Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CityofGuelph
OperationalReviewIssuesScopingReport
December2011
Submittedto:
EconomicDevelopmentandTourismServices
PlanningandBuildingServices
EngineeringServices
CityofGuelph
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 2
TableofContents
Preface 3 StudyPurposeandIssuesExplored 3 Methodology 4 FindingsinContext 5
TheBigPicture 6UnpackingtheIssues 9
IssuesConcerningUnderstanding,ClarityandExpectations 9 TopicComplexity 9 UnderstandingandExpectations—andInconsistency 9IssuesConcerningAttitudes,PracticesandBehaviours 11 PhilosophicalandAttitudinalOrientation 11 OverzealousnessandQuestionableRoleDefinition 12 DifferingTreatment 13 LevelandConsistencyofComplianceEnforcement 13 EconomicDevelopment’sRoleand‘OverEagerness’ 14
IssuesConcerningProcessandClientService 15 TimelinessandUnnecessaryDelays 15 ProcessRequirements,RulesandRigidity 16 StaffEmpowermentandAutonomy 17 InternalProjectOwnership 18IssuesConcerningProponent(andTheirRepresentatives’)Practices 18 CaliberofProponentSubmissions 18 Developer‐ConsultantCommunication 19IssuesConcerningWorkVolume,CoordinationandCityStaffing 19 VolumeofWork 19 StaffMorale 20 High‐LevelDirectionandInter‐DepartmentalRelationships 21IssuesConcerningtheBroaderPublicDomain 22 RoleofCouncil 22 LevelofandAttentionPaidto‘Stakeholders’ 23
LookingtoOtherJurisdictions 24LookingAheadandaKeyQuestionsSummary 26 KeyQuestionstoAddressintheNextStudyPhase 26Appendix 29
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 3
Preface
GLPiispleasedtoprovidethisreportsummarizingfindingsfromtheOperationalReview‘issuesscoping’exercise.WearegratefultothededicatedpersonnelfromtheCityandthevariousexternalparticipantsintheexercisefortheircommitmentandintellectualcontributionstothisproject.
Study Purpose and Issues Explored TheCityofGuelphinitiatedthisfirstphaseofanOperationalReviewfocusedonimprovingprocesses,approachesandsystemsdealingwithdevelopment/businessinquiriesanddevelopmentreview.ThereareanumberofareaswithinCityHallthatserviceclientsdealingwiththeseareas.TheyincludeEconomicDevelopmentandTourism,PlanningandBuildingServices,andEngineeringServices.Ultimately,theReviewisintendedtohelpidentifypotentialprocessandsystemimprovements,andensuregreateralignmentofCitypracticeswithstatedobjectives.Thefocusisonfindingnewand/orbetterwaysofdoingthingsandworkingeffectively.
Inthisfirstphaseoftheprocess,theCitywaslookingtoidentifyOperationalReviewrelatedkeyissues,challengesandopportunities(i.e.issuesscoping)—includinginitialideasforaddressingthem.Theresultswillserveasthebasisforfurtherexplorationandprovidetheframeworkforfuturestudyandultimaterecommendations.
Tothisend,thisqualitativeexercisewasundertakentohelptheCitybetterunderstandhowdifferentstakeholdersegmentsperceivetheissues.Theprojectwasdesignedtosurfaceunderlyingattitudesandyieldthekindofcontext,nuanceandsubtletythatwillallowforwiseandenlighteneddecision‐makingthatisbothstrategicandpractical.
Morespecifically,thisphaseofworkwasdesignedto:
• Gaugeperceptionsofclient‐Citystaffinteraction;• ExplorethedegreetowhichtheCityisorisnotconsidered‘business‐
friendly’(thatis,thedegreetowhichCitypolicies/proceduresandstaffinteractionareperceivedasappropriate,fair,professional,effective,efficient,etc.)—andtobetterunderstandthereasonsunderlyingtheseviews;
• Exploreissuesrelatingtoprocess,policies,rules,timelines,serviceandotherclient‐relateddimensions;
• Gaugeperceptionsoffactorsinfluencingclient‐Citystaffrelationships,includinglevelsofstaffautonomy,attitudestowarda‘partnering’orientation,andsoforth;
• Identifystrengths/weaknesses,andpriorityissueareasrequiringattention;• Explorethedegreeofperceivedalignment(orlackthereof)betweenkeyCity
departments;and• IdentifyothermunicipalitiesorjurisdictionsthatGuelphmightlooktofor
insightonbestpracticesorapproaches—aspointsofcompetitivereferencingandcomparablesanalysis.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 4
Thefullrangeofissuesthatwereexplorediscoveredinthediscussionguidesincludedintheappendixofthisreport.Pleasenotethattheinterviewapproachbeganwithanunaideddiscussionoftypicalclient‐Cityinteractions,allowingparticipantstofirstsurfacethoseitemsofmostconcerntothem.Thiswasfollowedbyamoreaideddiscussiontoensurethatkeyselectedtopicswereaddressed.Methodology Individual,in‐depthinterviews(primarilyin‐person,butsupplementedbytelephone)andfocusgroupswerethemethodologiesusedinthisinitiative.Intotal,59Citystaffandexternalstakeholdersparticipated.
Morespecifically,initiativeswithstaffincluded:
• Eleveninterviewswithdirectors,generalmanagersandmanagersfromEconomicDevelopmentandTourism,PlanningandBuildingServices,andEngineeringServices;
• OnefocusgroupwithstafffromEconomicDevelopmentandTourismServices(n=8);and
• TwofocusgroupwithstafffromPlanning/Building/Engineering(n=26).
Pleasenotethatinitiativeswithmanagersandstaffwereconductedseparatelytoencourageopendialogueandlessinhibiteddiscussion.
Initiativeswithexternalstakeholdersincludedin‐personortelephoneinterviewswithrepresentativesfromthefollowingprofessions/sectors:
• Guelphbusinesscommunity—includingindividualbusinessesandsectorrepresentatives(n=2);
• Developersandequityinvestors(n=4);• Planningandengineeringconsultingfirms(n=4);• Realestatebrokers(n=2);and• Publicsector—includingprovincialministriesandschoolboards(n=2).
ThefocusgroupsandinterviewsdescribedabovewereconductedbetweenMarch‐May,2011—toaccommodaterespondentavailabilityandmaximizeresponserates.Interviewsrangedinlengthfromabout20‐30minutestooveranhour.Thefocusgroupswereeachapproximatelytwohoursinlength.AllinterviewsandfocusgroupswereconductedinEnglish.TheCityofGuelphprovidedthelistofexternalstakeholderstointerviewforeachofthedisciplines/professionalsegments.TheCityalsoarrangedforandrecruitedparticipantsfortheinternalfocusgroupsandinterviews.
FindingsarealsoinformedbyaninitialmeetingwiththeSteeringCommitteefortheproject(Jan.6,2011)andameetingwiththeEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryCommittee(Mar.21,2011).
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 5
Allresearchparticipantsaretobecommendedfortheirdiligenceandcontributions.Thedepthofthoughtandcommitmenttotheissueareawasreadilyapparent.Manysaidtheyappreciatedtheopportunitytosharetheirviewsandhopedthattheirinputwouldmakeameaningfulandsubstantivedifference.Moreover,somedescribedtheinitiativeasimportantoutreachandatangiblesignthattheCityisinterestedintheviewsofitsclients.Othersnotedthattheinterviewdiscussionswerefocusedonimportantandsalientissues—thatmanyrelevantquestionswerebeingaddressed.
FindingsinContextThisreportsummarizesthefindingsfromalloftheparticipantinterviews/focusgroups.Aswithanyqualitativestudywithsomepurposefulrespondentselectionandlimitedsamplesize,resultsmustberegardedasindicativeanddirectional,ratherthanstatisticallygeneralizable.Theresultsdo,however,provideanumberofmeaningfulinsightsintohowparticipantsthinkabouttherangeofissuesthatwereexplored.Keydifferencesinparticipantperception/attitudebysegment(orfamiliaritywith/tenureworkingwiththeCity)arenotedwhereappropriate.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 6
TheBigPicture
Viewsonwhether—andtowhatdegree—theCityofGuelphis‘businessfriendly’arewide‐ranging,withacleardivisionamongexternalandinternalparticipants.Asignificantnumberofexternalstakeholders—inparticular,developersandtheirplanning/engineeringconsultants,realestateprofessionals,andbusinessesandtheirsectorrepresentatives—saythatGuelphisamongthemoredifficultplacesinOntarioinwhichtodobusinessandthattheCitydoesnotworkcollaborativelywithbusiness.Moreover,somebelievethattheCitymakesthingsunnecessarilycomplicated.SomeparticipantssharedstoriesofdevelopersandpotentialbusinessinvestorswhohavesaidthattheyavoidworkinginGuelphgiventheperceptionthatdoingbusinessintheCityistoodifficult.Othersexpressedtheirownfrustrationsbasedonpastexperience.StillothersdescribedhavingtoroutinelysetasideadditionaltimeandmoneywhenworkingintheCity—variouslyreferredtoasthe‘TheGuelphfactor’;‘TheGuelphtwist’;‘TheGuelphcontingency’—toaccountforunexpecteddelays,processissues,publicopposition,appealstotheOntarioMunicipalBoard(OMB),andsoforth.Thisperceived‘Guelphdynamic’isnotsolelyattributedtoanysinglecause,butratheristypicallyascribedtoanamalgamofCitypoliciesandpractices,publicandstakeholderengagement,andgeneralattitudestowardbusiness.WhilesomeexternalparticipantsacknowledgethatsomeoftheuneaseandunhappinesswiththeCityisoutcomes‐based—thatis,associatedwithanunrealizedhopedforresult,manysaythatthechallengesgowellbeyondthis.Morespecifically,thisscopingexercisehasidentifiedthefollowingcategoriesofissuesandsub‐topics(pleasenotethateachoftheseisfullydescribedand‘unpacked’inthefollowingsectionofthisreport):
• IssuesConcerningUnderstanding,ClarityandExpectations—includingtopicareacomplexity,understandingofCityprocessesandrequirements,differingexpectations,inconsistency,conflictingmessagesandinsufficientclarity/precision;
• IssuesConcerningStaffAttitudes,PracticesandBehaviours—including
philosophicalandattitudinalorientation,overzealousnessandquestionableroledefinition,perceivedfavouritism/preferentialtreatment,andlevelofcomplianceenforcement;
• IssuesConcerningProcessandClientService—includingtimelinessand
perceivedunnecessarydelays,processrequirements,rulesandrigidity,staffempowermentandautonomy,andinternalprojectownership;
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 7
• IssuesConcerningProponentPractices(andThoseofTheirRepresentatives)—includingthecaliberofsubmissionsandefficacyofdeveloper‐consultantcommunication;
• IssuesConcerningWorkVolume,CoordinationandCityStaffing—
includingthelevelofresourcesavailabletomeetdemand,staffmorale,intra‐departmentalclarity,high‐leveldirectionandinter‐departmentalrelationships;and
• IssuesConcerningtheBroaderPublicDomain—includingtheroleof
Council,perceivedanti‐businesssentiment,andlevelof/attentionpaidto‘stakeholders’.
