Okay. Good afternoon or good morning everyone. I had to double check if we were morning or afternoon yet. Good morning everyone and welcome to the special council meeting on Monday, May 4th, 2026. Individuals interested in participating in today's meeting were eligible to register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation@kitchener.ca. Any written comments received prior to the commencement of today's meeting have been circulated to members of council and will form part of the public record. The meeting live stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watch.now. Before we begin this morning's meeting, I'd like to acknowledge that we're gathering today on the traditional territory of the neutral Anesnabi and Hodnosi peoples. We recognize our responsibility to serve as stewards for the land and honor the original caretakers who came before us. Our communities enriched by the enduring knowledge and deeprooted traditions of the diverse First Nations Matei and Inuit in Kitchener today. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest? There being none and there being no delegations, uh can someone move uh going in camera for the listed items? Moved by councelor Odoneyi, seconded by councelor Schneider. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. and uh motion to recess until uh 2 p.m. for a strategic uh planning session. Then moved by councelor uh stretch and seconded by counceloritis. All those in favor? Opposed? That's carried. May the 4th, 2026. Um this is always one of my favorite uh sessions in the in the four-year term of council. um when we uh start the work on the the next strategic plan for the municipality um that will take the city from 2027 through to 2030. And uh a lot of work has been done to get us to this point and today we'll be hearing from uh David KTO uh from Abacus Data. You've you've seen him on TV, you've seen him at FCM and now you've seen him here in the Kitchener Council Chamber. But before we do that, I will turn it over to Margaret Love to kick things off. Thank you, Margaret. >> Thank you, Mayor Verbanovich. And good afternoon, Mayor and members of council. Uh so we're here today as as Mayor Verbanovich shared to uh speak with you about the city's strategic plan process about setting priorities, goals, and actions that guide our progress as a city uh over the four-year term of council. And it's it's an established process to do this about to start this work about one year in advance. So um around spring we usually kick off with a statistically significant survey which is one of those earliest inputs into the strategic planning process. This session today is about giving council a clear overview of the planning process, our approach for the 2027 to 2030 strategic plan and sharing two of those early inputs that will help shape emerging priorities. Today is about grounding ourselves in what we've heard so far, including early signals from the community and through research and identifying where council wants deeper exploration as we shape the 2027 to 2030 plan. We're bringing early inputs, not conclusions, to highlight both strengths and emerging gaps for Kitchener. Your insights today will help shape the priorities that we explore more deeply in the coming months. By the end of this session, staff would like to identify which areas council feels require more analysis, engagement or refinement as we move into the next phases of our planning process. So, in terms of our planning approach, this plan will build on the 2023 to 2026 foundation and will continue advancing our shared long-term 20-year vision of building a city for everyone, where together we take care of the world around us and each other. We're applying a strategic foresight lens to anticipate future trends rather than only reacting to current pressures. We're also leveraging the 2025 midpoint check-in on our current strategic plan, which gave us a strong sense of what's working and where adjustments may be needed. The process involves comprehensive internal and external engagement and engagement with council and committees to inform both community voices or sorry informed by both community voices and expert guidance from academia, from consultants, and from other subject matter experts. Resulting in a forward-looking data-driven strategic planning process grounded in community and expert insights. So staff, as I mentioned, have gathered two early inputs. First, a statistically significant resident survey with 861 responses that David will uh explain and dive into here shortly. This gives us a reliable snapshot of community priorities. About two hours of the session today will be allocated to this uh first input. So about 60 minutes in terms of David's presentation with you and then another 60 minutes for dialogue and questions from uh council on the presentation. Second, insights from the city's voluntary local review on the UN sustainable development goals which helps us understand how local progress aligns with global benchmarks. And we have John Beiel here with us today from local futures at the University of Wateroo to share more about that a little bit later on. That will be about a 10-minute presentation followed by a 30-minute Q&A with council. Additional inputs are underway or upcoming and those are shown on the slide. They include things like engagement with a resident panel and advisory committees, community conversations led by organizations, street team intercept interviews, university research partnerships, youthled workshops as well as strategic foresight workshops. And those are just a few. So together, these create a rich evidence base that will continue to evolve over the coming months. Our engagement is intentionally sequenced so each activity builds on the last insights accumulate rather than repeat. We're working closely with Compass Kitchener to ensure we're aligned with community values and insights and to maintain maintain transparency throughout the process. A key principle for us is recognizing the community as context experts. They tell us what matters most and staff then act as validation and solution experts translating those insights into feasible impactful strategies. This is an iterative process that will go go around and around and ensure that the final plan is both communitydriven and operationally grounded. This fosters a transparent, iterative process where early insights evolve into draft priorities, goals, and ultimately actionable initiatives aligned with the city's long-term vision. So, here's what the process looks like at a high level. Today, of course, we're in the council strategy session. Later in May, we'll be engaging all committees through workshop. Broad public engagement begins in June and from about June till August, we will be identifying priorities and validating strategic goals with the community. We'll then return to council in August for another strategy session where we'll be presenting and sharing and getting your input on integrated insights from a variety of other inputs. across September and October, we'll shift into action identification and refining our strategic plan framework. So, how it's presented. In November, we're going to re-engage the community on some draft components for the strategic plan and also update council through a standing committee. And hopefully in early April or sorry, early April, early 2027 with a new council in place, staff will re-engage and then present the draft plan for final consideration. This timeline ensures the plan is shaped collaboratively, transparently, and with enough time for meaningful iteration. I'll now turn things over to my colleague Katie RieR, the project lead for the strategic plan to provide instructions to council. uh as part of this strategy session and to introduce our first presenter which is >> great. Thanks uh thanks very much Margaret and uh we'll turn it over to Katie. >> Thank you. Good afternoon everyone. We're excited to welcome David KTO to city hall today. David is the founder, chair, and CEO of Abacus Data. He holds a PhD in political science from the University of Calgary. He is a professor at Carlton University and serves as the official pollster for the Toronto Star. Today, David is here to walk us through our community survey results. As you listen, I encourage you to use the worksheet in front of you with the AB Abacus data logo in the top right hand corner to jot down notes and identify themes or areas that you'd like staff to explore further. It's my great pleasure to welcome David Keno. Thank you. Welcome David. Great to uh great to have you here and look forward to your presentation. >> Well, thank you chair, members of of council. Uh really great pleasure to be here in in Kitchener and thank you Katie for the introduction and looking forward to to taking you through um the the findings of our research and uh it's always a pleasure to come and and and dig deep in into the content and that's what we're going to do today. Okay, so we've got about an hour got if you've had a chance to look you there's a lot of detail in that report. Um and I'm going to take you through um the high level of that and then we'll have time for questions uh where we can dig deeper if if you'd like. Uh just quickly on what we did. Um so this was a survey that was conducted uh at the end of March. Uh we interviewed uh just over 860 uh residents over the age of 18 uh in the community. uh 532 were done by telephone with a live uh interviewer and then 329 were done online and so this hybrid model allows us to ensure we get a good representative sample dem uh geog geographic uh representation. Just keep in mind the timing of the survey. You'll note in the survey feelings towards road quality. This was done uh right at the tail end of the winter. Um and so that is something to keep in mind as as we go in. The other thing I always like to think about is, you know, what was the mood of the community at that moment. I think this was an extended winter. A lot of us, like me, were kind of grumpy. Um, so keep all of that in mind um as you go through this in terms of context, but this is a statistically significant um representative sample of of the community and uh I think gives us an opportunity with some confidence to talk about both how they're how community members are feeling today as well as how things have changed from uh previous survey that we compare. Uh we also um have three pieces of of of contrasting data to help shape the context. So uh we have the original survey done four years ago that we compared with uh it was done around the same period of time which gives us a nice uh comparison on on that. We have a survey that was done as part of our work with the Canadian uh Federation of Canadian Municipalities that was done uh in the fall of 2024. or it was a large national survey, but we were able to pull out a subsample of of Kitchener residents. And so we we referenced that in some of the comparisons. And then to give you a national comparison, uh about a week after we completed your survey, we did a national survey of 2,000 Canadian adults that gives us a sense of how is Kener comparing to both the population as a whole across the country, but also as as you note in the report, we break out uh those living in what we define as large cities, those with populations between 150 and 500,000. So that gives you a nice not a perfect comparison but a nice comparison to see how how uh residents in in your community compare with those across the Now before I get into the the specifics of of what we learned in this survey I always like to set the context to the broader picture. Um you all represent your constituents. You hear from them all the time. you have a good sense of of how they're feeling. To underscore the fact that the last 5 years have been a pretty remarkable period in our history uh is is really an understatement. I think what I have noticed particularly in the last 16 months has been a real shift in the mindset of the public regardless of what part of the country they live in regardless of their demographic or socioeconomic background. I call it the emergence of a mindset really built around procarity. And so to understand that, if you think about the period following the pandemic where we saw a rapid increase in inflation, interest rates, we saw what I described as a mindset built around scarcity. That or most people living in Kitchener, they felt the things they need in their life were harder to get, more expensive, and if they had them, they were worried they were going to lose them. Right? You had at the time, and we'll talk about this, rapid population growth. if you had it. We have generally speaking, although Kiter I think is is not like the national trend in terms of an aging population, nonetheless aging as a whole uh as well as a housing affordability challenge everywhere that created this mindset. Then in 2024, at the end of 2024, Donald Trump becomes president of the United States again. And when he's inaugurated in January, a few months later, this mindset starts to shift. And we we see the public move from a place where they're they're deeply uh angry in a way, frustrated with what they feel is like micro frictions in their life, their inability to kind of live the life that they want to a an emergence of external forces driven mainly by what's happening south of the border to uh start to really build a broad sense that uncertainty and instability are now the things that people worry about. And so what we see across the country is the public starting to not move away from those issues. And you'll see in this research, you know, cost of living, housing remain at the forefront of the concerns of of residents in this community. But it is way I'd qualitatively describe it. It's moved from a feeling of who's going to provide relief to me on these things to who's going to protect me from it getting worse. And this so this procarity mindset I think really shifts that. And so you see uh people moving not just away from uh you know their their day-to-day concerns those still exist but uh things start to feel less secure right so you have all of these forces of rising costs housing pressure now particularly in the last 12 to 18 months concerns around economic particularly job security these were not real concerns that most people had in the period after the pandemic and before that's because of tariffs that's because of increased inly the threat that people feel around AI, all of that uncertainty, recession, no recession, will I lose my job, will I not? All those things have have compounded to create this this underlying feeling. And so confidence in the future, will things be better? I think is something that a lot of people are now struggling to understand. And so that I think is a really big part of it. Now the other thing I highlight in this report is the difference between where you are in your life stage, right? And uh we look at it through four different lenses depending on how old you are and think of like the life cycle of somebody who's say in their early 20s going to you know UW versus somebody who's 65 and older. And I look at it from you know starting out and the fear of will I be able to achieve the future I hope for to this peak pressure group. Think of those older millennials, young Gen Xers who are asking, "Can I keep up?" They are, if you'll see in this report, they are the most um I would say anxious, worried about how this current context is affecting their lives. They're the most financially stretched. They maybe have overextended on their mortgage. They're feeling the pressure of interest rates potentially going up. Now again all of that is a factor compared to the 50 to 64 year old group which is I think a group that is generally speaking have something to lose and therefore they're asking how do I prevent that loss versus the 65 and older who while are on fixed incomes have much more structure and stability. So those four groups really uh stand out uh throughout this research and how they respond to questions on the performance of the city on where they would like to see things going forward. And so what I think it's important is we need to also think about what's the role of the city as you develop your strategic plan for for the three years following um as the new council takes uh place after the municipal elections is how can the city keep things stable, right? And and this is all coming after a period of intense