City of Guelph Operational Review Issues Scoping Reportguelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/OPReviewIssuesScopingReportG3Final.pdf · GLPi Issues Scoping Summary 3 Preface GLPi is pleased

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


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.


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).


Allresearchparticipantsaretobecommendedfortheirdiligenceandcontributions.Thedepthofthoughtandcommitmenttotheissueareawasreadilyapparent.Manysaidtheyappreciatedtheopportunitytosharetheirviewsandhopedthattheirinputwouldmakeameaningfulandsubstantivedifference.Moreover,somedescribedtheinitiativeasimportantoutreachandatangiblesignthattheCityisinterestedintheviewsofitsclients.Othersnotedthattheinterviewdiscussionswerefocusedonimportantandsalientissues—thatmanyrelevantquestionswerebeingaddressed.

FindingsinContextThisreportsummarizesthefindingsfromalloftheparticipantinterviews/focusgroups.Aswithanyqualitativestudywithsomepurposefulrespondentselectionandlimitedsamplesize,resultsmustberegardedasindicativeanddirectional,ratherthanstatisticallygeneralizable.Theresultsdo,however,provideanumberofmeaningfulinsightsintohowparticipantsthinkabouttherangeofissuesthatwereexplored.Keydifferencesinparticipantperception/attitudebysegment(orfamiliaritywith/tenureworkingwiththeCity)arenotedwhereappropriate.


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;


• 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


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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).


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;


• 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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


• 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.


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?


• 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?


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?


Appendix

• Discussionquestionsusedintheexternalinterviews

• Discussionquestionsusedintheinternalinterviews/focusgroups


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’?]


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?


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]


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?


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?


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]

Documents

City of Guelph Operational Review Issues Scoping Reportguelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/OPReviewIssuesScopingReportG3Final.pdf · GLPi Issues Scoping Summary 3 Preface GLPi is pleased