Thoughnotexclusivelyso,manyoftheissuesareplanningand/orengineering‐related(orinvolvetheperceivedlackofcoordinationbetweenthesefunctionsandotherdepartments,inparticular,economicdevelopment).Fromanexternalparticipants’point‐of‐view,thegreatestchallengestypicallyarewithresidentialandretail/commercialprojects.TherewererelativelyfewidentifiedissuesspecificallyassociatedwiththeBuildingServicesfunction.Again,allofthisismorefullyexploredanddocumentedinthefollowingsectionsofthisreport.
Notwithstandingtheabove,manyexternalparticipantssaythatmostifnotallofthechallengesandissuesassociatedwithGuelpharenotuniquetotheCity—thatmanyareencounteredinotherjurisdictionsaswell.Someaddedthattherearevirtuallynomunicipalitiesinwhichitiseasyorstraightforwardtodobusiness.
Simplyput,Guelphisnotaloneinwrestlingwiththerangeofissuesidentifiedinthisscopingexercise.However,thereisageneralsensethattheCityisaplacewherethe‘constellation’ofissuesis,inaggregate,disproportionatelylarge.
ItisimportanttonotethatexternalparticipantsalsoidentifiedpositiveexperienceswiththeCity—andsomenotedasenseofimprovementandconstructivemomentum:thatbarriershavebeenreduced,someprocessesstrengthened,andthattheCitycanberesponsiveandclient‐focused.Alsoofimportance,mostexternalparticipantsaregenerallycomplimentaryaboutstaffperformanceandappreciativeoftheirprofessionalismandrole.Thereisasensethatmanystaffareconscientious,dedicatedandrespectful.
Moreover,thereisastatedrecognitionofthechallengesinherentintheworkdonebyCityStaff,theconflictingpressuresfaced,andthevolumeofworktobecompleted.Infact,someexternalparticipantssaidexplicitlythattheOperationsReviewshouldnotbeusedasapretenseforeliminatingstaffpositions(and/orunfairlycriticizingindividuals).WhilemanystaffsaythereissometruthinthecharacterizationsoftheCityastoobureaucratic,inflexible,inconsistent,unresponsiveandsoforth,theyarefarless
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 8
likelythantheirexternalcounterpartstodescribetheCityas‘notbusinessfriendly.’Infact,someviewthischaracterizationasinaccurate,offensiveandmanifestlyunfair.ManysaythatensuringthatproponentsdowhatisrequireddoesnotmakeGuelphabadplaceinwhichtodobusiness.Staffaretypicallymorelikelytoattributethe‘notbusinessfriendly’sentimenttoclientunhappinesswithaprojectoutcome(i.e.aproponentnotgettingallthattheywanted).
Perhapsnotsurprisingly,staffalsohaveamuchmorepositiveviewoftheirownperformance.Manyexpressedagenuinedesiretodoagoodjobandfeltthatwasreflectedintheirwork.Thereisasharedstaffsensethatgreatserviceisthenorm,nottheexception.
Moreover,asdescribedlaterinthisreport,somestaffsaythatanydifficultiesworkingwiththeCityliemoreatthefeetofexternalplayers—whohaveunrealisticexpectations,lackprocessunderstanding,donotmeetrequirements,trytobendtherules,etc.—inparticularexternalplayerswithlessexperienceworkinginGuelphandwho,presumably,havelessunderstandingofCityprocessesandstandards.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 9
UnpackingtheIssuesThissectiondescribesand‘unpacks’thefullrangeofissues(andsubtopics)identifiedinthisscopingexercise.Theyarelistedinnoparticularorder.IssueConcerningUnderstanding,ClarityandExpectationsTopicComplexityTheplanningandbuildingdiscipline(andrelatedengineeringservicesfunctions)andeconomicdevelopmentandtourism,aregenerallyacknowledgedtobecomplexareas.Moreover,planningisbroadlyconsideredanareainwhichthereislittlecertainty.Theabilitytofullyunderstandtherangeofprovincialinitiativesandpolicy(fromtheGrowthPlan,totheProvincialPolicyStatement,totheGreenbeltPlanandothers)andthefullsuiteofCitypoliciesandrequirementsistypicallyconsideredbeyondtherealmofanysingleindividual.Thistopiccomplexity—whichnecessitatestheneedtohireandcoordinatearangeofspecialists—wasidentifiedasafactorcontributingtotheperceivedchallengesofdoingbusinessinGuelph.However,therearesomewhatdivergentviewsonthisissueofacknowledgedcomplexity.ExternalparticipantstypicallysaythattheCitymakesthingsundulycomplexandthatitisnexttoimpossibletokeeppacewithandunderstandCitypolicies,directionsandrequirements.CitystaffaremorelikelytosaythatthosewhowanttodobusinessinGuelphneedtotakethetimetoreviewandbetterunderstandtherangeofrelevantfactors—fromsewagetreatmentandgroundwatercapacityconstraints,torequiredstudiesandreports,toprocessrequirementsandassociatedtimelines.
UnderstandingandExpectations—andInconsistencyAllparticipantsunderstandthattheprocessforreviewingandapprovingsignificantplanninganddevelopmentapplicationsrarelyrunssmoothly,withoutunanticipatedissuesandchallenges.Manystaffbelievethesearenormalandtobeexpected—andthatclientsshouldnotviewthemasextraordinary.Externalparticipantsacknowledgethatsomeunforeseencircumstancesaretobeexpected,butbelievethatthechallengescanbereduced.
Virtuallyeveryoneagreesthatthelynchpinforsuccessliesinasharedunderstandingofaclearandconsistentlyappliedprocessthatisfairtoall—andanappreciationofeachparty’scircumstances.Onthislatterpoint,staffsaythatthosewithdevelopmentandbusinessinitiativesdonotfullyappreciatetheconstraintsandprocessesthatarepartofworkingwithinamunicipalstructurethatmustdemonstratepublicaccountability.Generallyspeaking,developers,realestateandinvestmentparticipantssaythatCitystaffdonotfullyappreciatethe‘businessperspective’(includingsuchthingsascarryingcostsandtheeconomicburdencausedbyprocessdelays).
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 10
ThereisagenerallysharedviewthatCityguidelinesandrequirementsarenotalwaysclearlyarticulatednorwellenoughunderstood.Manysaidthatknowingtherulesofthegamegoinginandthattheyareconsistentlyappliedisveryimportant.Moreover,theCitywasoftendescribedashavinginconsistentandever‐changingrequirements—orasbreakingitsownrules.ThefollowingwereofferedasexamplesbytheCity’srangeofexternalclients:
• RequirementscandifferbasedonwhichCitystaffpersononespeaksto—thatstaffhavevaryinglevelsofexperienceandknowledge;thattherules(orstaff’sinterpretationofthem)seemtochangefrequently;thatthereisnoconsistencyorclarity.
• Requirementsareappliedinconsistently—thatwhatisrequiredforoneprojectmaynotbeforanothervirtuallyidenticalone;thatstaffprovideinconsistentdirectionandrequirements,allowingforgreaterflexibilityonsomeprojectsmoresothanothers.
• Mixedmessagesarereceivedfromdifferentdepartments—forexample,thatonedepartmentrequeststheprotectionoftrees,whileanothersaystheymustberemoved;thatonedepartmentpursuesacertainkindofbusinessdevelopment,whileanothersaysitisundesirable.
• StatedCityprioritiesarenotreflectedinpractices—forexample,thattheCity
saysitwantsinfillandhigherdensitydevelopment,butseemstomakeitdifficulttoapprovethiskindofdevelopment.
• VaryingCityrulesfordifferentkindsofprojects—thatwhattheCitymight
requireforagreenfieldversusaninfillversusabrownfielddevelopmentcanbequitedifferentandthataproponentcangetlostinthemazeofrequirements.
• TheCitysometimesbreaksitsownrules—thattheCitysaystheirrulesand
requirementsmustbeadheredto,butcertainCityprojectsmoveforwardwithoutfullpermitsandproperdrawings.
• Insufficientclarityandprecision—forexample,thattheCity’surbandesign
guidelinesareopentointerpretationandhavenoclear,objectivecriteria;thatincaseswheretherearecriteria,theyareappliedarbitrarily;thatthereisconfusionaboutwhatareguidelinesandwhatarerequirements.