growth in the city. Um and the results of of of how to create a sense of trust, create a sense of confidence in members of the community that the decisions being made around this table and with senior staff and the whole city uh team um are going to protect that future for them, right? Because that I think is is really what this mindset is creating. So I think that mindset's important understanding where we go. So let me take you through the the key findings from the research. Um the first is that I would say and having done research uh on a range of things in different parts of the country that I do think you are overperforming relative to other communities on delivering of most basic services. So whether it comes to uh access to to programs, whether it comes to specific programs themselves, uh family appeal, uh there's large large majorities of of community members who who feel uh good about how things are going in the city. But on confidence, and that is this the thing that I think people are missing is will these things continue? And it's not, I would say, fundamentally an indictment on the city. It's more of a question they're asking. what are you doing to ensure that the quality of life that I know I'm quite privileged maybe to have in this city is going to sustain itself going forward. So to me that is one of the big questions that comes out of this research is how do you do that? How do you signal that to the community that you have a plan um and have the tools necessary in order to do that? Now you can't on your own control what Donald Trump does. You can't on your own control global forces, but you can. I like to think of it like you are the shocks in the car, right? You can absorb the the shocks for people in their day-to-day lives. So, how do you do that effectively going forward? In terms of the issues, as I've alluded to, uh, affordability and housing, which are one and the same for many people, dominate public concerns, top of mind when we ask them in their surveys. And there are high expectations uh of for action are met with a lot of uncertainty uh around how to deliver and create confidence in that. Overall satisfaction with the city I would say is high at 70% especially when you compare uh how Canadians and other communities uh respond particularly on parks, fire, libraries and recreation. But we do see that satisfaction drops on housing and on roads. as I mentioned why that might be the case as a result of both the pressures of growth as well as just weather and and the time of year. Uh trust and satisfaction though are uneven uh with pressure strongest in midlife. So those folks that you know are the 30 to particularly the 30 to 49 year olds um we see a fairly large drop off on satisfaction towards uh the city overall um in in terms of their sense of it high much higher among those who are older and more established and have lived in the community uh longer um and it shows up in questions that you would be like well you know are we listening is the city transparent are you accountable I will note that we don't see high numbers of people disagreeing with these statements And I'll show that data in a minute, but there's not overwhelming confidence that people think it's happening. And that is, I think, an opportunity to um not just on how you communicate, but what are you signaling as you go through this process around developing your your next strategic plan. In terms of housing, um you can't build all the housing uh that's required. And most residents actually when we ask them what should the city do aren't kind of seeing you as the the sort of the where the buck stops, right? They actually want you to be engaging more with other levels of government. Do what you can on approvals, but for the most part, they view this as a three-level uh kind of um responsibility of all three levels of government. Uh economic priorities reflect a focus on stability over transformation. So when you have a public that is looking for reassurance as their fundamental goal, they are less inclined to take risks. Uh when uncertainty is the fundamental kind of uh mode in which they're understanding the world. Just like a business is less likely to take risks, maybe less like a a a city is less likely to take risks when we don't know what's coming down the the road. So too is the public in terms of what they're going to prioritize. So attracting employers, supporting small businesses get much higher uh preference than for example trying to increase tourism or or creating more innovation hubs within the community. A city that's known for its innovation um because of your connection with with your post-secary institutions and the tech sector more broadly uh despite that. Um and then connection is shaped more by access than by programming. So we did ask some questions around how connected do you feel to the community and what would uh deepen that connection going forward. Good news is you know eight and 10 uh residents say they feel safe in their neighborhoods. Um although few although only about one in four say very safe. So there is some again doubt that that exists that is not unique to Kitchener. I see it happening everywhere. this sense of uncertainty about what's happening driven partly by information, partly by um not knowing um whether their community will continue to be the the safe place that they thought it was going to be. As you might imagine, in an environment where affordability is a defining feature, still value perception on property taxes uh is split. Uh that we've seen an increase in those who give a fair or poor rating to that. And there's still a preference for holding the line on property taxes as much as as you possibly can. And I'll come back to that um in more depth in in a moment. Um, finally, I think, you know, most residents say they plan to stay in the community. There there's, you know, a small minority who are considering leaving driven primarily around affordability pressures, which you might expect given um how things have changed over the last number of of years. So, let's quickly look back to 2024 because I think there's some insights from that survey we did for for FCM that are worth setting again context. The first is when you look back to to to 2024 and again this is in a moment where the global environment hadn't fully uh exposed itself as a threat to people's well-being. When you compare how respondents in that survey uh in Kiter compared to those at the national level for the most part the patterns are the same. Cost of living housing at that time were the top two issues. As I said they remain the top two issues. Um, health care here in Kitner was slightly lower uh than than across the country, but for the most part the dynamics were the same. I I bring your eye to to the immigration number for for a minute. Back in 2024, one in four residents in in Kitchener said that immigration was one of the top issues facing their community. It was nine points higher than the rest of the country on average. And I think that's a reflection of the next data point which is around growth um and the the perceptions and I say perceptions on what growth has meant or what it meant at the time to people. And you'll see that across every dimension, whether we're talking about housing, homelessness, cost of living, traffic, public safety, majority or substantial majorities of residents in in in Kitchener and frankly across the country connected growth with a negative consequence on all of those things. In fact, when you looked at those who believed that their community was growing quickly and in Kiter, it was substantially higher uh than in the rest of the country, it was a negative frame. So, if you believed your community was growing quickly, you were less likely to think it was headed in the right direction. You were less likely to think things were going to get better, which is a flip on what we would normally think, right? Because you, I'm sure, love to send a message that people want to move to this community. We're growing. there's something we've got great here. And I had done some work, for example, in Sydney, Nova Scotia that was seeing thousands of people leave that community every year. They were on they were dying as a community. They turned it around because of immigration and then the public flipped and they went from saying we're now, you know, so that's the effect that growth has is it creates that particularly in a scarcity mindset that I think was largely there in 2024 and we saw that in that research. And so the result is when you think about infrastructure in particular, uh we find that you know vast majority of of uh community members uh both here in Kitchener and across the country see a connection between um the impact of municipal services and infrastructure on their quality of life whether that be housing affordability, quality of roads and highways, homelessness particularly here 13 points higher than in other parts of the country uh traffic and so on. So people do connect a in their minds a a correlation to speak between the quality of all of these things and the performance on on these measures and their overall quality of life. Now back in 2024 when we asked uh residents in when we looked at the Kitchener data in this data set where are the kind of pain points where are the the strengths uh you can see the patterns are similar to what they show up in the survey we just completed. So there was a lot of um friction I would say around housing around homelessness around um the drug use and addiction in the community. Crime uh at the time was was there's actually an elevated conversation at the time that has subsided I would say overall but when we asked people to rate the quality of life in Kitchener it was slightly higher than the national average at the time at 54% rating it as good not a lot of uh folks rating it as poor. And so this gives you a sense of where things were then. So I would say the the picture we had in the interim from your 2022 survey to today was residents still valued Kitchener's quality of life, but again growing pressures due to growth, on affordability, on infrastructure, and on capacity were already shaping, I think, expectations for what was coming next. Okay. And so that's where this current survey comes in. And we come at a time where yes, you have all these global uh threats and uncertainty at the same time that you still are dealing with the effects of that growth even as uh as our population as a whole has um maybe not here because people I think are still moving into your community but as a population as a whole we've actually seen a a drop. So life in Kitchener. So, we asked a bunch of uh what we like to say agree disagree statements. And you can see on on the right hand side of that chart the proportion who say they agree with these statements. I have good access to my daily activities. Uh Kitchener has a variety of programs and services for all ages. It's a great place to raise a family. 78% agree with that statement. Um, note the red, uh, you know, that there's a a neutral kind of category, which is basically people saying, "Look, I'm not willy ready to say,"I agree, but I'm not on the negative side either." Um, Kitchener enables a healthy and active lifestyle. Uh, three out of four agree with that statement, "I'm proud to live in this city." Look at the the dark green really grow up to 42%. So, there is a pride uh that exists that's fairly more intense, but you'll note some of the distinctions here, right? that 35 to 49 year old group that drops to 63. That's an indicator of the friction they're feeling, right? That it's hard to be proud of the place you live when you think of there's constant obstacles in your way to achieve the life that you want. And I'm not saying the city is creating those obstacles, but you are the thing that that um they hope can help remove them as much as possible. Um the one area where I would just point to you is the one at the bottom there. Kitchener is planning effectively for the future and this is a challenge that every community that's rapidly grown over the last number of years has is now experiencing in my view is that while most people agree that you are there is a subset who say I don't think you are and the reason is I don't think you are is because look at the growth we've had and now I'm feeling the consequences you clearly didn't plan in the first place perception I'm not saying that's what actually happened but that perception I think exists with with close to one in four uh residents in the community today. Now, when you ask unprompted, what is the most important issue facing Kitchener today? Um, and you ask them to select one from this list, you can see at the top it's cost of living and housing. Basically, um, you've got close to, uh, you know, just over two, almost two and three uh, residents putting one of those two as their top issue. Uh, local economy and jobs, growth and safety round out the top five. But overwhelmingly when you compare it to 2022 which is a slightly different list um because inflation really hadn't started yet if you think about 2022 was we're coming out of the pandemic. Um and so we really didn't get into that kind of crisis mentality around the cost of living until a few months after your 2022 survey. Um today it's still here. And when you compare that to the national numbers, you'll note that the cost of living in in those living in other large cities is much higher. Um, but housing is much lower. And so, like other communities in southern Ontario, housing remains something that's very much uh in focus. I can speak to I live in Ottawa. The you know, in Ottawa, the same kinds of dynamics exist where these two issues uh remain high top of mind. Um, explain one thing the city can do to address this. And this uh respondents had an open answer. They we didn't prompt them. And you could see then uh where responses fall. They want you to more affordable housing supply. We want to keep taxes low and then create more local jobs. So you can see the dynamics particularly with those three of how these issues now connect to to what people want to see. another 6% say reduce cost of living and everyday expenses, strengthen rental regulations, and expand police and bylaw enforcement. So those are the ones in which you get 6% or more. Um and then there's 19% who are actually uncertain on what role the city can play to help alleviate those. And so that remains um an opportunity again to connect back with residents and and let them know how you're you're handling that. Um in terms of performance of city services, municipal services, these are the items I would say that right now overindex on the high side. Uh you beat national averages well above. So so these are the areas where Kitchener is overperforming. uh parks and wreck, um fire services, libraries, special events and festivals, active transportation. In all cases, you've got large numbers saying, "Look, I'm at least somewhat satisfied." In some cases, like libraries and fire services, you've got half saying, "I'm really satisfied." Um so these are the areas where the expectation is continue to deliver what I think you've been doing a good job on. Uh the next set are areas where we either have mixed views, so public engagement opportunities. Again, it's not that people are dis thinking you're doing they're dissatisfied. They may not even know of what opportunities are there. So, I would look at that yellow bar as a mix of between I'm not sure how to rate the city or um it's maybe not that important to me and so I don't know where I would would answer it. And those two show up on development services and public engagement in particular. People didn't really understand I think um a lot of what we meant particularly on the development side. Um, three areas where I would say the red gets a little elevated, traffic management and congestion, affordable housing, and then there's your road maintenance number with quite a number of people saying they're very dissatisfied by that. So, in March, this was probably something you were hearing about from your residents if you were out knocking on doors or having community meetings. And so, it shows up, I hope, uh, here as well in the survey. But overall um 70% of residents say they are satisfied um with municipal services. Note we can't compare this question specifically with the previous survey because uh we didn't have a neutral uh bar last time. But note the