staff, supervisors, and managers in Lean reviews a lesson learned
from the Revenue review was that managers/supervisors had the ability to influence/implement
outcomes (don't want them to stop implementation because they weren't involved in the review)
Avoid project teams that are too large (18 was a lot in a previous review)
Do the project in phases to avoid staff fatigue
Ensure the scope for each project/phase is manageable and well defined; otherwise, it can
become unwieldy, confusing, ill-defined.
Communication between team members is critical to ensure a consistent delivery (8 sub-project
managers)
Give project team members a take-away/homework assignment to bring information to/from
their teams they need to be champions for the project within their sections/divisions
Choose appropriate type of engagement based on the stakeholder
Ensure stakeholders are not left behind (e.g. DSD, operations, finance, asset management, etc.)
Continue to build support for the project beyond management team
Consider continuous formal and informal engagement with council
manage scope and expectations
closely and continuously message it!
Find/implement quick wins
Communicate frequently with staff, closing the loop after each step
Think about how to message an on-going program of work (not everything will form part of the
project scope)
Develop a platform to engage staff
Find creative ways to tell the story along the way (e.g. pod casts)
Continue to look for opportunities to lead in Ontario
-solving
Train everyone from GMs down to frontline staff to prepare them for project but also
improvements (e.g. LEAN, etc.).
22