• InabilityoftheCitytosufficientlyreconcileapredominant‘smalltownfeeland
outlook’withitsdesignationasanurbangrowthcentre—thatmanymembersofthecommunityingeneralandsomeCitystaff/electedofficialshavenotacceptedthelevelandtypeofgrowthproposedforGuelph.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 11
Giventheabove,thereweremultiplecalls—frombothinternalandexternalparticipants—forreinvigoratedeffortstoclarifyandcommunicateCityrequirements,rules,regulations,processesandtimelines.Somecalledforthecreationandpromotionofa‘comprehensive,consolidatedchecklist’documentingallCityexpectations.Allbelieveasharedunderstandingoftheseiscritical.IssuesConcerningAttitudes,PracticesandBehavioursPhilosophicalandAttitudinalOrientationManyinternalandexternalparticipantssaythatcurrentclient‐CityHallrelationships—particularlyintheareaofdevelopment‐relatedapplications—canbehighlyadversarial.Mostexternalparticipantsbelievetheyaretoomuchso,whilesomestaffbelievethat‘healthychallenge’isbothappropriateanddesirable.Resultsfromtheinterviewsandfocusgroupswithstaffsuggestlittlecohesivenessintermsofone’sfundamentaldispositiontoclientinteraction/relationships,withviewsrunningalongacontinuumthatincludes:
• Client‘partnering’tofindmutuallyagreeablesolutions(seebelowformoreonpartnering);
• Processguardians—thatis,ensuringscrupulousadherencetopolicies,
requirementsandguidelines,whileplacingtheonusontheclienttomeetthem;
• Championsandvisionaries—thatis,protectorsofandforcefuladvocatesfor
Cityidentifiedpriorities(somewouldarguepersonalaspirationsaswell);and
• Adversarialchallengers—thatis,thosewhoactivelyseektofindflawsand
weaknessesinanyproposalwithaviewtostoppingorsignificantlymodifyingit.
WhilerecognizingthatitissometimesappropriatefortheCitytosay‘no,’manyexternalparticipantssuggestthatCitystafftypicallyactmoreasadversarialchallengersthanclientpartners.AttheheartofthisperceptionisanunderlyingsensethatCityHallfocusesmoreonbeingaregulatorratherthanidentifyingandfacilitatingsolutions.Anumberofexternalparticipantsbelievethatstafffinditmucheasiertoraiseobjectionsandsay‘no,’thantoworkwithaclienttofindawaytosay‘yes.’Thereisaperceptionthatstaffarenotactiveparticipantsinthesearchformutuallyagreeableoptions.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 12
Whilemanystaffwouldtakeexceptiontotheabovecharacterizations,thereareotherswhoagreethatthisorientationnotonlyexists,butthatitissomewhatdesirable.Staffmembersnotedtheimportanceofprotectingthepublicinterest,ensuringthatprojectproponentsmeetallrelevantrulesandrequirements,andstrivingtocreatethebestendresult.Somegofurthertosaythatstaff’sroleistoidentifytheissues,flawsandweaknesses—andthatitistheproponent’sjobtoaddressthem.
Giventheabove,itisnotsurprisingtofindagapbetweenexternalpartyenthusiasmforamore‘partnership‐oriented’approachandsomestaffreluctancetoembracethisconcept.Formostparticipants,apartnershipapproachwouldinclude:
• Alessadversarialclient‐CityHallrelationship,inwhicheveryonejointlypursuesmutuallyagreeablesolutions;
• Morerespectfuldialoguewithaviewtounderstandingeachother’saspirations,constraints;
• Invitingexternalstakeholderstomeaningfullyparticipateinthecreation/refinementofCitypoliciesandguidelines;
• Opennesstoembracingnewideas/approaches;and• Somedegreeofflexibility,negotiationandwillingnesstocompromise.
Anumberofparticipantstalkedabouttheimportanceofattitude—andthatthisisakeydifferentiator,particularlygiventhatrulesandregulationsarequitesimilaracrossjurisdictions.WhilesomeCitystaffsharethedesireforapartneringapproach,forothersitiscodeforCityHallcapitulationonsignificantissues.Thereareconcernsabout:howstaffwillbeperceivedbyvariousexternalparties(i.e.thattheyareworkingtoocloselywithdevelopersandotherproponentstohelpthemachievetheirdesiredends);theextrawork/burdenplacedonthemtosolveproblemsnotoftheirownmaking;andofgrowingpressuretocompromiseinterests,idealsandCityaspirations.Infact,somestaffbelievethatCityHallneedstoraisethebarandchallengeproponentstostep‐upandmaketheirinitiativesevenbetter.OverzealousnessandQuestionableRoleDefinitionThereisaperceptionamongsomeexternalparticipants—particularlydevelopers,theirconsultants,realestateofficialsandbusinessesgenerally—thatcertainCitypoliciesandstaffareinappropriatelydirectingitemsthatshouldbemorewithinthepurviewoftheproponent.Thisincludessuchthingsasthetypeofhousingorcommercialproductandarchitecturaldetail/design(fromrooftreatments,towindowshape/size,tothesize/shape/placementofsigns,tomaterialsused:brick,stucco,etc.).Moreover,thereisasensethatCity‐mandatedapproachesruncountertomarketrealities(what‘worksandsells)anddonotrespectbuilderordeveloperexpertise.SomebelievethatCityHallisengagedinunwarrantedsocialengineeringandundulydictatinghousingorcommercialproduct.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 13
Citypositionswereoftendescribedasarbitraryandlackingasolidunderpinning.Insomecases,Citystaffweresaidto‘dictatepolicy’withoutprovidingsufficientrationales.Anumberofexternalparticipantsarguedthatpersonaltasteisnotadefensiblepositionorjustificationforrequiringchanges.Moreover,sometakeoffencethatrelatively‘inexperienced’staffaredirectingseasonedprofessionalsinareasoutsidetheirrealmsofexpertise.StillothersquestionCityHall’srighttodictatetodevelopersonsuchissuesaselevations,colourandsoforth.Incountertotheabove,someCitystaffsaythattheydoprovidesufficientrationalefordirectionprovided,butthatproponent’sareeitherunableorunwillingtofullyappreciatethenuanceandsubtletyofwhatisbeingputforward.
DifferingTreatmentThoughnotnecessarilyperceivedtobeawidespreadissue,bothinternalandexternalparticipantsraisedtheissueoffavouritismandpreferentialtreatmentbeinggiventocertainparties—inparticular,significantGuelph‐basedbusinessesandlargerdevelopersoperatingintheCity.Anumberofparticipantsreferencedthecaseofaprominentbusiness,whichapparentlyproceededwithanexpansionwithoutfirstobtainingtherequiredbuildingpermits—infullknowledgeoftheCity—andwasallowedtodosogiventheirsizeandrelativeimportancetothelocaleconomy.Othersfeelthatdowntownbusinessesandthedowntownareagenerallyaregivenpreferentialtreatment.Stillotherssaythatcertaindevelopers—whowereidentifiedbyname,butontheconditionthattheynotbeused—arebeneficiariesoffavouritism
Asageneralpoint,thereisabroadlyheldperceptionthattheCityistooquicktorespondtothe‘squeakywheels’—whethertheybeproponentsorstakeholdersopposingthem.Thereisasensethatthosewho‘screamtheloudest’seemtogetwhattheywantandthatthisleadstoinequitabletreatment.
LevelandConsistencyofComplianceEnforcementAnumberofparticipantssaythattheCityisinconsistentlyandinsufficientlyensuringcompliancewithagreeduponplans.SomestaffnotedtheCity’slackofvigilanceinensuringthatallrequirements—particularlysiteplanrequirements—aremet.Somedevelopersandtheirconsultantscitedexamplesoflong,drawn‐outdiscussionstoreachagreementaboutsuchthingsasthenumberandplacementoftreesonasite—andthennotactuallyexecutingtheagreeduponapproach(andtheCitynotcheckingtoensurecompliance).
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 14
EconomicDevelopment’sRoleand‘OverEagerness’TheCity’seconomicdevelopmentfunctionisbroadlyconsideredtoplayavitalroleinadvancingbusinessinterestswithintheCity.ExternalparticipantsgenerallybelievethattheDepartmentisresponsivetobusinessenquiriesandkeentohelp.TheDepartmentisgenerallyviewedasthe‘businesschampion’withintheCity.
WhileacknowledgingtheDepartment’sgoodintentions,somequestionthelackoftangibleoutcomes.ThereisasensethattheDepartmentistooprocessratherthanresultsfocused.ThereisalsoasensethattheDepartmentcouldbemoreproactiveandaggressive:gettingoutandmeetingwithmoreexistingandpotentialGuelph‐basedbusinesses;moreactivelysecuringinvestmentintheCity;moreenthusiasticallypursuingprospectcompanies;bettertakingadvantageoflandpricesandlowdevelopmentchargesrelativetootherlocationsclosertotheGTA.Moreover,somefeelthattheDepartmentsometimes‘dropstheball’whenhandlingleadsprovidedbyothersorinmovingthingsforwardwithintheCity.Notwithstandingtheabove,therearethoseinotherCitydepartmentswhofeelthatEconomicDevelopment—understandablygiventheirmandate—istooaggressiveinpushingforbusinessinvestmentthatis‘inappropriate’forGuelph.ExamplesrelatingtotryingtosecurewaterintensivefoodprocessingbusinessesfortheCitywerecitedasevidenceofthis.ThereisaconcernthattheEconomicDevelopmentfunctionisfalselyraisinghopesandexpectationsamongbusinessesthatmaynotberightforGuelph—and,indoingso,isplacingotherdepartmentssuchasplanningandengineeringintheunenviablepositionofhavingtosay‘no.’ThereisgeneralagreementthattheCitygenerally—andthoseworkingineconomicdevelopmentinparticular—needtobetterscreenandfilterforappropriatedevelopmentandinvestmentopportunities.Moreover,thereweresuggestionsforensuringthatalldepartmentshaveinputintoestablishingthevisionfornewbusinessinvestmentintheCity(takingintoaccountvariousengineering,environmentalandotherconstraints).