really big gap between those 65 and older where you have 81% uh satisfaction compared to those 35 to 49 which is uh almost 30 points below that. So that shows you really the the wide gap between those two cohorts, but compared to the national average or other large cities, again, Kiter outperforming uh what we see across the country. And so that uh uh uh something to take into account and only 4% say they're very dissatisfied uh with the services they're receiving from the city. So digging then into uh specifics on housing, uh we asked one question here when it comes to how the city should focus over the next four years on this question and we replicated a question that was asked in 2022. Um not a lot of difference. The this the overall direction of response is is pretty much the same. uh working with other levels of government to secure funding for affordable housing options and advocating with other levels of governments to fund uh for funding and programs to end homelessness were the top two. Those were the top two in 2022, although reversed in in the order um with less emphasis placed on, you know, speeding up approvals or putting policies in place uh and improving development applications to encourage a more diverse range of housing options. This is the um I'm going to call it the um the contradiction sometimes on the housing question. Uh is that on the one hand, you know, people want more affordable options, but on the other they're now a little resistant to growth because you've experienced so much. And so you can see that show up where approval speeds of approval are at the bottom. Even as builders and the development community will say that's one of our biggest barriers, you all know that that's a constant. Um and so people are inclined to say, you know, let's just get some money flowing. Um and and not necessarily looking to the city as a as as the primary um uh cause of of some of the challenges on economic development. We asked uh respondents which areas of the economy should the city prioritize over the next four years and we gave them a list and said click two. What you see here is again what I mentioned in my opening uh take through the the executive summary is that attracting employers and small business support are one and two followed by promoting skills training. So what you see less of is one enhancing tourism. Um two doesn't mean people don't think tourism is important by the way but it means that if you're forced them to choose they're much more inclined to be thinking about how do we protect ourselves from what we feel are going to be real headwinds coming down the pipe. Uh whether that be because of trade disputes with the United States, whether it be because of a bunch of economic factors. And so thinking about how uh your your strategic plan speaks to the economic development uh work that the city does especially on these kind of areas I think becomes important to connecting people uh and understanding where their heads are at on that. When it comes to community connection and belonging, we asked um how important are a number of things to um how important is it the city offer recreation and leisure programs that support the following. And you can see across the board uh large proportions of of community members, in some cases higher than in 2022, in some cases a little bit lower, but I would say more in line with what we saw four years ago. uh mental health and well-being, physical health and fitness, resilience and life skills, uh support for vulnerable populations is down, but still, you know, you still get a large majority saying that should that is an important focus. Uh with sense of belonging and connection slightly lower down on the list, but for the most part, I would say most residents uh believe that um there's a role to play for your recreation and leisure programs on on achieving all of these things. And so that remains I think something that they continue to see. Uh when it comes to creating more connection between community members, we asked you know how what should the city prioritize and the two that clearly emerge is remove financial barriers for residents to participate in these programs and then improving the public spaces that encourages that social interaction. Uh there's less interest although still I would say one in four focus on this on volunteer opportunities or grants for residentled neighborhood projects. It's create the space for us to connect and remove the barriers for us to take part in these programs. And that aligns, I think, with with that mentality around affordability that we continue to see. In terms of safety, um 79% of residents describe uh how feel how safe they feel as at least somewhat safe. Uh 20% describe it as unsafe or at least somewhat unsafe with only 4% saying very unsafe. That's more or less in line with the national average. slightly lower than the national average, but in line with other large communities. So, I don't think there's any clear indication that um folks in in your community are are are viewing or perceiving safety as anything different. Um and among those who feel safe, and we asked a follow-up open-ended, what makes you feel that way? So, those who say they feel safe, um they think that they have supportive neighbors. So here's the connection with actually knowing neighbors, having a sense of community helps to reinforce that sense of safety. Um, low crime builds the confidence that they have. They don't see it. They don't believe it's happening. And then you have things like the physical design of the community they live in, the traffic and street atmosphere, all contributing to a positive sense around safety. Um, on the other side, which is often the case, uh, one in four point to a lack of police presence, uh, as a result of feeling unsafe, um, as well as, and I know this has been an issue in your community, homeless encampments and street presence feeling unsafe as well. So, the visual manifestation of of this contributes to that feeling of of of safety, even if it may not be directly in their neighborhood, it it's it's they community members often make the connection between those those things. So, this gives you a good sense of of what's driving those perceptions of of safety. Um, and not in terms of uh taxes and tradeoffs and value. Uh, when we ask community members, do they think they're getting good value for the taxes they pay uh to the city of Kitchener? Um, here you have a I would say a split decision. Um, the good news is only one in five say poor. Um, but we've seen a decline in those pointing to either a very good or good sense of value uh from 2022. Not surprising, I think, given what you've seen in other parts of this report, those over 65 are substantially more likely to to perceive there's value. Uh, but when you compare yourself to the national average or other large cities, Kitchener still is outperforming other communities and there's a sense of value there even as those numbers have have declined since 2022. And keep in mind with the context again, your 2022 survey was done before cost of living was kind of the crisis that many people uh continue to believe it is. And so that sense of value will matter more when people feel that the competition for those dollars is greater. And I think that explains a lot of that decline. Not necessarily a actual material change in your ability to deliver, but a perceptual difference on on the value of that dollar. Um when we ask a question we asked that was asked in 2022 around how to balance services and taxation. Uh here you get um a plurality not not a majority saying please maintain taxes and and possibly cut services if needed. That's up seven points from where it was in 2022. In contrast, the remaining uh proportion go to either increase taxes at inflation to maintain services uh or increase taxes to expand or improve services. So you there isn't I would say a consensus in the community on the best approach when it comes to taxing taxes and services. Uh but I would say the inclination by more is to see as little taxes as raised as possible if you combine the first two categories there which was the view back in 2022. although I think it's become somewhat more intense as a result of the current situation. Um when we ask about responsibility to pay uh again a question that was fielded in 2022 where does the where does responsibility lie in in how do you fund city services the user or the general tax payer base? Uh here we've seen a shift. So in 2022 it was 53 you know city services should be paid for by everyone. A third said it should be users. That's um flipped a little bit. We're now close to a split. 40% say uh user fees should drive primarily service uh costs compared to a third that say city services. There is a larger group who say depends uh than we found in than was found in 2022. And so again there's some flexibility on how you take that. But it does show again the evolution on on and the the sensitivity around broad-based tax increases uh as demand uh might require. Uh on sustainability uh we asked uh some questions that I think uh remain important even if they aren't front and center to as many people given the context. the perceived risk of climate change uh twothirds and this I would by the way add to the procarity mindset is the climate question itself even if it's less uh in people's uh front uh rear front window at the moment they still are recognizing that there this is still an issue that's going to potentially affect their quality of life uh today and in the future and so twothirds continue to believe that there's at least a moderate risk uh to themselves and the people they care about um you know we don't see a lot of variation here by age although again that middle age that 35 to 49 slightly less more likely to say it's not a risk. Uh but that's still a minority view even among that group. Um and so the vast majority of of residents continue to think that climate change is going to continue to be a risk for them. And so when we ask them you know what should the city do to tackle this? I unfortunately don't have a very clear answer. responses are divided between reduce carbon emissions, increase habitat diversity in natural areas and reduce risk from natural events like flooding and power outages caused by uh ice uh or wind. So mitigate versus uh help actually uh do our part to drive this down. And so you you have some flexibility I would say on on that question um because there's no one clear answer coming from from the research. Uh lastly, I think on on the question of of then trust, accountability and engagement. Um so this instead of asking about city services, we then asked a question of okay in general then um are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the municipal government at in the city of Kitchener? And if you keep in mind that 70% were generally satisfied with overall services, there is a little bit of a gap here when it comes to the city as a whole, but it's not driven by uh again a lot of negative as much as more in the neutral side. Right? So 51% uh are satisfied. That's higher than significantly higher in some cases than other uh Canadians in large cities. um and a one in5 report being somewhat or very dissatisfied uh with with the municipality as a whole. Um and so I think here again you see there is some friction in the community but this neutral group I think is the really interesting one. It's the one that I think is now not ready to sort of give you bad marks but they aren't convinced that you deserve good marks and I think that is the uncertainty factor playing into this. uh and it shows up in other data points, right? When you ask people, do you agree or disagree on how the city manages its relationship with the community um you know about the same proportion although slightly higher agree that residents have meaningful opportunities to provide input? I trust the city government making decisions in the best interest of the community. The city listens to residents council and administration are accountable. Again, you you have far more inclined to say I agree than disagree, but there's still a lot in the middle who are saying I neither dis agree or disagree with that. And on these measures, you're actually in line um slightly higher in some cases, but more or less in line with the national average. Right? So, keep in mind these surveys were independent of each other and we're still getting fairly close numbers. So it shows that this is a problem all governments are facing. Um where trust has declined, where information is fragmented. U even if you're outperforming on services in large areas, there's still going to be some doubt about your ability to deliver and protect people going forward. That is nothing really to do, I think, honestly, with individual decisions you're making, but is the general sense of of how people are feeling. Um, in terms of the outlook, um, on this front, we generally see some positive outlook. I think one of the dynamics that we've seen at the national level, I I I think is important to note is I think Canadians generally have a a very much a split brain right now. On the one hand, they look around the world and they say it's a mess and it's uncertain, but they're increasingly feeling optimistic about Canada. And I think that plays into this these results around, you know, what happens uh about the future. So, you've got, you know, super majorities of folks in the community saying, "We create an economically thriving city by growing a diverse economy with opportunities for workers, uh, businesses, artists, and entrepreneurs." Uh, we steward a better city together by providing responsive, innovative, and accountable local government that serves residents well. We build a connected city where people have secure, affordable homes and can move around the city. all of these kind of missions, visions, you find very broad support and agreement for. So that shows you no matter how you're kind of framing what it is you're trying to achieve, you can find, you know, pretty close to consensus in some cases and if not some opportunity to persuade and bring people along. We don't see a lot of people disagreeing with these fundamental kind of statements about the future of of the community. At the same time, back to my point about optimism, when you ask folks, do you think the city's head in the right direction or on the wrong track? 52. Slight majority say right track. That's down slightly from 2022, about nine points, but higher than it was in 2024. That's this flip that we've seen and significantly higher than Canadians in other parts of the country. So, I would say that's a really positive number, right? If you ask Canadians, do they think the country's head in the right direction? That number is around 40% today. We just did a survey in Ontario. Uh do you think the province is heading in the right direction? That's at 32. So on every comparable measure at every level, whether you think globally, nationally, provinially, city residents are feeling more optimistic about uh where Kitchener is going. And I think that is is something for you to to build off of and take that optimism and try to drive that forward. What's driving people who think things are on the right track? Well, general satisfaction, strong future planning and growth vision. So, that's a really important takeaway. This was an open-ended response. And the point here is that when people believe you have a vision and a plan to to to manage growth, to deal with it, to embrace it, they then feel better about the future. And so, you see the direct connection between uh those two perceptions. Those who are in, you know, believe there's good resident engagement and openness are more inclined to think the city's headed in the right direction. So it's like it's a per this is like my favorite chart actually in the whole report because it shows you what happens when people feel one way. They then feel optimistic because they have a sense of where we're going. And I think the biggest lesson I've learned over the last year about what's missing in people's lives is a sense of agency. Is a sense that they have some control over what's going on because everything that they now feel threatened by is outside of their control. It's from Washington. It's global. It's you know what's going on in Iran. All those things uh have meant that anytime you give people that sense of control, they're going to feel more optimistic about the future. For those who think things are headed in the wrong track, it's much more about accountability on spending. Those are people feeling the pressure particularly and asking the question on value for tax uh money and it's almost the mere opposite. So lack of responsiveness, inadequate growth and infrastructure planning uh and concerns about road infrastructure and traffic management. So you really see the divide on that sense of do I feel that the city has a plan to manage the growth and the uncertainty versus those who don't. It divides almost perfectly between right track and and wrong track. And so it really gives you a sense of um I think as you start this process for strategic planning where where things go. Uh a key question are you planning to stay or or go? Vast majority say they're staying. 