Anumberofparticipants—bothexternalparticipantsandeconomicdevelopmentstaff—notedthatotherCitydepartmentstypicallydonotshareEconomicDevelopment’spassionforsecuringnewinvestmentfortheCity.OfnotableconcernisthenumberofexternalparticipantswhoreportthatitisnotuncommonforpersonnelwithinEconomicDevelopmentto‘forewarn’proponentsaboutthechallengestheyarelikelytoencounterwithotherdepartments.
Thetourismcomponentoftheeconomicdevelopmentfunctionisgenerallyviewedaslaggingandinneedofgreateremphasis.Tourismwasreferredtoasthe‘weaksister’intheeconomicdevelopmentmix.Asidefromaddressingtheabove,participantshadthefollowingsuggestionsforstrengtheningeconomicdevelopmentwithintheCity:
• GreaterMayorandelectedofficialsupport;• Demonstratedinvestmentreadiness—includingavailable/servicedland;
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 15
• Cityclarityonthetypeofinvestmentdesired;• Formationof‘rapidresponseteams’thatwouldquicklymobilizetoaddress
investmentopportunities—andtohelpmove‘onstrategy’initiativestothenextlevel;
• Involvingeconomicdevelopmentstaffinsiteplanapprovalmeetings;• BetterdefiningandarticulatingtheCity’svalueproposition;and• ImplementingtheBusinessAssistanceTeam(BAT)concept—thatis,afixed
teamwithinter‐departmentalrepresentationthatworkstogethertofindtimelysolutionstobusinessandinvestmentovertures.
IssuesConcerningProcessandClientServiceTimelinessandUnnecessaryDelaysManyexternalparticipants—developersandtheirconsultants,realestateprofessionalsandbusinessgenerally—identifiedissuesrelatingtotimelinessandwhattheyperceiveasunnecessaryprocessdelays.Forsome,thereareconcernsabouttheoveralllengthoftimerequiredfortheCitytoprocessaproposal.ThisgroupfeelsthatCitystaffdonotappreciatethe‘needforspeed’givenchangingmarketconditions,carryingcostsandsoforth.Citystaff,ontheotherhand,feelthatproponentsdonotadequatelyappreciatethecomplexityinherentinthereviewprocess,thevolumeofsubmissionsthatneedtobeaddressed,thedelayscausedbypoorsubmissions(seelaterinthissection),andgeneralprocessrequirements(includingpublicengagement)andconstraintsatplaywithinapublicsectorinstitution.SomeparticipantssuggestedthattheCityconsideratwo‐tierapplicationssystem—oneinwhichaproponentcouldpaymoreforanexpeditedlevelofservice.
Forothers,thekeyissueisaroundthespeedofCityresponseonaspecificissueorquestionthatishighlytimesensitive(thiswasofparticular,thoughnotexclusive,concernofrealestateofficials).TheCitywasdescribedaslackinganappreciationoftheurgencyrequiredwheninthemidstofbrokeringdeals.Moreover,therewerealsoconcernsabouthowlongittakestocoordinatevariousdepartmentsandestablishajointCityresponsetoaneconomicopportunity,particularlygiventhenarrowwindowsoftimethatareavailable.EvensomeCitystaffacknowledgethattheprocessforgettingandcoordinatingdepartmentalresponsescanbecumbersomeandtimeconsuming.
Forothers,theissueconcerningtimelinessrevolvesarounduncertainty.Anumberofexternalparticipantssaythatitisverydifficulttogetstafftocommittofirmdates.Someparticipantsnotedtheirwillingnesstoacceptdelaysifcleartimelinesareestablishedandadheredtothereafter.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 16
TherewerealsogeneralconcernsabouttheamountoftimethatcertainCityprocesses/approachesrequire.Chiefamongthemwereissuesinvolvingsiteplanrevisions.Morespecifically,thisprocesswastypicallycharacterizedas‘unnecessarilybureaucratic’and‘lackingincommonsense.’Participantsprovidedmultipleexamplesofhowminorsiteplanchangescoulddelayaprojectbyamonthormore.Therewasstrongsupport—includingsomefromCitystaff—forallowing‘red‐lining’ofrelativelyminorrevisionsandconditionalsiteplanapprovals.
Other(thoughlesspronounced)time‐related‘sorepoints’include:
• ThelengthoftimerequiredfortheCitytoreviewandprovideconsolidatedcommentsontechnicalreports(e.g.trafficstudies,geotechnicalanalysis,water/wastewater,etc.);
• Receivingfeedbackonissues‘toolate’intheprocess—thatis,theCityfailingtoraisea‘knowable’issueearlyon;
• DifficultyarrangingtimelymeetingswithCitystaff;• Misseddeadlines;and• Citystaffnotmeetingscheduledcommitments.
Thelasttwopointsregardingmisseddeadlines/commitmentsweredescribedasmoretheexceptionthantherule.
ProcessRequirements,RulesandRigiditySomeexternalparticipants—again,developersandtheirconsultants,realestateofficialsandbusinessgenerally—believethatCityrequirementsfordevelopmentapplicationsandbusinessinvestmentinitiativeshavebecomeincreasinglycomplexand,insomeinstances,tooonerous.Participantscitedthenumberandrangeofreports/studiesandlevelofdetailrequired.Whilesomereferencedgeneral‘redtape’othersnotedrequirementsforsuchthingsas:trafficstudiesforminorinfillapplications,treestudy/fulllandscapeplansforminoradditionstoexistingbusinesses,andfullelevationsforresidentialsiteapprovals.OfconcernistheperceptionthatthelistofCityrequirementsonlyseemstogrow—moreisaddedtothelist,whilenothingisremoved.Anotherconcernrevolvesaroundtherequirementtore‐submit—somesayunnecessarily—plansanddrawingsmultipletimes.ThisrequirementissometimesattributedtoaperceivedfailureontheCity’sparttoprovidecomprehensiveanddetailedfeedbackuponfirstreview.
ManyparticipantsalsosaythattheCityistoorigidinitsenforcementofrequirements.ThisconcernwasmostlydirectedtowardthesiteplanapprovalsprocessandtheCity’sperceivedfocuson‘standardapproaches’ratherthan‘creativesolutions’toresolvingissues.ThereisasensethattheCitywantstoimposeitswill,andthatitdoesnotappreciatethatissuesarerarelyblackorwhite,orthataninnovative,compromisemightbepossible/desirable.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 17
StaffEmpowermentandAutonomyManyexternalparticipantsbelievethatmoststaffdonotenjoysignificantempowermentorautonomy—andmanystaffalsofeelthisway.ExternalparticipantssaytheyareroutinelyfrustratedbytheinabilitytogetaclearandconciseresponsefromCityHall.Moreover,thereisfrustrationwiththesometimesnon‐committalreactionsfromstaffandthelackofcleardirectionortimelydecision‐making.Thereisagenerallyheldviewthatstaffavoidplain‐speakingandmakingcommitmentsoutofafearofpotentialcensureandrepercussion.Asignificantnumberofstaff—particularlythoseatthemidtolowerlevels—agreethatthereisagreatreluctancetoshareopinionsorespouseviewsthathavenotbeenspecificallyendorsedbymoreseniorstaff.Ofinterest,manystaffandexternalstakeholderssaytheoverallCityorganizationalculturedoesnotfoster/promoteautonomy,risk‐takingorinnovation.Somereferredtoaprevailing‘cultureoffear’(see‘staffmorale’inthefollowingsection).Anumberofstaffalsosaidtheyfearpotentialcareerbacklashifaccusedofmakingamistake,sayingsomethingthatcouldbemisinterpretedorbeingunderminedbyseniorofficials(includingelectedofficials).Simplyput,anythingthatmightberegardedasakinto‘goingoutonalimb’isperceivedashigh‐riskandlow‐reward—withthedisplayofinitiativerarelyrecognizedorappreciated.Somestaff—particularlythoseinengineeringandbuildingservices—saythattheyaresimplyconstrainedbythepreciserulesoftheirdisciplinesandtheveryprescriptivetechnicalrequirementstowhichtheymustadhere.However,certainexternalparticipantsviewthisas‘inflexibility,’anunwillingnesstofindsolutions,and/oralackofunderstandingofbusinessrealities.Moreover,anumberofexternalparticipantslamentstaff’stypicalunwillingnesstoapplytheirknowledge,creativityandprofessionalskillstofindingmutuallyacceptablesolutions.
Variousparticipantsspokeinsupportof:
• Empoweringstafftodomoreandprovidingthemwithgreaterautonomy;• Supportinginnovationandasolutionsorientationbybeingmoreaccepting
ofmistakesthatmayoccur;• Betterharnessingtheskillsandabilitiesofstaff;• Buildingimprovedrelationshipsbetweenseniorandmorejuniorpersonnel;• Ensuringseniorstaffmentoring,direction‐settingandsupportformore
juniorstaff;and• BettercommunicationbetweentheCity’sexecutiveteamandgeneral
managers—toensureclarityandfocus.
Inaddition,somewouldliketheCitytoplacerenewedemphasisonfront‐linecustomerservice.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 18
InternalProjectOwnershipTied‐intoalloftheaboveisanexternalparticipantfrustrationwithwhatwasreferredtoasthelackofa‘single,reliablegotoplanningprojectsourceattheCity.’Manycomplainedofbeing‘bouncedaround’betweendepartmentswhenlookingforinformationoranswersabouttheirinitiative—orreceivingconflictinginformationwithnoCitystaffpersonavailabletoresolvetheconflictsorclarifydirection.Moreover,thereisasenseoflackofinter‐departmentalcoordination/collaboration.Notsurprisingly,giventheabove,therewasstrongsupportforassigninganindividual‘pointperson’whocouldserveasthecontact/liaisonforaprojectandwhowouldtakeownershipforshepherdingitthroughthevariousstagesofthesystem—fromapplication,tositeplanapproval,tobuildinginspection,tofinalapprovals.Recognizingthatnosingleindividualpossessesalloftherequisiteknowledgerequiredtoindependentlyassessanapplication,thepointpersonwouldcoordinatetheinvolvementofvariousfunctionalteammembers.Suggestionsfordeterminingtheassignmentofindividualstoprojectswerequitewide‐ranging:
• Randomly,basedonthenextpersonavailable;• Bytypeofproject(i.e.certainstaffwoulddealexclusivelywithGreenfield
projects,infillapplications,brownfieldredevelopment,etc.);and• Bygeographicarea(i.e.certainstaffwouldberesponsibleforprojectswithin
aprescribeddistrict,potentiallyonaWardordistrictmodelbasis).
TherewerefewerconcernsexpressedabouthavingaCity‘pointperson’forbusinessenquiriesandeconomicdevelopmentinitiatives,giventhatthecurrentGeneralManagerfortheEconomicDevelopmentareaisperceivedtoalreadybeplayingthisroleandactingastheinternal‘businesschampion.’
IssuesConcerningProponent(andTheirRepresentatives’)PracticesCaliberofProponentSubmissionsAnumberofstaffsaythatthecaliberofproponentsubmissions(whetherOfficialPlanamendments,zoningchangerequests,siteplandrawingsandsoforth)islessthanwhatitshouldbeandhasbeendeclining—andthatthis,asmuchasanything,isthereasonformultiplere‐submissions.Staffsaidthatsubmissionsoftendonotmeetstandards/requirementsorthattheyaresubstantiallyincomplete.SomestaffalsosaidthattheCityhasbecometooacceptingofsubmissionsthatarelackingindepth,qualityandcompleteness.AnumberwouldliketheCitytorejectandreturnanyapplicationsthatdonotmeetminimumcriteria.Infact,somedevelopersandconsultantsacknowledgethatthefirstsubmissionmaybelessthancomplete(notasarusetogetfreeservicesfromtheCity,butrathergiventheperceptionthattheCitywill‘redlineeverythinganyway,’sowhyputtoomucheffort
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 19
intothefirstgo).Stillotherssaytheyusepreliminary,incompleteapplicationsasameansofsolicitinginitialfeedbackandidentifyingconcerns/issues.
Asproposedimprovementstoaddresstheabove,someexternalparticipantsrecommendednewapproachesthatwouldfacilitateenhancedpre‐applicationconsultationwiththeCity—thatis,animprovedabilitytogetmorespecificstafffeedback(fromvariousdepartments)priortoformalsubmission.Anumberofparticipantsfeelthispre‐consultationwouldhelpavoidproblemsdowntheroad.Moreover,therewerecallsfortheCitytoprovideclearerdirectionregardinghowbesttomeetCity‐specifiedrequirementsorrequestedchanges.
DeveloperConsultantCommunicationAnumberofstaffareconvincedthatthereislessthanfullcommunicationanddisclosureindeveloper‐consultantrelationships.Morespecifically,thereisaconcernthatCityrequirementsandrequestsforchanges(andtherationalesforthem)arenotbeingfullyconveyedthroughconsultantstoproponents.ThereisafearthatthismayleadtomisinformationaboutandmisrepresentationoftheCity’sposition.
Whilesomeattributethislessthanidealsituationto‘brokentelephone’communication,tobusyprofessionalswithbusylives,ortoothergenerallyinnocuousmotivations,somefearthatconsultantsmaybemisleadingtheirclientstoeitherprotectthemselveswhentheymakeerrorsormissthings,ortogenerateadditionalworkandtherelatedbillings.
IssuesConcerningWorkVolume,CoordinationandCityStaffing
VolumeofWorkVirtuallyallparticipants—internalandexternal—believethatCitystaffhaveahighandgrowingvolumeofdevelopment/businessinquiriesandapplicationstoaddress,andthatmanyofthesearecomplex.Thereisasensethattheincreaseinworkhasnotbeenaccompaniedbyacommensurateincreaseinstaff.Inpart,processandotherdelayswereattributedtothisperceivedimbalanceinvolumeofworkandavailableresourcestoaddressit.Notwithstandingtheabove,someexternalparticipantsbelievethattheCitycouldbetteruseavailableresourcesorchangeprocessestomaximizetimelinessandefficiency.Infact,somesaythatCityHallisstilltryingtooperatetoomuchasthoughGuelphisa‘smalltown’andnotenoughlikeitisagrowingcitythathasbeendesignatedoneoftheprovince’surbangrowthcentres.ThereisasenseamongthisgroupthattheCity’sprocessesandapproacheshavenotkeptpacewiththegrowingvolume,scopeandcomplexityofdevelopment/investmentapplications.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 20
StaffMoraleThoughnotaninitialfocusofthisproject,theissueofstaffmoraleemergedasanimportantonewithbroadimplications.Somestaffdescribedmoraleasbeingamongthelowesttheyhaveeverseenit—andthatitishavinganimpactonthequantityandqualityofworkbeingdone.Morespecifically,staffidentified‘frustrationandillfeeling’causedbythefollowingkeyareasofconcern:
• Changefatigue—including‘constantreorganizations’andinternalstudies(includingthisOperationalReview),andasenseofconstantlychangingdirections/priorities;
• Uncertaintyandfear—attributedto‘surpriselay‐offsandfirings,’employeeswhoareremovedfromtheirpositionswithoutsufficientexplanation,otheremployeedeparturescloudedinuncertainty,andthelossofgoodpeoplewhohavechosentoleaveoftheirownvolition;
• Lackofsupport/respect—attributedtothepredilectionofsomesenior
managementandCounciltoreject/over‐turnstaffprofessionalopinionandrecommendations(andto‘belittle’staffintheprocess),andthefailuretosupportstaffoncontentiousissues;and
• Senseofexclusionandseparation—attributedtolessinteractionbetween
ExecutiveTeam/SeniorManagementandlower‐levelstaff.
Moreover,somestaffexpressedconcernaboutspecificfacetsofworkingfortheCity—fromasenseoflackofrecognitionforaccomplishment,tothecurrentHRjobgradingsystem(andlackofjobgradeincreases),tolimitedinputintodecision‐making,tolackofcommunication,tolimitedaccesstoone’sdirector,andsoforth.Allofthesewereidentifiedascontributingtolowermorale,apathy,andanunwillingnesstoseekcreativesolutionsonaclient’sbehalf.Externalparticipantsalsohearaboutandobservethemoraleissue.Somereporthearingdirectlyfromstaffaboutinternalfrustrationswhileotherssaytheyseeitbetrayedinstaffattitudesandactions.AfewexternalparticipantsnotedtheirdiminishedconfidenceinCitymanagementasawhole(citinguncertaintyrelatedtothependingretirementofthecurrentCAO,therecent‘forced’andvoluntarydeparturesofkeypersonnel,andageneralsenseofuncleardirection).Themoraleissueisexacerbatedbysomeemployeedisenchantmentwiththecurrenthierarchy,includingconcernsaboutselectedstaffcapabilitiesanddepartmentalreportingrelationships.AnumberofparticipantsnotedthatactionstoaddressthemoraleissueareamongthemostimportantthattheCityshouldconsider.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 21
SomeparticipantssuggestedthatPhaseTwooftheOperationalReviewaddressthefollowing:
• Greaterspecificityandclarityregardingone’srole—andit’srelationshiptootherswithinadepartment—includingenhanceddelineationof‘strategic’and‘tactical’functions;
• Breakingdown‘silos’withindepartmentsandensuringthecommonpursuitofasharedvision(andrelateddirections/priorities);
• Amorestrategicallocationofresourcesinsupportofrealizingaspirations;• Betterengagementofstaffindepartmentalprioritysetting;and• Improvedmethodsforsharingandactingonissues,concernsandideas—
andthepotentialforincreasedproductivity,improvedcustomersatisfactionandahealthierorganizationthatcouldaccruefromthis.
HighLevelDirectionandInterDepartmentalRelationshipsManyinternalandexternalparticipantsbelievethattheCityanditsclientswouldbenefitfromaclearlydefineddevelopment/economicdevelopmentagenda(thatharnessesinherentstrengthsinagricultureandotherareas)andimprovedcooperationandcollaborationbetweenCityHalldepartments.Whilerecognizingtheappropriatenessofhealthytensionbetweeneconomicdevelopment,planning,engineeringandbuildingservices,thereisalsoaperceivedneedfor:
• Someone(orgroup)withintheCitytomakethehigher‐levelstrategic‘trade‐off’decisions(e.g.IstheCitywillingtoallowthebuildingofanewplantifitmeanssomelossinthenumberofresidentialunitsthatcouldbeconstructed?);
• Amechanismtofacilitatequickandreliableresolutionofissueswithmulti‐
departmentalimplications;
• Atrulyintegrated,interdisciplinaryteamthatcanholisticallyaddressdevelopmentandbusinessinquiries/proposals;and
• Astreamlinedapproachthatallowsfortheabovetohappenwithina
reasonabletimeframe.ThereareconcernsthatcertainCityservices—forexample,EconomicDevelopmentandTourism—donothaveanadequatevoiceattheCity’sexecutiveteamlevel.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 22
IssuesConcerningtheBroaderPublicDomainRoleofCouncilAsdulyelectedofficialswithdecision‐makingauthority,CityCouncillorswerefrequentlyidentified—byvirtuallyallpartiesconsulted—ascontributorstomakingGuelph‘achallengingplacewithwhichtodobusiness.’Morespecifically,thefollowingissueswereidentified:
• InconsistentDirection—Thereisasense(particularlyamongthebusinesscommunity,developersandtheirconsultants)thatCouncillacksaclear,coherentandcohesivevisionfordevelopmentinGuelph.Theperceived‘in‐fighting’amongCouncillorswasdescribedasdisconcerting,confusing,andpolarizing.Thelackofcleardirectionwasviewedbysomeascontributingtounnecessarybusinessriskanduncertainty,whichhasaninhibitingimpactoninvestmentintheCity.ThoughsomeacknowledgetheDevelopmentPrioritiesPlan(DPP)asausefultool,otherssaythatitprovidesonlylimiteddirectionandsurety(orthatitisusedmoretocontroldevelopmentthantostrategicallymanageit).Moreover,somerealestateprofessionals,developersandtheirconsultantsfeeltheDPPunfairlyexcludesprojectsandcreatesfurtherbusinesschallenge/difficulty.