16% don't think they plan on living in in Kitner. Uh we dug in to try and understand what might be driving it. Um those who plan on moving away are pointing to prospects for job and career, uh a a desire for a different lifestyle, and then some point to overcrowding and traffic frustration. So it's a mix of my life's changing. I'm going to go look for another opportunity. And so the one that I think is particularly worrisome is that sense of growth and and cost being the driver pushing people out. Those staying, it's about good fit and good cross uh economic prospects, deep roots and um you know those who say there's high living costs, they they they find themselves on both sides. Um it's not yet pushing those planning to stay. So to wrap up then um I think the 2024 pressures we measured in that FCM survey carry into 2026 but have become much more pronounced. Affordability and growth are now shaping I think how residents judge the city. Even if that growth might be less ambitious and and and uh intense than it maybe was in the previous four years. The legacy of that continues to be something that people are understanding. Um, and the widening gap between a a sense of strong services today and confidence they'll be there when I need them in the future is the gap that I think I would recommend um this strategic plan starts to understand how do we close that gives people confidence about the future. And so I'll stop there. I mean I'm I'm sure this will come up in our questions but I think I look at this data and I think that there's a lot of strength in the community. there's a a community that's proud to live here, thinks the city uh is largely headed in the right direction, has appointed to a number of points of friction. Um but compared to the rest of the country, um you're you're certainly overperforming on many areas and I think that's a really strong foundation to build uh as you go forward. So um with that, it's not about service per se. It's much more about confidence. And so this process is about I think building that for the community. So, I'll uh chair I'll stop there and look forward to your questions. Thank you so much. >> Wonderful. Well, uh thank you very much uh David for a very thorough um presentation. I'm sure there's lots of lots of questions and comments. Um but I think there's a a piece before we get there. So, uh Katie, do you want to >> Yeah, thanks very much. Thank you again, David. You walked us through a lot of data there and made it very clear and meaningful. So, we appreciate your insights. Before council moves into a discussion, I'd like to welcome James Young, who's the vice chair of Compass Kitchener, to the podium. So, last week, Compass Kitchener was able to review the community survey results, and James is here today to represent the group and provide some reflections on their discussion. Thanks, James. >> Wonderful. Welcome, uh, James. And I think this is your first time in the council chamber. Yes. So uh great to great to have you here representing uh u compass Kitchener and uh and all the the great work that the committee does. So over to you. >> Yeah. I think I was told I had five minutes. Probably can do it in three. So be quick. Uh and mostly it's going to be about underlining what Mr. KTO just re uh reiterating what Mr. Cleto just said. Um but first off it's a pleasure to be here representing Compass Kitchener. Uh, as you know, oh, I'm in charge of the slides there, Compass Kitchener, me the the first ones. Uh, yeah. So, as many of you will know, we've been here for I think it's probably two and a half uh decades now. Uh, we do a lot of things. What's relevant to today is that we kind of provide the lens into the community. um a check-in, a bit of a touch point on what the city's doing on behalf of the Kitchener residents. Uh two caveats as we go into our initial insights and and I'd draw your attention to initial as being an important point. So, as Katie mentioned, we saw this data last week. Uh so, these are new for us. Um but I would express that the committee was very happy to say that they they want to engage further uh as we get a chance to digest this data a little bit more and in future opportunities as we go deeper but I will share what the those initial insights are. So like uh Mr. CLT said, um, we weren't sure that this is a good news story, but we were pretty confident it's not a bad news story for for the city. Um, comparing to the national data to large city data, it looks pretty good. However, there are some things in here that obviously need to be addressed and understood to a deeper to a deeper level. Point two, the committee wasn't surprised by the results and I'll draw your attention to slide 30 uh really about the affordability. Uh and I think you use the procarity word um scarcity procarity uh that wasn't surprising to the committee that is sort of what people were feeling uh across the country across in the province in the region in the in Kitchener. uh and we don't think Kitchener is immune to that. So it wasn't surprising to the committee. Um if we go to slide 14, oh excuse me, I keep trying to go ahead slides. Uh we were interested though like Mr. Cleto also alerted you to the responses by age strata. Um we're interested in the role that different ages play across all of those questions. I'll alert you to our main um our main concern on the final point which is now if you go to slide 46 or 47 that's really about the taxes, the user fees, the service levels. Um the committee noted that there was a relative split between those who support honestly between higher and lower taxes, increased user fees and increased and decreased service levels. That's I think surprising to the committee. Uh I think it's pretty well known that if you were to ask people what they want, they will invariably answer uh more services, less taxes. Uh which as any normal person should answer, but um that's not what we're seeing on on those slides there. So Compass Kitchener wanted to make it known that there's more to know there. We would like to look under the hood of what's under that data um to understand the context, the complexity, the the qualitative stories, basically where people's heads at were heads were at when they were answering those questions because we're certain that um there's some confusion around what's jurisdiction of the city versus the region versus the province, but also relating it back to affordability, cost of living and the H strata and all of those things how they interwine interact. Um but so that was kind of where the bulk of the conversation was at I would say. Uh and I guess with that I I I can wrap up but finally I would reiterate that these were initial insights and Compass Kitchener is very happy to be engaged engaged in the future engagement around what to do with uh going forward. Thank you. >> Awesome. Thank you very much, James. And just on behalf of council, please pass on our thanks to uh to the committee. As you've pointed out, it's been around for uh more than a quarter of a decade now. And and it is one of the things that's unique to the city of Kitchener. Um and uh one of the things that I, you know, I often talk about um when I I talk to colleagues in other parts of the country, the fact that we actually have a citizens committee doing this work. um sort of ranking council um on a on a regular basis and and really being supportive of us and so thank you to you and everyone who's been part of that. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so Margaret or Katie, am I opening the floor now to questions? Okay, we'll uh we'll now open the floor then um to questions. Uh, sorry. Um, and I have a whole slew of people uh in the uh in the queue. And uh I guess we'll um I'm thinking what I'm going to do is turn on David, Katie, and Margaret. depending on who I'm going to have all three of your mics on um on an ongoing basis and we'll just go through the counselors and go from there unless we get some feedback. Uh so councelor Johnson you're first up. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor and uh my question is for my questions are for David and David thank you so much for this presentation. I love data. I um this it's very exciting to uh to see all these. So, I'm I'm wondering um how did you or were you able to separate the answers that you received between how people might feel about something about the region and how they feel about the city of Kitchener >> and in particular things like overall satisfaction in the community or trust in the community. That one really resonated with me. >> Well, well, Mr. uh chair to to you the member. Um that's a really good question and we did not really distinguish I mean we we really focused in on using the word city throughout the the survey made it very clear we were talking about city of Kitchener and not you know waterl region. So I would say I don't have a great answer for you other than it's probably mixed in there um and sometimes hard for a resident to distinguish between what is a regional you know responsibility and service versus what's something that's delivered by the city. Um, but I would say it's it's it's in there, but hard to really disentangle unless we made it part of the survey, which it wasn't. >> Yeah. And thanks for that, David. Um, many people have a problem figuring out what the city does in terms of things like affordable housing. That is the region's perview and uh and not ours. So, I think it does it does get confusing. So, thank you for that. I was wondering as well um and it was something uh that um James had brought up as well uh the the question or the answer around maintaining taxes and possibly cutting services. You didn't have an age difference on that one and I'm wondering if there was a big age difference there because I'm thinking that there might be or may you might not have the data for that. >> Well, thank you. Uh we do I do have the data and interestingly there wasn't a a large age divide there. Um younger residents were more inclined or slightly more inclined to want not want to see taxes raised at all. Um >> and that's I think it's it's a strong correlation between like is cost of living and housing costs >> higher up on your agenda? um those over 65 more open to seeing an inflationary increase in taxes as long to help maintain services, but it wasn't it wasn't any directional difference between your age and how you answered that question. >> That's interesting. And James, like you, I'd like to see a deeper dive into that one. I think that was that one in particular is something that um we can uh we can be looking further further in on. Um yeah and you know what I think that is uh all of my questions. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thanks uh councelor Johnson and and David just from a context perspective to councelor Johnson's first question probably around the time of the survey. There were significant um there was significant discussion and debate going on in the community around both changes in waste collection methodology um as well as um a uh water scarcity um or supply issue that the region is dealing with um and that you know we suspect may have uh shaped some of the uh the responses that we're seeing. >> Uh councelor Oduni you're up next. Sorry. Uh no worries at all. Thank you, chair. Thank you so much for your uh presentation, David. I do have uh just two questions. Um there was one I don't remember what slide it was where it talked about some of the concerns that people had and uh one of uh the line items was bylaw enforcement. I don't know if anyone can recall that slide. Could you just dive deeper into that? Is it bylaw is not responding on time? Is it uh was there a follow-up question to just get a better answer so we can understand and we can if needed take action on something like that. >> I am looking for the slide. >> I'm sorry I didn't pick up the slide number. So that just to just to clarify for for council, thank you chair 3D the member. Um when we asked you know are you satisfied or dissatisfied with bylaw enforcement you had about one in five saying dissatisfied on that. I mean we didn't >> one of the limits of survey research is you don't have the ability to on every question follow up and say well what do you mean by that and can you give me an example? Um, but I would say it's an area where, you know, uh, there is a higher level of of I would say dissatisfaction, but I'm not I can't speak to what or why. Uh, it's it's it's part of it. >> Um, other than, you know, it it may be tied to some of the other issues that people perceive and therefore they they don't think the bylaws are being enforced if they perceive these other issues might be existing. >> Okay. I had a chance to sit in Compass Kitchener's uh meeting on was it on Friday? I don't remember what day it was, but uh my first time ever. And I do recall that one of the things that was mentioned was for some of the questions there was an opportunity on the internet, correct me if I'm wrong, where a follow-up question could be asked. So, if possible in the future, um, if we can be able to ask those follow-up questions so that we get a better understanding, um, cuz right now for something like that. Okay, I understand 25% people are not happy with by law enforcement, but I wouldn't be able to follow I want to know what to do with that information because I don't know what in particular that they're not happy about. Is it that they're not responding within 48 hours? Are they not going with police? are they not responding at all? So it's just something that we can think about for the future. And then this is more a philosophical question but uh you had talked about and I think we all know it. It seems when growth happens in any particular city uh there seems to be discontent with people that have lived there for quite some time. And I was wondering is there any case study of any city in North America where growth happened and people were okay with it and what did the city or what did the local government municipality do to be able to work with them? Do you have any kind of information research on anything like that at all or is it just consistent with when there is growth the community is not comfortable with it? It's a chair to duty member. It's a good question. I don't have off the top of my head examples where I could point to. I think what I the way I would answer that though is you know most communities in Canada have been growing for our entire history. And so the question is at what point does the public think that that growth is unsustainable? What is the trigger? Again, I live in the world of perception. I always say not reality. And so what do people think is happening and why it's happening matters as much as whether it is or not. And I think in the case of the last number of years, the perception has been in many communities across the country that growth has been so much that the capacity of the system to with withhold it to to take it didn't match it. Right? And I think so I I don't think growth is is inherently a negative. Uh in fact, I think if if communities are shrinking, that's worse and people then view that as a real threat. So the question is at what point do people feel that the growth is sustainable? And I think in Kitchener as well as many other communities across the country, we got to a point where people felt that that growth wasn't sustainable, that they felt it was contributing to the frictions they were feeling in their lives, even if they may not actually be. >> So I I can't speak to a a community that's had like, you know, crazy big growth and has found a way to bring