• AntiDevelopmentSentiment—ThereisasegmentofCouncilthatis
perceivedas‘anti‐developmentandanti‐business’andtoowillingtoembrace(and/orrally)like‐mindedindividualsandgroupswithintheCity.Someinthebusinessanddevelopmentcommunityviewthisasparticularlyproblematic.EvensomestaffquestionthedegreetowhichCouncilisopentodevelopmentandbusinessinvestmentintheCity.Moreover,thereisasenseamongsomethatGuelphpridesitselfonbeingperceivedasthe‘Granolacapitaloftheworld’andan‘unabashedlygreencommunity’—and,thoughnotmutuallyexclusive,thatthisworksagainsttheimpressionofbeingbusinessfriendly
• LevelofUnderstandingandInvolvement—ThereisasensethatsomeCouncilmembersdonotsufficientlyunderstanddevelopmentandbusinessinvestmentissues,including:markettrends/realities,accesstocapital,businessdecision‐makingcriteria,financialrisk,therelationshipbetweentimeandcarryingcosts,andsoforth.Moreover,thereisasensethatsomeCouncillorshaveaninappropriatelevelof‘hands‐oninvolvement’indevelopmentandbusinessinvestmentinitiatives,tothedetrimentoftheprocess—inparticular,incaseswherethisactivityisseenasunderminingstaff.Someviewthisasinconsistentwithwhatshouldbeahigher‐levelgovernanceanddecision‐makingroleforCouncil.
Inaddition,someexternalparticipantsbelievethatelectedofficialsaretooreluctanttoactivelysupportpotentialbusinessinvestmentintheCity.ThosewithexperiencesinotherOntariolocationssaidthatGuelphcouncil
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 23
involvementistypicallylessthanthatwhichisforthcominginmanyotherjurisdictions.
• ResponsetoStakeholderActivism—Thereisasense(particularlyamong
businessanddevelopmentinterests,andtheirrespectiveconsultants)thatCouncilistypically‘over‐responsive’toanyandallcommunityoppositiontoinvestmentanddevelopmentproposals.Somebelievethatthiswillingnessto‘indulge’activismgivesriseandimplicitlicensetosomeofthemoreegregiousprotesteractionsincludingthedestructionofequipment,defacedbuildingsandvandalizedconstructionsites.Moreover,thereisasenseamongsomethatCouncil(andCityHallgenerally)needstobetterdelineatebetween‘expertinput’andopinionthatmaybelesswellfoundedinfactsandissueareaknowledge(inotherwords,thatnotallvoicesorviewsshouldbegivenequalstanding).
LevelofandAttentionPaidto‘Stakeholders”RelatedtothepointaboveaboutCouncilresponsivenesstostakeholderactivismisaconcernaboutthedegreetowhichpublicengagementcanhaveanimpactonaninitiative.Variousexampleswereoffered—theprocessforWalmartcomingtoGuelph,theprocessforsecuringapprovaloftheHanlonCreekBusinessPark,theprocessforsecuringapprovaloftheHomeDepot—asproofthattheCityasawholeisgenerallytoowillingtoallowvocalintereststodelayprojectsthatareeventuallyapproved.Thereisabelief—particularlyamongbusinessanddevelopmentinterests,andtheirrespectiveconsultants,butincludingsomestaff—thattheCitygivesdisproportionateattentionandcredencetotheperspectivesofafewand/orspecialinterestsofvariouskinds.ThereisaconcernthatCityHallisundulyswayedbytheactivismofafew—andthatthisisparticularlyproblematicinanareawithahighlyeducated,sophisticatedandaffluentpopulationthatunderstandshowbesttoinfluenceprocess.Somealsonotedtheimportanceofthemediawhocan‘sensationalize’issuesandcontributetocontentiousissuecreationorexacerbation.
Asacounter‐balancetotheabove,therearesomestaffwhobelievethatthedevelopmentindustryhasadisproportionateamountofpowerandinfluence—thattheirperspectiveisgivenunduecredence.Notsurprisingly,developersandtheirconsultantshaveacontrarianperspective—essentiallybelievingthattheirvoiceoftengoesunheardorisunappreciated,andthattheindustryasawholeisnotaffordedanappropriatelevelofrespect.TheperceivedlackofabilitytoinfluenceCityinitiatives—fromtheNaturalHeritageStrategy,togrowthplanning,toindividualsiteapplicationoutcomes—wereoftencitedasevidenceforthisview.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 24
LookingtoOtherJurisdictions
Thereisgeneralconsensusthatnosinglemunicipalitystandsoutasanunquestionedleaderintermsofamodelforprocesses,approachesandsystemsfordealingwithdevelopment/businessinquiriesanddevelopmentreview.Participantsnotedthat‘nooneisperfect’andthateverymunicipalityhasitsissues.
Notwithstandingthis,themunicipalities/jurisdictionslistedbelowwereidentifiedasthosewithpracticesandprocessesthatstandoutinapositivewayandtowhichGuelphcouldlookforinsight.Typically,eachofthemwasdescribedasdisplayingoneormoreofthefollowingcharacteristics:
• Employingknowledgeable,caringstaffwhoemphasizecustomerservice;• Demonstratingresponsiveness/timelinessinaddressingissues—including
awillingness,insomecases,toprovideconditionalapprovals;• Commitmenttoclientsatisfactionandamoreinvitingdispositiontoclients;• Theabilitytoquicklypulltogetherinterdepartmental/interdisciplinary
teamsthatcanprovidetimelyperspectiveonarangeofissues;• Awillingnesstoclearlydefineandcommunicateguidelines—andensure
adherencetothem;• Useofclearlyestablished‘pointpeople’whocanserveasone‐stopsourcesof
information,guidanceandtheshepherdingofdevelopment/investmentinitiatives;
• Asolutionsorientationandcommitmenttoproblem‐solving(includingflexibilityandawillingnesstowaiveand/orlessenrequirementsasappropriate—andembracecreativesolutions);
• Receptivitytodevelopmentandbusinessinvestment(thatis,activelyinvitingitasopposedto‘tolerating’it);
• Streamlinedprocesseswithteamsinplaceempoweredtogetthingsdone;• Activeandsupportiveparticipationofrespectfulelectedofficialswhoarenot
‘anti‐growth’or‘anti‐business’;• Clearstrategiesanddirectionsfordevelopmentandbusinessinvestment;
and• ‘Balanced’approachestolistening/respondingtovocalstakeholders.
Theboldedmunicipalitiesatthetopofthefollowinglisttendedtobementionedmostoftenand/orweremostemphaticallydescribedas‘leaders’:
• Hamilton• Cambridge• Kitchener• Waterloo• Milton• Burlington• Mississauga• Brantford• Woodstock
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 25
• Peterborough• Barrie• Brampton• Ajax(Note:ThenewlyimplementedAjax‘PriorityPath’programdesignedto
streamlinethesiteplanapprovalprocessforbusinesseswasspecificallyidentifiedbyanumberofparticipants)
• London• Caledon• Stratford• Toronto• Kingston
Ofnote,someoftheabovewerealsosingled‐outasbeinglessdesirablejurisdictionsfromwhichtoinvestigatebestpractices—andasmodelstoavoid.Reflectingthebroadlyheldviewthat‘nooneisperfect,’justaboutalloftheabovewereidentifiedbyatleastasingleparticipantasbeinglessthanexemplaryinitsprocessesandpractices.
Thefollowingwereidentifiedasmunicipalitiesbelievedtohaverelativelyeffectiveeconomicdevelopmentfunctionsandservices(again,thosementionedmostoftenarehighlightedinbold):
• Mississauga• Oakville• Milton• ChathamKent• Welland• NiagaraFalls(andNiagaraRegiongenerally)• Belleville• Quinte• Cambridge• London
Thesemunicipalitiesweretypicallylaudedforthe‘abilitytogetthingsdone,’theirclarityoffocus,thedegreetowhichtheyaggressivelypursueopportunities,their'proactivity,'andabilitytomobilizesupport(bothelectedandunelectedofficials)insupportofopportunities.
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 26
LookingAheadandaKeyQuestionsSummary
ThemainfocusofthisfirstPhaseofthestudywastoscopetheissuesatplay(pleaseseebelowforapreliminarylistofkeyquestionstoaddressinthenextphaseoftheOperationalReview).Recommendationsforaddressingthemwillbepartofthefuturework.ItisimportanttonotethatthereissignificantskepticismandcynicismaboutthepotentialforpositiveoutcomesflowingfromtheOperationalReview.Thoughparticipantsweremostappreciativeoftheopportunitytoparticipateinthisscopingphaseandcontributetotheidentificationofissues,theyareunconvincedthattheCitywillactmeaningfullyontheinformation.Manysaidthattheirskepticismwouldonlybeallayediftheyseethefollowing:
• Continuedmomentumfortheinitiative;• Agenuineresponse(i.e.‘morethanlipservice’)totheissuesidentified;• Theeventualidentificationandimplementationoffocusedactionstoaddress
theissues—includingfirmcommitmentsandtimelines;• StatedsupportandendorsementfromelectedofficialsandtheCity’ssenior
managementteam;• Frankinternaldiscussions—aforumforseniorpeoplefromalldepartments
—toworkthroughandresolvesensitiveandcontentiousissues;• Awillingnesstoembraceboldandinnovativeideas;• Ongoinginvolvement/engagementofexternalstakeholdersinsolutions
identificationandimplementation;and• Thedevelopmentofoutcomemeasuresagainstwhichtogaugeongoing
success—andtrackingofprogress.KeyQuestionstoAddressintheNextStudyPhaseReflectingtherangeofissuesuncoveredaspartofthisscopingexercise,thefollowingkeyquestionshavebeenidentifiedforfurtherexplorationaspartofPhaseTwooftheOperationalReview.Thesecorequestionsserveasastartingpointanddonotprecludeexplorationofadditionalissuesorsub‐topics.Re:Vision,DirectionandtheBiggerPicture
• Whatdoes‘Guelphasbusiness‐friendly’meantoCouncil—whatarethecoreprinciplesanddirectivesthatshouldunderliethisconcept?
• HowmightCityHallbestcommunicatewhatitmeanstobe‘business‐friendly’andtodemonstratesincerityinachievingthisgoal?
• WhatistheclearlyagreeduponandarticulatedCouncilvisionforfuturedevelopmentandinvestmentinGuelph?
• WhatsystemorapproachshouldCityHallusetomakehigher‐levelstrategic‘trade‐off’decisionsconcerningdevelopment/investmentproposals—andtoreconcilesometimescompetingperspectivesamongdepartments?
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 27
• WhatistheappropriateroleforCouncilinhelpingtofurtherdesirabledevelopmentandinvestmentopportunitiesforGuelph?
• WhatcantheCitylearnfromotherjurisdictionsandwhichbestpracticesmightbesuccessfullyadaptedtotheGuelphcontext?
Re:CommunicationandUnderstanding
• HowcanCitypolicies,processesandsystemsbemademoreaccessibletoandeasilyunderstoodbyclients?
• HowmightCitystaffandclientsbetterappreciateeachother’scircumstancesandconstraints?
• HowcanCityguidelinesandrequirementsbemademoretangibleandreadilyunderstandable?
• HowcanCityguidelinesandfeedbackbemadelesssubjective—andmorerationale‐basedanddefensible?
• HowmighttheCitybetterencouragecompleteandadequateproponentsubmissions—andhandlethosethatarenot?
Re:RequirementsandProcess
• HowmightexistingCitypolicies,processesandsystemsbeupdatedorrefinedtoreflectanappropriatebalancebetweenCityrequirementsandclientexpectations?
• What,ifany,Cityrequirementscouldberelaxedoreliminated?Whichneedtobestrengthenedoradded?
• WhichitemsareclearlywithintheCity’spurviewandwhichshouldbelefttoaproponent’sdiscretion?
• HowcantheCityensurethatcompliancewithapproved/agreeduponplansisconsistentlyandmeaningfullyenforced?
• HowcantheCityensurethatallclientsaretreatedfairly,equitablyandwithoutfavouritism?
• WhatprotocolsorapproacheswouldfacilitatefasterCityresponsetopotentialinvestmentopportunities?
• HowcantheCitystreamlineandappropriatelyacceleratedevelopment/investmentprocessesinwaysthatarefairtoallparties—particularlywithregardtoexpeditingthesiteplanrevisionsprocess?
• HowcantheCityimprovetimelinessofresponseandprovidegreatertimelinecertainty?
• HowcantheCityensurethatfeedbackondevelopmentapplicationsiscomprehensiveandtimely?
• How,ifatall,mighttheCitystructurea‘pointperson’approachthatwouldfacilitateanindividualstaffmemberservingasthesingle,reliable‘goto’sourceforplanningprojectinformation/shepherding?
• How,ifatall,shouldtheprocessforCity‐clientpre‐applicationconsultationberefined?
• Howcanpublic,stakeholder,industryandproponentinputbemorefairlyandreasonablyincorporatedintotheprocessforevaluatingpotentialdevelopmentandinvestmentopportunitiesforGuelph?
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 28
Re:Attitudes,PracticesandBehaviours
• HowcantheCityensurethatitsrulesandrequirementsareappliedconsistentlyandfairly—andrespectedbyall?
• Whatisamutuallyagreeabledefinitionof‘business‐friendly’andwhataretheimplicationsforstaff‐clientworkingrelationships?
• Whataretherelativemeritsofa‘partneringapproach’andhowmightsuchamodelbebestappliedinaGuelphcontext?
• HowcantheCityensureacommonstafforientationtoclientservicethatisbroadlysharedandembraced?
• HowcantheCityfosteraculturethatemphasizesandsupportshighqualitycustomerservice?
Re:InterdepartmentalFunctioning
• Howcangreateralignment—intermsofconsistencyofmessageandthejointpursuitofasharedvision—beachievedbetweenCitydepartments?
• Whatstructure,systemorapproachwouldbestfacilitatecollaborativeandmutuallyreinforcingCityapproachestodevelopment/investmentinGuelph?
• Whatapproachormechanism—withinputfrommultipledepartments—canbeusedtoscreenforandidentifyGuelph‐appropriatedevelopmentandinvestmentopportunities?
Re:StaffCapacity,EmpowermentandMorale
• Howmightstaffbebestencouraged,empoweredandequippedtoactmoreautonomouslyandmorefullyapplytheirknowledgeandprofessional/technicalskillstocreativesolutionsidentification?
• Whatlevelofdelegatedauthorityandautonomyisappropriateforstaffindifferentpositions—andhowmightthisbebestappliedandmonitored?
• Howmightrelationshipsbetweenseniorandjuniorstaffbestrengthened,andmentoringapproachesfostered?
• Howcaninternalstaffcommunicationandinformationexchangebestrengthened?
• Howcanthegrowingvolumeandcomplexityofdevelopment/businessinquiriesandapplicationsbeaddressedgivenresourcechallenges?
• Whatinitiativesmightbestaddressissuesconcerningstaffmorale—includingconcernsaboutchangefatigue,uncertainty,levelsofsupport/respect,exclusionandinadequaterecognitionofaccomplishment?
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 29
Appendix
• Discussionquestionsusedintheexternalinterviews
• Discussionquestionsusedintheinternalinterviews/focusgroups
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 30
CityofGuelphOperationalReview—DiscussionQuestionsforUseintheExternalInterviews
Preamble:TheCityofGuelphisundertakinganOperationalReviewfocusedonimprovingprocesses,approachesandsystemsdealingwithdevelopment/businessinquiriesanddevelopmentreview.ThereareanumberofareaswithinCityHallthatserviceclientsdealingwiththeseareas.TheyincludeEconomicDevelopmentandTourism,Planning,EngineeringandBuildingServices.Thereviewisintendedtohelpidentifypotentialprocessandsystemimprovements,andensuregreateralignmentofCitypracticeswithstatedobjectives.Thefocusistrulyonthepotentialoffindingnewand/orbetterwaysofdoingthingsandworkingeffectively.
Atthisearlypointintheprocess,theCityislookingtoidentifyOperationalReviewrelatedkeyissues,challengesandopportunities–includinginitialideasforaddressingthem.Yourperspectiveiscriticaltothisprocess.Onceviewshavebeencollectedfromvariousstakeholders—staffanddiverseCityclientssuchasdevelopersandtherelatedconsultantcommunity(e.g.planners,engineersetc.),businessescurrentlylocatedinGuelphandthoseconsideringmovinghere,agencies,electedofficialsandsoforth—keythemeswillbeidentified.Theresultswillserveasthebasisforfurtherexplorationandprovidetheframeworkforfuturestudyandultimaterecommendations.
DiscussionQuestions
1. Onwhattypesofissues,activitiesorinitiativesareyoutypicallyhavinginteractionwiththeCityofGuelph?(Probe:economicdevelopment;tourism‐related;developmentapplicationsorzoning/re‐zoningapprovals;siteplanapprovals;buildingpermitsorbuildinginspections;businessexpansions/relocations).What’sthefrequencyofthatinteraction?(Probe:What’stheapproximatenumberofinitiativesthatbringyouincontactwiththeCityinatypicalyear?)
2. Howwouldyoudescribeorcharacterizeyourtypicalinteractionswiththe
City?
3. Infact,somehavesaidthatGuelphis‘notbusinessfriendly’—inyourview,towhatdegreeisthatstatementaccurate?Morespecifically,whatdoyouthinkpeoplereallymeanwhentheysaythatGuelphis‘notbusinessfriendly’?[ASAPPROPRIATEASK:What,ifany,aresomerealexamples—thatyou’repersonallyfamiliarwithorawareof—thatshowthatGuelphis‘notbusinessfriendly’?]
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 31
4. BasedonyourexperienceswiththeCityofGuelph,whatissuesdoyouseeorpotentialchangesthatmightberequiredinthefollowingareas[NOTE:Foreachofthefollowing,participantstobeasked:What’stheissue(s)?Howprevalentisit/arethey?Whataresomeexamples?Whatcanbedonetoaddressit(them)?]:
a. Cityrequirements:i. Process(includinginconsistenciesorlackofprocesscertainty;unnecessarilycomplicatedapproaches;etc.)[ASAPPROPRITATE,PROBE:OfficialPlan/Zoningamendments;siteplanapproval;plansofsubdivision;engineeringplanreviews;other]
ii. Policiesorrules—and/orthecommunicationofthem(includinginconsistenciesoruncertainties)
iii. Timelinesiv. Other
b. Cityattitudestowardclientsand/ortheirinitiativesc. Citystaff’sabilitytoeffectivelyandefficientlyserveclientsd. Treatmentofclients(includinganyperceivedfavouritismor
inequitabletreatment,perceptionsoffairnessintreatment,etc.)