the public with them. Um, but I suspect it's it's it's rare to find because it is one of those threats that people will perceive, especially again at a time if to keep in mind not only were we growing rapidly, but the cost of everything was going up rapidly. So, you had this like accelerant of conditions that made people then feel uh they couldn't get access to the things they needed. >> Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Council Adoney. Before I go to the next person in the queue, I I'll just um you know, one of the things, David, that um sort of caught my eye and it came up um in the uh question around bylaw is, if I recall correctly, previous um and and I get, you know, different companies sort of have different uh approaches. Um but if I recall correctly, previously we didn't have a neither satisfied nor dissatisfied option. we kind of force people either into one group or another. Um, and we see that either in those questions or also in the ones where neutral kind of became a a position. And I'm wondering if you can just >> sort of tell us or you know why we why you take that approach and how that may impact sort of where people land on on those issues. >> Yeah, we're going to get in thanks chair into some methodology. I love it. Um, it was a choice we made. I think it it's it's our approach as a firm to recognize that if you sometimes force people into choosing a side, they may go with an inclination, but it may not be informed on something they really feel. And so I'm always someone who likes to create a middle space for respondents and it's not necessarily tied driven by in part they may not fully know an answer uh and two they may you know and if you look at where we see a higher inclination of people to say neither it's in my view likely because they don't know um or have a clear sense of what the city might be doing. So public engagement opportunities for example uh you have a high level of people saying neither you know positive satisfied nor or not satisfied and that's likely because they probably don't know what those opportunities are in the overall question. I think it gives my view is it gives us a better read on on a group that aren't ready to give you negative scores but aren't inclined to say I think you deserve positive ones. I just think it's a a more nuanced way. Um, it's less clean on a on a simple way, but I think it's it's more instructive in my mind. And so I I prefer using those kinds of scales than than just a four-point scale that forces someone into a positive or negative. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, Councelor Singh, you're up next. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I'm going to be very quick with some of the questions. So, kind of a rapid fire and no preamles. And if you knew me a little bit, I I love preamles. So if you can be just you know quick as you can with the uh the response as well. So when challenged with uh perception um like how can we demonstrate measurable progress on affordability like we're really fighting perception as well and it's part of our challenge. >> If I had the answer to that sorry chair if I had the answer to that um yeah I could be a very very wealthy man because I think it's the challenge that everybody faces. every level of government is is struggling to demonstrate it. I think the easiest way to be frank counselor is to signal a motivation to constrain um your your need to ask for more from residents. It doesn't mean you don't or you can't uh because growth happens and inflation affects the city's budget as much as the household's budget. But I think it's the the the belief that you are doing all that you can right to to limit what you're asking of residents in this moment is the first step in in achieving that. >> Okay. >> But there are I mean but there are very few actual tools. I'm not a policy expert so I'm not going to step into a domain I don't know well. >> Yeah. I think I should have uh prefaced that not necessarily asking for the solution which I would have loved if you had a solution but more so how much is the data skewed because of that. Can you just restate >> like you know we're fighting against you know they when residents say that they have you know issues regarding affordability and um even though cost of living related to housing has significantly come down over the last 2 to 3 years almost up to 30%. But that still continues to drive the narrative of affordability and that's sometimes more of perception when you're talking about a national and global issues. So how much is that data sket set is skewed based on perception as to the reality of it. >> So everything in this survey is perception. >> Mhm. >> Everything. Um and I don't think there's a frankly I don't think there's a difference between it the reality and the perception. Right. Um I know I'm on on the record here. I think the tagline by one of our major banks telling people that they're richer than they think is not a good strategy when people think the opposite um at every given time. Right. >> So we should go with you're more satisfied than you think. Okay, fair enough. >> Yeah. Right. Uh everything's greater than you think it is. I So that's would be my my answer. It's it is this perception is baked in and I don't think people feel that they've caught up even if prices have either flattened or in some cases come down they don't believe they are getting their heads above water yet. >> Okay. The other question is um when asking again and that kind of related to the perception as well uh we're asking affordability and trust and accountability uh we are in a two-tier uh government. We have the region and we have the city as well. uh in the last few years I think post pandemic uh the region has had significant struggles related to uh budgets towards the police uh water related issues um as well as growth transportation and they've raised taxes significantly in many cases over the last 3 years double than what the city of Kitchener has done. >> How much are we wearing that >> and is there any pre-qualifying question as we ask residents chair to the member. It's a great question. I would say I can't answer that accurately. I I don't know how much you're wearing it to use your own term there. I think you just assume it's it's embedded in there in the same way that you know uh some people may not understand the difference between a federal or provincial tax that they pay, but they just feel that it it's becoming unsustainable. So, it's it is I think the context by which you're going to be having to develop this strategy and the way that you communicate with with the community because it's likely informing that choice. >> Okay. Did did we ask when it related to growth? I mean, our community did face significant growth and not a lot of all of it was related to immigration for permanent residents into our community. much of that was transient and more migration related to international students that may not intend to stay after their completion of studies and that's shifted, you know, quite a bit over just the last year. Uh, did people specify any difference in follow-up answers or was there any any capturing of that? >> Um, all of the questions on growth weren't in in the survey that we did for for the city of Kitchener. Those were from the the research we did with with FCM. So at the time we didn't we we didn't dig deeper into to that other than the perception of growth. >> Okay. This is related to that first question I started off with and if it's too large of an answer it's okay then I I'll try to maybe key back in. Which finding out of most of what you presented should council treat as statistically significant shift versus more of a directional shift? >> I'll leave it at that. Thank you. >> Yeah it's a very good question. We highlighted I would say some of the the the changes I highlighted I would say are are statistically significant right in a survey of this size compared to the one that was done in 2022 if you see a change of four to five points that's statistically significant now does it mean it's directionally different I think to your question um I would say that there's nothing in this survey that that signals to me anything that I wouldn't have expected given the context in which it was done and the environment in which your residents are are managing their day-to-day lives. Right? It's not surprising to me that fewer residents feel the city's headed in the right direction today than they did right after the pandemic at a time when they were like almost relieved that we weren't really in that anymore. So, the the comparator is a challenging one because that 2022 survey was just before the inflation crisis and just after this fairly traumatic moment that that everybody lived through. Um, and so I look at the I I would say look at the comparator with the rest of the country as a better judge about how Kitchener is doing relative to let's say other communities your size and on almost every measure those numbers are better here um despite I would say you've faced as many challenges as those communities faced with growth with economic uncertainty um and being so close to the city of Toronto that is putting those kind of housing pressures on you unlike some of the others in the in in the country. >> Thank you, uh, councelor Singh. Next up, I have councelor Deno. >> Thank you, Mayor Fanovich. And, uh, thank you, David, for for coming in today, um, and everybody actually for for working on this. And so, um, my my first question is, is there any methodology to figure out like the percentage of respondents who are not happy with anything? >> Yeah. Like I'm being I'm being you know it's a cynical but I'm being honest though too, right? Sorry to interrupt you. Yes, that's a good question. We could do that. I would say and in all my work there's probably five to 6% of people who are generally unhappy with everything. That's their natural inclination. It's not to say that they aren't nice people. They're just their state of mind is to be a little bit more discerning, I would say. Um, so that shows up in all of our research and you should keep that in mind that there you could have like a perfect game and there would be somebody who says ah your arm using a baseball analogy you're you know your arm angle on that pitch was a little off and you can improve it for next time. Right. >> Awesome. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. Um and so of the 861 residents that were um approached, is it random or targeted? So in terms of our sampling, so for the telephone portion of the survey, it was a a random sample. Okay. Um the online portion, we have access to a panel of approximately half a million Canadians that we would then what we call screen them to being residents of of Kitchener and then pull um somewhat of a random sample out of that. So we take those two very different methodologies. That's why it's hybrid. And we think it helps solve for um some of the weaknesses of both to create a much better uh I think sample overall. >> Okay. And so I obviously it's broken down by ages um and sex as well and ethnic. Uh >> yeah, we we've we've been able Yeah. In the detailed report, we break it out by how long you've lived in the community, your identity, um both like cultural and background as well as as gender, um income, so your your household income. So, we have a a range of variables that >> okay, >> city staff and council have access to looking at differences across those >> education like employment status, sorry, renters versus renters versus owners. >> Yes. >> Is it separate? Do we identify which ward they're part of as well? We have that data. Okay. Only about you know given there were 10 wards about 10% of the sample in each ward. We made sure it was is represented by ward. So each ward had its appropriate number. To dig into results by ward means you have about 80 to 90 respondents per ward. >> Okay? >> Which raises the level of error that will exist on that estimate. So I'm always hesitant like I know you're all interested in what your own wards are saying. I get it. Um, but I would I would take any of those. The reason I don't inclined to want to share is because I don't want you to make conclusions that I wouldn't make based on that because >> no margin of error, right? The margin of error around 90 is like plus or minus 10 points. >> They try to teach me that in stats in college and yeah, I was not having any of it. Um, and so, you know, a lot of this stuff, you know, I think goes back to a lack of education and let me dulge into a little bit more. So, you know, removing financial barriers to city programs. Um, you know, we have lots of free programming across the city in the summer at our community centers. um whether it's you know our our parks pro our play in the park program our leisure access card um all the stuff we do downtown throughout the year and most of it's free and um so do you think a lot of that comes back to the lack of education by I'd say a lot of our community that they don't know um about the stuff that we provide that is affordable and is accessible not necessarily body accessible by like, you know, based on ability or disability, but more accessible based on finances. And so you how do we get that information out there of all the free stuff? It's out there, but how do we make sure it gets out there a little bit more? Um like so I guess my question is do you think it's a lack of education >> or a lack of information? to the member. I think in part it is, but I also keep in mind the question was asked not again we asked we gave people a list and said what are the best ways >> right? So I think there's also an opportunity to highlight to your point the things you're already doing >> uh to do that. It was it was it wasn't asking is there a problem here or what the problem is. It's what's the best way to create more connection between people. >> And I think you if you have a bunch of proof points yes it's always helpful to continue to remind folks but it it means if you're already doing that then that's where residents want you to be focused and that's an alignment that that I think will work for you. >> Awesome. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much councelor Deno. Councelor Schneider, you're up next. >> Thanks, Mayor. Um, I love the initial uh data coming in and I guess as we move on, uh, we can drill down a little bit more on on some of the specifics. Uh, the one area I'm interested in was the the services uh that we provide and the tax level we provide them at. Uh will we be able to find out maybe uh you know in order to get an increase in spending in one area, areas that residents might be okay with a little less service on to uh move that tax spending around >> chair to to the member. I think this survey wasn't designed I think to really >> to to effectively answer that question. Um instead we were measuring like what's your satisfaction with this level of service um but we didn't ask members uh community members to prioritize like if you had x amount of money where would you put it um I would say those questions around where are the significant pain points would signal to you I think you know where the community at least based on their knowledge of of the choices you have front of you where they'd like to see more emphasis right um so those would be things like what can you do to not put more pressure on me on the cost of living. Can you do something on the housing question? Some, you know, friction on economic development, which I think shows up in this, but I don't think this survey anyways allows us the ability to give you advice on if you had to move some levers, where would there be uh either support or friction from the community on those things? >> Yeah. And I I totally get that. But as we do the community engagement, the further community engagement, are there opportunities there to maybe get a a little sense of where the community and residents want us to go or not go? >> Yeah, I think I can speak to that. So through the chair, uh that that is exactly the reason we're here today, councelor Schneider, is to understand where would you like us to dig in deeper to these results because they don't provide ultimate conclusions here. um they're early insights and um so so the answer is yes. If this is an area that council wants us to look into deeper to look at barriers um where where there should be more emphasis how to reduce some of those pressure points around cost of living. That's an area we can take out and and uh engage further on. >> Okay, that's great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um next up is councelor Davey. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for the presentation David. Just question I want to make sure I understand. So like when I'm looking at some of these results. So um the question about uh users having should having to pay their own fees for services for example. When looking at this data it's not necessarily like 40% is saying that they should pay the fee for their services. They're not necessarily saying we need to change. They're saying that's their that's their ideology. That's their preferred approach to services. um through through the chair I would say that's how I would interpret the the answer is that you know again in a a a very forced kind of choice when you say if these are the two approaches we could take to funding city services which is the approach you you prefer a slight uh proportion yes said user fees versus you know general taxation so I would that's how I would interpret it right it's the way that people are are perceiving achieving the best approach to deal with um you know increased service delivery. >> Okay. Thank you. And it's it's been asked as well but I just want to clarify just again for the understanding of the interpretation because we politicians live in perception versus reality as well for sure. Um but again we are wrapped up with the region um with the region and their property taxes show up in the same bill as our property taxes. And um just for reference again it's been mentioned but during this term while we actually were at inflation I think exactly to the decimal point um the region was double over the same time frame and because they're also double the size in the property tax bill that's there's magnification effect so basically every dollar that we added in taxes the region added about $4. So when I'm reading these results, the average resident doesn't know that. I should take that as part of that perception when I'm making a decision on our strategy >> through uh the chair. I would say I can't be certain when you say they don't know that. I would say this survey didn't really lay out, you know, here's how much your taxes went up from the city of Kitchener. Here's how your taxes went up from the region of Waterlue. But I will assume that some of the pressure that you may be feeling from residents is also coming from right that that reality. And so I think you have to just understand it that that context is there. This survey would have a harder time. So maybe in some of the future consultation work that's done is to find out how do residents respond when they learn of that distinction and to see whether then that changes their view. I think it's part of it. Right. So I I think the the value for tax dollar question the decline that we saw in people perceiving it to be good is in I would say my hypothesis would be likely driven by one uh the general concern around the cost of living and two by that context that you described with the region probably complicating their read over you know is this a city service is this a regional service and and and the like. >> Yeah because I agreed with Mr. Young in terms of in his presentation that this that that was applied to us and there isn't any data from other municipalities because that specific slide there wasn't any comparative data in terms of maintaining property taxes. >> No, we didn't ask that at the national level. >> And the last question I I love the data as well and I believe believe in previous years we were able to access the raw data itself or was that something that could be provided to council if we were interested? I'm not sure who to ask that question of I know it would be on us to figure out. And I'm assuming it's spreadsheet level material, but could we could council or the public or everyone be um could that information be made available >> through the chair? Can I clarify? Is it the raw data you're asking for? So not the tables and the tabulations you would be asking for raw responses. >> Well, if it's the if it's if it's already tabulated same that's Yeah. In a readable format, that would be easier for us. Yeah. But I mean the actual responses would be ideal to to go through for those of us that are interested. So through the chair we we do have a longer uh detailed report that we could share with more tabulations um that shows the various groups um with the caveat as David shared that um many of them won't be statistically s or or some of them won't be statistically significant findings because >> the sample size >> the grouping and the size within each grouping. >> Yeah, understood but still helpful. Yeah, thank you. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Davyy. Next up is councelor Initis. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor Verbanovic. And uh just to touch upon that, I'm I'm really curious about the the ward uh comments that were made because I feel that certain air certain certain questions would be answered differently here in the core than they would be in the suburbs or or in particular in council and shows uh ward because of the college etc. So I I still feel that that that data has some significance. But anyways, as long if we could get that, that'd be great. But uh I just also want to thank David for coming in too. Uh I think I was looking at this on a Friday night as well. And uh I know I'm getting old when this is this is more fun than going out. Um so but anyways, uh I'm a fellow raven, too. So >> my question would be on 23 page 23 with regards to the key issues that are facing facing Kitchener today. And what strikes me uh here is climate change is 2%. But then as we go further down into the report, we're dealing really significantly with climate change. So I'm trying to understand that >> it's a through you uh chair to to the member is a good question. Um the way I would interpret uh the question on 23 is what's the most important issue and what I've seen in our in our research over the last number of years is whether you ask this question or version of this at the national provincial local level climate change has fallen down as a priority relative to others. Now that doesn't mean when you ask them different questions on do you think it's a you know a crisis? Do you think we need to do something about it? The answers are usually yes. But the the affordability issues the the global uncertainty issues have taken a precedence over climate relative to it. Um and and that is why you see you know only 2% putting it in their number one issue. um back in I would say 2019 pre- pandemic you were seeing in some national surveys climate change rising not at the top but close to the top and that's just the nature of the conversations that we were having at the time. So, uh, yeah, two different questions, but it shows that like people are concerned about the effects of climate change on their lives and on their loved ones, but they're if you force them, they would say, "I'm still more concerned about whether I can feed my family or pay the rent or or what have you." >> Okay, that's how I kind of take it, too. But, uh, wanted to ask you, you're the expert. Um I guess my other question would be what my biggest takeaway here on this survey is the significant difference in uh satisfaction compared to our municipality on the national level is is is quite striking in my opinion. And would it be fair to say that's a way of counterbalancing in an odd way the perception of everything? I don't know if if you understand what I'm trying to say. >> Yeah. Through you, chair. I'm not going to I don't want to I don't want to, you know, add a an editorial comment to this other than to say, you know, what's your secret sauce because it clearly is special here that that isn't being reflected in other communities, your size. Now, every every region of the country has a different context and a different set of issues. Um but I look at yeah your the gap between it's a 16point gap uh at the national level and an 18-point gap with cities of of similar size that is worth asking why are we performing and overperforming on a on a range of municipal services uh despite even the growth pressures that you faced. So, um, it's it's more about, I guess, the question, how do we keep this up rather than a community that would be looking at a number that's, you know, below the national average saying, how do we catch up? And I think I'd rather be in being now full editorial. I'd rather be in your case than in another situation. >> Okay. I guess I guess it's more of a comment, so I'll brief. Thank you, Council Onitus. Um, councelor Chapman. >> Yeah. Hi. Um, I'll try to um hope it doesn't cut in and out, but um I just had a question about whether you had and I take it you didn't any openended questions in your survey and if not do you think that this would be useful information in the future? >> Chair through to the to the council. Thank you for the question. Uh we did have a number of open-ended questions in the in the survey. So there were times, for example, after we asked, "Do you feel safe in your community?" We followed up with an open-ended that said, "Why do you feel that way?" and gave the respondents a chance to answer. So there were times, a number of times throughout the survey in which community members had the chance of just writing every anything or saying anything that they wanted. Um, and then what we do is we for the sake of a simple report, we could go and and what we say code those into similar categories that would appear. So, there were a number I don't know the exact number of questions, but there were several times where uh community members, including one where we just said like, "What would you like to see the city focus on?" Um, and and didn't prompt them on on a list of issues. >> And would that data be available to us as well >> through the chair? We can get a copy of the raw uh commenting data and share that back. And I believe we can do that by ward uh as well. Um and we did look into it. Uh there were three open-ended questions. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Chapman. Councelor Stretch. >> Thank you. Um my question is around trust engagement and accountability. And I'm curious if there's any correlation between um community engagement um where we're building opportunities for residents to have more autonomy. Does that do we know if that increases trust um decreases trust? Do you have any correlation on on what Yeah. what that could look like? So chair, just to clarify, when you say autonomy, do you mean like having the autonomy to like interact with city services through like a digital channel? Like when you say autonomy, what do you mean by that? >> What we mean is um >> Oh, thank you. Sorry. What I mean is when residents give feedback that that feedback then is um taken and action is changes direction based on that feedback. Um, so can you just connect that then back to the original question? Sorry to >> So does that when residents see that does that increase trust and accountability or or is that something that can happen and it doesn't change that that perception? >> So So now I understand. Thank you. Um, chair through to you the member. think so there's no doubt in my mind that that when somebody engages on something and then sees action taken on it that that's going to reinforce and strengthen trust right like that's a belief that I'm listened to that you act on my feedback um now that can work in the other way where yeah there'll be many members of of your ward and of this community that have a view on something that ultimately is in the minority or isn't deemed to be a priority or or or something else. Um I think the question comes down to um one you know do I feel and again it's a perception that there are that the community is responsive to my my views even if I some members of the community don't want to uh participate but that there are opportunities for for that to happen and so sometimes as you I think well know consultation efforts are as much about actually collecting consultation as also signaling an interest from the city to hear, you know, diverse voices across the community. But any time that that, you know, if I can use a a perfect example of of a politician you all will know uh well is, you know, Premier Ford is particularly good at signaling a responsiveness to public opinion. And at times he will make a decision and then a few hours later we'll reverse it. But the the effect of it is that, you know, he's constantly, I think, signaling to the public that he is responsive. Now, that can only take you so far, but that's at the political level. I think from an a city administrative level, the same >> holds that any time that the public feels a sense of engagement and action that comes from it, you're going to reinforce a sense of trust. I think >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um those are all the the folks uh in the queue. I just maybe have a couple um myself if I can um because a number of them have been covered off. On slide uh 36 where you talked about level of safety in your neighborhoods. Um you know I was I I was interested to to look at you know the things that um folks said among those who feel safe as well as some of the things around those who feel unsafe and in particular on the unsafe piece uh was 23% reference lack of police presence increasing crime um and do we have a s I mean because those are kind of two different things and do we have a sense um of how maybe that has divided up or or how you can relate that to maybe other survey work that you've done. >> Well, well, chair, I think that's a great question. I think we should flag that actually for for my team to go and and see if we can divide those because you're right. I think they may conflate two different uh uh actual responses. Um, and so I'll I think we'll first look at that. Okay, sorry. That's okay. Deal with >> um Okay, thank you. Thank you for for flagging that because it is it is one that we hear in in different ways on a on a on a regular basis both in terms of presence in the downtown um as well as uh presence in in the suburban areas of the uh of the city. Um the other uh question I had um is uh on the the growth piece and I'm I'm gathering that without doing additional work we can't um it would be hard to sort of get at that data but the challenge with growth is that people you know generally don't like it and find it a stressor. On the other hand, uh we know that growth is also a way of of keeping taxes lower and and so on which people also don't like. Um so is there is there a way of kind of coming to terms with that from the data that's collected or is that future work that maybe needs to happen? >> Well, I I come back to Thanks, chair. I I would say I come back to I think it's on slide uh let me just tell you what slide that is. Uh slide 50. um the follow-up open-ended question uh on on direction of the city and those who thought that the city was heading the right track, you know, one in five mentioned in some way uh a belief that that there was a strong future planning and growth vision for the city. I think that shows that you can actually have growth at the same time that you have like social license for that growth. um and that it requires I think one of the reasons that I'm going to again give give you an editorial view on on the country as a whole is one of the reasons we saw over the period coming out of you know 23 24 this real shift in public opinion towards growth and immigration broadly was in large part because people felt that particularly the federal government didn't have a plan to help mitigate the effects of that growth on the services that um people required D. So I think you can build you can you can sustain and build support for growth to your point to help feed the tax base in order to keep a community sustainable by signaling that that you know council and the city are thinking about how do we constantly mitigate and and you know manage that. And again, I think for the longest time there was not a lot of push back on growth until people believed it was having a negative effect on on their quality of life. And so I think we can return to a point where you can grow and the public is cheering for that as opposed to many of them actually questioning