5. [THISQUESTIONTOBEASKEDONLYOFTHOSEWHOHAVEHADSOMEINTERACTIONWITHTHECITY’SECONOMICDEVELOPMENTFUNCTION]IntermsofyourinteractionwiththeCity’seconomicdevelopmentfunction,arethereanyissuesregarding:responsivenesstoenquiries,theprovisionofrequestedinformation,themeetingofcommitments,oroverallhandlingofyourinitiative?
6. Whatunderliesthekindsofchallengesandissueswe’vebeendiscussing—is
italackofclientawareness/understandingofCityobjectives/requirements…isitlessthanexemplaryclientservice…isitlessthanidealsystemsorapproaches…somethingelse?
7. Generallyspeaking,howwouldyoudescribetheoutcomeofyourtypical
interactionwiththeCity—doyougenerallygetmostorallofwhatyouwant?[INTERVIEWERTOPROBETHEDEGREETOWHICHEXPRESSEDCONCERNSAREATTRIBUTABLETOFRUSTRATIONWITHTHEPERCEIVEDOUTCOME,THANWITHPROCESS]
8. SomehavesaidthattheCityneedstoadoptmoreofa‘partnership
orientation’whenitcomestodealingwithclients.Whatdoes‘partnershiporientation’meantoyou—andtowhatdegreedoyouseethisasbeingdesirable?
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 32
9. Inyourview,howwouldyoudescribethelevelofCitystaffautonomyintermsofexercisingjudgment/decision‐makingandlatitudewithinasetframework?Whichworkarea(e.g.thoseinvolvedinbuildingpermits,developmentapplicationapprovals,zoning/rezoning,businessexpansionsandrelocationsetc),ifany,doesnothaveadequateautonomy?
10. WhatcouldtheCitydothatwouldclearlydemonstratethatitisopentonew
andmoreproductivewaysof‘doingbusinesswithbusiness’?[PROBE:WhatcouldCityCouncildo?Whatcouldstaffdo?Whatcouldthebusinesscommunitydo?Others?]
11. Howdoesyour‘clientexperience’withGuelphcomparetothatwithother
municipalitieswithwhichyouhavehadcontact?Whichmunicipality,ifany,doesthingsreallywell—whatothermunicipalitiesorjurisdictionsmightGuelphlooktoforinsightonbestpracticesorapproaches?Whataretheseothersdoingthatmakesthemstandoutinapositiveway—howaretheirprocessesorpracticesdifferentorbetterthanwhat’sdoneinGuelph?
12. Beyondthosediscussedtoday,whatotherkeyfactors,trendsor
considerationsneedtobeconsideredaspartofthisOperationalReview?Whatmakesyousaythat?
13. Anythingelseyou’dliketoadd?
[Facilitatortothankparticipantsfortheircontributions;Opportunitiesforadditionalinput]
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 33
CityofGuelphOperationalReview—
Discussionquestionsforusewithstaff
Preamble:TheCityofGuelphisundertakinganOperationalReviewfocusedonimprovingprocesses,approachesandsystemsdealingwithdevelopment/businessinquiriesanddevelopmentreview.ThereareanumberofareaswithinCityHallthatserviceclientsdealingwithdevelopment.TheyincludeEconomicDevelopmentandTourism,Planning,EngineeringandBuildingServices.Thereviewisintendedtohelpidentifypotentialprocessandsystemimprovements,andensuregreateralignmentofCitypracticeswithstatedobjectivesrelatedtotheentireprocessofdevelopmentapproval—frompreliminarymeetingconsultationtofinalsiteplanandrelatedbuildinginspection.WithregardtoBuildingServices,thisprocessinvolveshoweachareainteractswiththeothersanddoesnotnegatetheworkthatwasundertakenduringitsownrecentOperationalReviewortheworkcurrentlybeingconductedtoimplementitsrecommendations.
Thisstudyisnotaboutassessingthecompetenciesorabilitiesofindividualstaffmembersorcuttingjobsorreallocatingpeople.Thefocusistrulyonthepotentialoffindingnewand/orbetterwaysofdoingthingsandworkingeffectivelywitheachotherandclientstohelpthemandtheCitymakeadifference.Givenyourroleasastaffpersonwithfirst‐handexperience,yoursenseoftheissuesandopportunitiesisvitaltothesuccessofthisprocess.Thatiswhyyouwereinvitedtoattendthissession.
Atthisearlypointintheprocess,theCityislookingtoidentifyOperationalReviewrelatedkeyissues,challengesandopportunities–includinginitialideasforaddressingthem.Staffperspectiveiscriticaltothisprocess.OnceviewshavebeencollectedfromstaffandothergroupsrelatedtotheprocessesincludingCityclientssuchasdevelopersandtherelatedconsultantcommunity(e.g.planners,engineersetc.),businessescurrentlylocatedinGuelphandthoseconsideringmovinghere,agencies,electedofficialsandsoforth–keythemeswillbeidentified.Theresultswillserveasthebasisforfurtherexplorationandprovidetheframeworkforfuturestudyandultimaterecommendations.
DiscussionQuestions
1. Injustasentenceortwo,howwouldyoudescribeorcharacterizetypicalCityofGuelph‐clientrelationships—byclients,wemeaneverythingfromindividualsorcompaniesseekingbuildingpermits,tothoseseekingdevelopmentapplicationorzoning/rezoningapprovals,tothoseinterestedinbusinessexpansions,tothoselookingtolocateorrelocateinGuelph,andsoforth?Whatmakesyousaythat?
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 34
2. HowdothinkclientswouldtypicallydescribeorcharacterizetheirinteractionswiththeCity?[ASAPPROPRIATE,ASK:Whythediscrepancybetweenthetwodescriptions/characterizations?]
3. Infact,somehavesaidthatGuelphis‘notbusinessfriendly’—inyourview,
towhatdegreeisthatstatementaccurate?Morespecifically,whatdoyouthinkpeoplereallymeanwhentheysaythatGuelphis‘notbusinessfriendly’?[ASAPPROPRIATEASK:What,ifany,aresomerealexamples—thatyou’repersonallyfamiliarwithorawareof—thatshowthatGuelphis‘notbusinessfriendly’?]
4. Asyouknow,theCityofGuelphhasvarious‘clientsorcustomers’withan
interestintheareasofbuilding,engineering,planningandeconomicdevelopment—again,fromindividualsorcompaniesinterestedinbuildingpermits,developmentapplicationapprovals,zoning/rezoning,businessexpansionsandrelocations,andsoforth.Thinkingspecificallyaboutthesekindsofservices(andnototherssuchasparksandrecreation,socialservices,etc.),whatissuesdoyouseeorpotentialchangesthatmightberequiredinthefollowingareas[NOTE:Foreachofthefollowing,participantstobeasked:What’stheissue(s)?Whatcanbedonetoaddressit(them)?]:
a. Cityrequirements:i. Process(includinginconsistenciesorlackofprocesscertainty;unnecessarilycomplicatedapproaches;etc.)[PROBE:OfficialPlan/Zoningamendments;siteplanapproval;plansofsubdivision;engineeringplanreviews;other]
ii. Policiesorrules(includinginconsistenciesoruncertainties)iii. Timelinesiv. Other
b. Cityattitudestowardclientsand/ortheirinitiativesc. Citystaff’sabilitytoeffectivelyandefficientlyserveclientsd. Treatmentofclients(includinganyperceivedfavouritismor
inequitabletreatment,perceptionsoffairnessintreatment,etc.)
5. Whatunderliesthekindsofchallengesandissueswe’vebeendiscussing—isitalackofclientawareness/understandingofCityobjectives/requirements…isitlessthanexemplaryclientservice…isitlessthanidealsystemsorapproaches…somethingelse?
6. SomehavesaidthattheCityneedstoadoptmoreofa‘partnership
orientation’whenitcomestodealingwithclients.Whatdoes‘partnershiporientation’meantoyou—andtowhatdegreedoyouseethisasbeingdesirable?
GLPi IssuesScopingSummary 35
7. What,ifanything,couldbedonetolessenwhatsomehavecharacterizedasthe‘adversarial’natureofselectedencounterswithbuildingdepartment,planning,engineeringoreconomicdevelopmentstaff?
8. Inyourview,howwouldyoudescribethelevelofCitystaffautonomyin
termsofexercisingjudgment/decision‐makingandlatitudewithinasetframework?Which,ifany,workarea(e.g.thoseinvolvedinbuildingpermits,developmentapplicationapprovals,zoning/rezoning,businessexpansionsandrelocationsetc)doesnothaveadequateautonomy?
9. Inyourview,whatarethefactors/pressuresthatarecurrentlydrivingCity
processesandstaffperformance?Whichfactors/pressuresshouldbethedrivers?
10. ForCitystafftomakesomeofthechangeswe’vebeendiscussingtoday—
withaviewtoimprovingCity‐clientrelationships—howmightweneedtobetterbalanceoralignworkloadswithavailableresources?
11. WhatcouldtheCitydothatwouldclearlydemonstratethatitisopentonew
andmoreproductivewaysof‘doingbusinesswithbusiness’?[PROBE:WhatcouldCityCouncildo?Whatcouldstaffdo?Whatcouldthebusinesscommunitydo?Others?]
12. WhatothermunicipalitiesorjurisdictionsmightGuelphlooktoforinsighton
bestpracticesorapproaches?Whataretheseothersdoingthatmakesthemstandoutinapositiveway—howaretheirprocessesorpracticesdifferentorbetterthanwhat’sdoneinGuelph?
13. Beyondthosediscussedtoday,whatotherkeyfactors,trendsor
considerationsneedtobeconsideredaspartofthisOperationalReview?Whatmakesyousaythat?
14. Anythingelseyou’dliketoadd?
[Facilitatortothankparticipantsfortheircontributions;Opportunitiesforadditionalinput]