growth in the first place. >> Yeah. And and I think some of that may have um you know some of that may have come to fruition partially because you know from a a regional perspective we talked about at the region the region talked about being a million ready and so on and so forth but then the water issue came up and that really created uh a disconnect for people which I think probably reflected in some of this. Um and and the last question I I have is you talked about um you know folks having concerns around scarcity. Um, and I'm wondering, you know, any, and this may be follow-up work that needs to happen, but one of the things that I I think, you know, I hear is people looking for um increased senses of of belonging, of of support, but not obviously there's the financial support and, you know, initiatives that the city can undertake um but also support around mental health, anxiety, belonging, all of those things. there isn't anything in the work that's been done thus far that that speaks to that. Would would that sort of need to be more follow-up work? >> Well, I think the one part of the survey that we did I think touch on that is where we where we uh looked at the importance of for example community and recreational services tied to improving that and that the one area where the most respondents said it's important is on mental health and then physical health and wellness. So I do think that overwhelmingly residents do connect the need for the role that the city plays in providing programming and creating you know space for members of the community to come together and you know I like sometimes think get past a world that feels kind of a little bit uncertain. Um I think more more and more that is the role that I think the city can play in in doing that. Right. So I do think there there may be more work that needs to be done to understand the nuances there, but this survey did validate that that hypothesis that people do see a connection between those city services and programs and those outcomes for people in the community. >> Yeah. No, and and just in in in closing then I see councelor Misho has has um keyed in again. I would just say, you know, thank you for all the work that you've done. I I get this, you know, it's part of what you do. It's what your firm does. Um, but I always I always find moments like this as a bit of a of a gift for both council and staff to uh to to get a sense of where the community is at. We we hear, you know, where people are feeling good about things. We also hear where people are are feeling not so good about things. And while you know we may be doing better as you pointed out in a number of areas uh better than other municipalities our size across the country right now and let's be honest as you said right at the beginning a very challenging time for our country and and the world. Um, I I think this also ultimately provides an opportunity for us to really dig deeper and see in the next term of council how we uh how we help support the community in in um in advancing through some of these issues uh in a time that I I you know I'm I'm I'm a positive cup half full kind of guy, but I think these some of the challenges are going to exist at least for uh in in the short to medium term, you know, without question. So, thank you, >> Sheriff. If I just might I always like take advantage of this moment because I I do work uh with with a number of different municipalities and I have this chance to speak in front of elected officials. I always like to say you you run an organization much like a telecom company in the fact that you rarely and I say this only because how many times do people call Rogers or Bell and say, "Thanks so much that my cable works." No, you usually only get a call when something doesn't work. Right? And so these are moments to reflect on the fact that actually for the vast majority of the members of your community, they're quite happy. They're very happy to be living in this community. They think it's a great quality of life. And so like those calls you get are important, but they're often not representative of your constituents. And this is a chance for you to get a representative view of of what's going on. So I think it's always a worthwhile it's also in my self-interest that you continue to do that. But nonetheless, I appreciate you working with us as well. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um I'm just going to go to Councelor Misho then. uh if she's in the queue. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Thank you, David. Um I read this report very early in the morning, four o'clock, and then when I got to page 55, that's what really resonated with me. Kitchener does not have a service problem. It has a confidence problem. The path forward is about proving the city can manage growth and affordability in a way that protects what residents already value. So in 2024, we were there was a lot of development going on. there was a lot of growth happening in that and the narrative was you know you build more and it will become affordable it it doesn't seem to have happened can you kind of talk speak to that at all with the with the with this results of the survey >> yeah I think to me that that statement is also about what I I alluded to in my my opening remarks is I do think most residents of your community as as most Canadians are just seeking a sense of reassurance right and when I say confidence that's what I mean that that you know things are for the most part this survey suggests very good for people in this community. Most of the services they give very high marks but it's the question that's lingering in their minds and it's not because of any doubt in the city it's doubt generally that it's we're going to be able to sustain that quality of life. So very much people are in a sense of protection now right I don't think it's a understatement why again I'm going to speak to the provincial government every minister stands in front of a sign that says protect Ontario. It's very much part of that mindset. So to your point about 2024, I think yeah, sometimes people are going to reflect back and say, well, that claim was made. Clearly it it hasn't come true. I think the challenge is or the opportunity is to remind them that it's not because of that growth that we're in some of these challenges, but because of a bunch of other factors as well. And so the choices you're going to make over the next three years are about one taking advantage of the opportunity that the city has, but also making sure that we we protect what's most important to people. And I think this survey gives you a little bit of a road map on on where to emphasize. >> It does. And thank you. And and this is my new screen saver, by the way. >> Thank you. Um, so I guess my question to to Margaret before we finish this segment and go on to our our VLR segment, have you sort of gathered all the in from the questions and the input and stuff, all the input you need from council or is there more that you're looking for? Yeah, through the chair, I think you've given us some key areas to dig in deeper as we move through the coming months in terms of engagement uh both internally with staff uh engagement with committees as well as uh the community. So, we have we certainly have some jumping off points. Um yeah, so I I I do think we have the takeaways we need. >> Okay, great. and and if uh council sort of has any other input in the in the coming days, like not two months from now, but in the coming days that they kind of think maybe it's worthwhile doing a little bit of a digger a deeper dive. Can they submit that to to you or or Katie? >> Yeah, through the chair. Correct. >> Okay. Awesome. Um and and the only other question and and you won't wouldn't have had a chance to think about it, but last week um Mr. Mr. Chapman and I had an opportunity to learn a little bit about Google Jigsaw and um and how it can be used as a tool to engage community in a broader more significant way. Um so I would ask us to maybe maybe we can have an offline conversation around that because I think that may be a way to uh to do a little bit more work on in in that space. um we've had some preliminary conversations with uh with their folks and we can explore to see if there's a a pathway to to do that and and engage Compass Kitchener in that as well. >> Awesome. So with that, um do folks we're we're a couple minutes ahead of time. Do folks want to take a fivem minute bio break? I'm seeing some nods. Okay, so we'll we'll take a fiveminute bio break. Uh David, thank you very much. Uh really appreciate it. Safe travels uh back to uh the nation's capital and thanks uh thanks for all you do. Actually, clerks, are we okay? Yep. Let's turn this back over to Mr. Gear. >> All right. Thanks, everyone. The next initial input into our strategic planning process is a voluntary local review. This is undertaken in partnership with the University of Wateroo. We all know the city of Kitchener is committed to the UN SGS and this framework has been used in our strategic planning process since 2019. The SDG framework allows Kitchener to align our local priorities with global, social, environmental, and economic goals. Voluntary local reviews or VLRs are used by cities around the world to assess progress, challenges, and opportunities related to the SGS. These reports are submitted to the United Nations and allow us to connect leadership data and experience into one cohesive story. Globally, there are 249 completed reports and just two in Canada. Kitchener is among five municipalities partnering with the University of Wateroo to complete our VLR in 2026. Today we're pleased to welcome John Beiel who it's program director for local features at the University of Wateroo. John's career has focused on bringing diverse groups together to foster collaboration, impact, and trust. John, I'll pass it over to you. Thanks. >> Thanks, Katie. And welcome, John. clerks, can we raise the podium? Thanks. John's John's on the tall side. Well, thank you very much, Mayor Verbanovich. Councilors, it's my pleasure to be here today uh to talk about the sustainable development goals. >> Oh, I see this podium. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The physical podium. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, as was mentioned, I um I run the local futures program uh based at Conrad Greybel University College at the University of Waterlue campus. Uh, we're pleased to partner with the University of Waterlue researchers in this work uh as well as the city of Kitchener and uh we are funded by the SG funding program from the federal government. So I'll talk briefly about kind of who we are, what we're trying to do. Uh and I'll and share some initial insights in our work uh in with the city of Kitchener. Um but essentially we are looking at how do we bring this big bold ambitious uh these big bold ambitious goals into a local level. How do we prior prioritize them and align them locally? And we do that by bringing many different stakeholders, the municipalities, universities, and community organizations together to think about how can the STGS help shape our strategic planning, our future to create more prosperity and sustainability. Uh we think there are a few ways to think about the STGS. Um you know, one is how do we plan for the future with that lens in mind? Uh how do we think in systems? That's really the STGS are about how are these issues interconnected and how does that help us make better decisions and then thirdly around collective impact. How can we work together uh across this common agenda um we are working as was mentioned in five areas across the country. Uh and uh our our goal is to develop a voluntary local review uh in each of these five. Um, a VLR essentially is an SG progress report, a strategic planning document. It can take many forms. Uh, and it has this very kind of UN name to it around the voluntary local review. But that at it at its core, we're trying to see kind of how are we doing currently and what kind of opportunities are there using the STGS to plan for our future. So just briefly on the STGS I know everybody is wellversed but sustainable development goals they were adopted in 2015 by every uh uh country member country at the United Nations uh and they are essentially a roadmap for a better world a vision for a world uh that formalizes economic social and environmental sustainability in that vision. Uh what's really important to note here is we're you're all working on all of these issues already. So I think that that's an important piece to kind of go into this conversation with. You're working on these uh and it's about how do we uh more deeply integrate the the concepts of the STGS into our work into the way that the municipality functions. uh we're seeing um more and more city leaders using the STGS to connect city work, municipal work with community work, community work as well as other stakeholders bringing business, community, uh academia together to talk about this common agenda. So I think there's a really great opportunity here to leverage the STGS to advance work locally. uh my colleague and I at local futures we we talked to some of the um leading cities in the world mostly in Europe but you know in the US, Latin America, Asia, um South Africa as well. How did you use the SCGs? You know what was the value they brought? And there was kind of three core themes that emerged. Uh one is around it creates coher they create coherence in planning. We have a strategic plan, we have an accessibility strategy, a climate strategy, economic development plan. all of these pieces um it helps fit them together under a more common agenda. So that's one way that that we're seeing um uh this consolidation happened with the STGS. Uh secondly, we're thinking about uh community issues in a more systematic systems thinking kind of way. Uh the example here comes from Strasburg in France where they were designing uh a new food strategy and they wanted to use the STGS uh to do that work. And so they were able to bring in a broader lens beyond kind of access to food to think about food waste to think about equitable access to think about agricultural practices and production as part of that strategy. And so was able to kind of broaden their their perspective in in that one issue. Uh and then thirdly, supporting partnerships, which I know the city of Kitchener has has done a lot of using the STGS at the international level. Uh most especially that I've seen I've been a part of um and cities using the SGS at an international level to have conversations and build trust and relationships with other cities working on this agenda. Um but also locally and you think about the the example here of Bristol in the United Kingdom. They created an SG alliance to bring together stakeholders from the business sector, from the municipality, from academia community to come together to to meet regularly to talk about uh shared issues in the community and to help advance that local action to a a regional, a national uh international stage as well. And I think this uh example that comes from uh the Tamarak Institute who we are partnered with in this work uh is a really great example of kind of the knock-on effects and where the SCGS I think offer some insight into the lived experience of residents and and the stories in our communities. Um, I won't go through this. Um, I won't read it line for line, but essentially it starts with a mother living in a run-down apartment with mold, which exacerbates a child's asthma, which leads to a call for an ambulance, which generates a bill that can't be paid, which ruins a credit record, which hikes the interest rate, and on and on and on, leading to confining her to to poor p to poor housing continuously. And obviously it's uh it's an example that we are taking a bit to an extreme to to illustrate the point but I think the point is there that every problem can magnify the impact along the chain until that until you get to that final stage where it actually uh looks very different than where you started. Uh and so I think the SCGs offer this is kind of the insight I think that they bring is to think about how are um everyday people interacting with these issues and how what are those impacts on their lives. Um as was mentioned there are 249 volunteer voluntary local reviews um that have been submitted to the United Nations. There have been two from Canada submitted. There's actually a third that was not submitted. So there's three voluntary local reviews in Canada. So our work we're looking to add five to the Canadian landscape. Um most voluntary local reviews are focused on a current state. Uh whereas the gold standard uh from from some um municipalities around the world is really thinking about how are we identifying and planning opportunities uh over time and tracking that progress. I I put a couple examples here um around kind of that that more gold standard orientation or the town of Shimokawa in Japan u using the SGS to think about the future and then backcast current uh policies and programs to the current state. uh the city of Malmo in Sweden using the STGS to embed them in steering and management documents and their budget as well as the city of Buenos Ares who in doing their VLR work identified gaps on gender equality which led them to develop new work on that around gender uh a gender indicator system for the city of Kiter and for the other VLRs that we're working on. Um this is this is a an overview of kind of what we're proposing. uh we are looking at how do we showcase the current work and alignment of the SGS given the city of Kitchener um strategic plans and policies and and publicly available documents. We want to engage with community partners to spotlight stories from the community. uh and we want to develop some data indicators around contextbased sustainability thinking about what kind of thresholds exist locally that uh tell the data story uh for the city and then to conclude with some recommendations and and ideas of you know insights making sense of it all. I share a couple uh images here. On the left side uh we have our engagement that happened in April uh a couple weeks ago at the SCG ideas factory. Uh this was about 35 community organizations uh coming together to talk about the SCGS. We did a short presentation and then we asked people to to kind of identify what strengths and opportunities do you see in the city of Kitchener and what challenges do you see? And everybody wrote on a sticky note. You can see the bottom image there. We we had the STGS on the the window and we asked people to kind of group them and and uh and organize them and then had a discussion based on that. We then took the challenges uh a selection of them and we asked people in groups to do systems maps to understand kind of what are the factors that are influencing this challenge and where do you think there are points of leverage. Um, so it's still very early in terms of kind of bringing that data to together, but these are the kinds of stories, systems maps we'd like to to share as part of this VLR. And then on the right hand side, uh, is, uh, a couple pictures also, uh, you know, a week and a half ago or so, uh, workshop with municipal staff, uh, thinking about, um, uh, what are the the how are you using the STGS? How do they, you know, find their way into your work? Of course with the strap plan uh listing the STGS we wanted to understand you know where does that find a home throughout uh the municipality but then also carrying forward those challenges identified in the in the community session to under to do an activity where we dive into some of those challenges and understand why do those persist why do they exist and then what would be within the municipality's um sphere of influence uh what what kind of leverage points exist. And then finally uh this is the very early uh draft of SCG alignment uh for the city of Kitchener. What we've done here is this is AI uh AIdriven uh the our methodology we worked with an organization uh um based out of Montreal that specializes in uh ESG SG and sustainability reporting using AI. We we took 20 and it was actually more than that. Uh and uh you can see the documents in the uh council package that were included, but uh 20 to 25 uh strategies, policies that the city of Kitchener um has created uh and um and has produced and we uploaded it into a specialized uh trained AI system with our partner uh and it came back uh measuring against all the international targets of the STGS from the United Nations. We then also worked to strip out some of those targets knowing that the city of Kitchener does not have jurisdiction over anti-moneyaundering um you know approaches or delivery of clinical uh health uh health care in the province. So there are there was about 34 um targets that we stripped out uh to better reflect that you know the areas of influence that the city of Kitchener actually uh has a mandate for. uh and then there were some you can see on SG3 and four around health and education where uh we felt there was an enabling environment that the city can still contribute towards even though health care is is proincially delivered and so there's there are a couple areas where we feel like there is a role for the city um uh whereas you know many other clear cases where u it was clear that you know that's not part of the city's mandate. Uh so as you can see here the city of Kitchener the alignment score uh 66.9% aligned. So this represents the way to kind of interpret this is the commitments and actions that are included in those plans that we uploaded and have analyzed um are aligned to a 67% uh standard and you can see them broken down. You can see different metrics. We have a full list of the metrics which uh for for today didn't make sense to present but happy to share. Uh and um this is not a a um a commentary on outcomes or performance or impact. This is the commitments that have been made through these documents. So I think that's a really important thing to stress. Um uh a couple kind of high level uh findings here uh and which kind of reflect the conversation with uh with Abacus earlier is you know the strongest performance clusters around core operational mandate. You can see some of these have actually 100% um uh achievement and thinking about areas that cover water, wastewater, infrastructure and capital investment, land use planning, sustainable cities, climate action and emissions and natural heritage and forestry. These areas all scored 100%. Um also what what was of interest uh from this analysis uh thinking about uh how Kitchener is doing well at mobilizing resources uh number of examples uh talking you know about um housing accelerator fund building faster fund disaster mitigation and adaption so so a number of examples where uh Kitchener is doing a good job in mobilizing domestic resources there you know and these insights are very early still so we're still working on them but there I think that there is a vulnerability that was also identified around you know alternative sources of funding uh and how that might change you know depending on how the federal landscape uh uh changes as well. Uh and then maybe lastly I'll just say um performance gaps uh were mostly around uh areas of equity inclusion and and more generally the policy architecture. Um it is noted though that Kitchener is doing a lot of work in these space and very meaningful work. So it's not to say uh that um these gaps are tremendous in some instances there there is a lot of good work but if we look at kind of the alignment scores uh we can see around gender equality, education related municipal work uh poverty reduction, zero hunger, affordable energy uh there are a few areas that stand out. Um I think with that I will just go to what comes next. Uh we are completing the engagement activities. There's there will be some interviews uh that will be conducted by the University of Waterlue research team uh with um uh different members of the municipality and community. Um we are looking now at kind of pulling these findings together into the development of the the VLR. So draft we're starting to draft uh content. We're going to be doing validation, refinement of insights. So, welcome your thoughts as you see this very initial draft. Um, we will be preparing something high level for council uh in advance, this will be in June uh in advance of the UN meetings in July uh so that we can have some speaking points to that effect while while attending. Uh and then looking to have a draft uh ready for the fall of the VLR and finalize that for the winter. So that is that for me. Thank you very much uh everyone. >> Thank you. Uh thank you very much John. A great uh great presentation and uh uh great uh great body of work. Um we do have some questions for you councelor Singh. >> Yeah thank you John. I think this is uh great that this is coming shortly after you know looking at our overall survey and seeing exactly the priorities of those that uh participated where you know they those priorities lay as opposed to you know what we might think is the best course of action. Personally myself, I'm a strong supporter of, you know, the U initiatives and STG goals, but again, the the survey did outline a greater emphasis, encouragement from our residents to focus on core responsibilities as well. Some of it, you know, you outlined as the metric that some are beyond our jurisdiction and some are well within our jurisdiction as 100%. But I do want to distinguish and I I think we we reference this as part of the survey as well of the region and the city of Kitchener some but sometimes we you know we're too willing to take on the the larger umbrella. Uh in here you outlined um below water in in many cases that tends to be the region. Also when we're we're talking about you know the stewardship of the Grand River uh we're talking about clean water we are a water delivery uh source we we don't procure we don't treat the water that's the region of water that's outlined as 100%. When we're talking about climate change yes there's a lot of initiatives to climate change but you know we have very small levers that we can affect but we hear jumping up and saying hey 100%. But you know same as health care and education yes we can help to influence but it isn't 100% and we address that the healthcare and education isn't 100% because there is a mandate of other orders of government. Should we not outline for these as well? Thank you. >> Yeah I mean I think you know I always get nervous to say 100% achievement on climate change because it's you know this is such a a deep issue. Um I you know I think what what this represents is using the city of Kitchener strategic plan the different policies and documents to understand uh what kind of commitments have been made by the city and and that's really what we're measuring. what kind of actions are being talked about in those plans when it comes to actually the water delivery uh you know addressing climate change these are huge factors uh we're not able to measure impacts or the outcomes of that work and I I do get the um the point about the region versus you know the municipality we did try to strip out regional uh targets that we felt were more appropriate uh that the city didn't have jurisdiction on um there may be others in here that we we can look at. We'd welcome your feedback on. Yeah. Thanks, Councelor Singh. Councelor Chapman, >> thank you. Um, thank you for the report. Um, my question has to do with um, alignment versus outcomes. So, you said that, um, you know, those percentages you showed us are are focused on alignments, not outcomes. Um, would it not be more valuable to to speak of outcomes rather than alignments? Because if you speak of outcomes, you what you're losing are, you know, we have a a SG that says zero hunger, zero poverty. Um, and you can say, yeah, we align with that because we worry about people, but um, what value did do those numbers have >> through the chair? Thank you. Um, I I agree. Yes, it would be uh impacts outcomes um much harder to measure. I think a much deeper process required. I think the value from this exercise really is centered on um the ability to understand are there gaps are there areas of of strength where we are really um devoting our our resources and seeing seeing that performance. uh are there gap areas that we can uh pull forward and have conversations around uh with community members? Um so I think that that when we look at kind of the AI analysis um I do think it could go further. I think it's a bit of a different process to do that. Uh one that we weren't prep we weren't prepared for in terms of a methodology. It's it's a much different process. So I think that's why we see it the way it is. >> Right. Um my other question has to do with um you know creating false expectations. So to think that we can have a world with zero poverty and zero um hunger and you know sustainable um resources everywhere. Um does that become a discouraging goal impossible to reach given the the capitalist world that we live in? >> Uh through the chair. Yeah. Thank you. It's um I mean I think the SCGs their power is in presenting a vision. Uh so I mean I think it depends you know on your perspective. My perspective I think is it's a hopeful vision and you need to kind of have that I think in order to move towards it. You know there's um I didn't include it in this presentation but I I do it uh in my community work my community presentations. There's a uh a quote from President Kennedy referring to the moon landing talking about we need to define our goal clearly. Uh we need and to help people move irresistibly towards it. And uh I think that that that's what the SGS really offer a lot of value in. I I do take your point though uh it might be demotivating for some or provide a false sense of uh what we can achieve but I think we need that lofty ambition at least. And uh >> thank you. Okay, thank you. >> Okay, thank you very much, Councelor Chapman. Um, John, that appears to be um all of the all of the questions. I think uh you know, your your your comment there around um you know, the the goals are are meant to be just that, something for for cities and regions and countries to uh to aspire to. Um, I think we we know from the Millennium Development Goals that existed from 2000 to 2015, they really were brought in place very much at a at a national level and they tried to take a top- down approach to things. um and they weren't successful and and I think on the uh the STGS the attempt all along has been to recognize that um you know it really needs to be um you know a a grassroots bottom up approach uh that sees cities and hence you know uh sustainable cities and communities uh in goal 11 uh being in place um and and and civil society and so on and striving towards it And you know next year actually the conversations will begin around what comes after 2030 and you know will it be SG 2.0 or will it be something else um which no doubt um the municipal sector and others will will engage in that conversation uh going forward. Uh so thank you for uh thank you for this and thank you for the uh the update. I'm just checking. I don't think I don't think there's anything that we need to approve today. Is that correct, Margaret? >> Yeah, that Okay, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Um, so thank you to uh thank you to you for uh for coming in and uh and sharing that. And James, thank you again for all of the great work that Compass Kitchener is doing. and of course uh Margaret and Katie for uh um all of your your leadership. This is uh an important body of work that will uh sort of guide the transition from this council to the next and and uh the the aspirations of the community uh for the next four years. Uh Margaret, do you have any sort of closing thoughts or you or Katie or both of you >> uh through the chair? No, we appreciate the time of council. I I think this last discussion we were looking to see if if there were any particular themes that uh from the presentation from the report that John shared that council wanted us to dig in deeper but I think people were ringing in at the same time for that. So um I'm not hearing anything. So we're happy to continue to work with John um to identify some of those areas to engage the community further. >> Great. And I guess just like on the other one, if folks have any uh inspirations over the next few days as they reread things at 4 in the morning or 4 in the afternoon, um they can uh they can certainly share that information with uh with the two of you. Uh so thank you everyone. And I think that's uh that's it for special counsel. Correct, Madame Clerk? Yes. Thank you. Um, and I think we'll just uh we probably don't have enough time to go back to caucus before the 5:00 and the do the kids come at 5 or 5:30? The kids come at