Navigating Competing Mandates: A Role-Play Exercise

Beyond Communication: The Governance Challenge in ETOAH

Cross-sector collaboration when working towards ETOAH projects can be structurally constrained by institutional fragmentation, divergent accountability frameworks, and temporal misalignment of decision cycles. Municipal finance departments operate under statutory requirements for balanced budgets and fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers creating incentives to maximize land values and minimize long-term operating exposure. Transit agencies function as quasi-independent entities with service-based funding models, prioritizing ridership metrics and capital cost recovery. Housing providers are mandated to serve waitlisted populations at the deepest affordable levels, but do not have control over land costs, zoning approvals, or infrastructure timing.  These are not merely different perspectives, they represent institutionally embedded and legally defensible positions that cannot be reconciled through goodwill or better communication alone.  The exercise aims to replicate the structural conditions under which real ETOAH decisions need to occur: competing legal mandates, asymmetric decision authority, misaligned incentive structures, and the absence of integrative governance mechanisms. By forcing participants to negotiate under authentic constraints, the activity reveals when informal coordination is sufficient versus when formal governance redesign may be required to prevent challenges at later implementation stages.

Intended Outcomes:  By the end of this activity, participants will:

• Understand that ETOAH involves competing priorities
• Practice navigating cross-sector tensions and trade-offs
• Recognize how different departments/agencies measure success
• Develop skills in finding viable compromises vs. knowing when to stand firm
• Build empathy for colleagues working under different mandates

Activity Agenda (60 Minutes)

• Part 1: Role Assignment & First Scenario (15 minutes)
• Part 2: Complex Scenario (15 minutes)
• Part 3: Crisis Scenario (10 minutes)
• Part 4: Debrief (10 minutes)
• Part 5: Final alignment (10 minutes)

PART 1: Role Assignment & First Scenario

15 minutes

Step 1: Assign Roles (2 minutes)

Each group member takes one role. If fewer than 6 people, combine roles as indicated.

Step 2: Read Scenario (3 minutes)

Facilitator gives each group Scenario Card #1 (see below). Everyone reads silently, then discusses:

• What does success look like for YOUR role?
• What’s your biggest concern?
• What would make you say “no” to this project?

Step 3: Negotiate (8 minutes) The challenge: You must reach ONE of these outcomes:

• PROCEED – All roles agree project can move forward (even if not ideal for everyone)
• PAUSE – Project needs modifications before proceeding
• REDESIGN – Fundamental problems require going back to drawing board

Step 4: Report Out (2 minutes) Each group shares:

• Decision (proceed/pause/redesign)
• Biggest tension
• One creative solution or compromise

PART 2: Complex Scenario

15 minutes

Repeat the process with Scenario Card #2 (more challenging) Groups tackle a scenario with:

• More stakeholders
• Competing pressures
• Time constraints
• Political complications

Same format: Read (3 min) → Negotiate (10 min) → Report (2 min)

PART 3: Crisis Scenario

10 minutes

Scenario Card #3 – Something goes wrong mid-project This round tests:

• How groups handle unexpected changes
• Whether earlier compromises hold under pressure
• Decision-making under time pressure

Format: Read (2 min) → Negotiate (6 min) → Report (2 min)

PART 4: Debrief

10 minutes

Full group discussion Reflection Questions:

1. What surprised you about other roles’ priorities?
2. When did you find workable compromises? When did positions feel irreconcilable?
3. What tensions from this game do you see in your real ETOAH work?
4. What would help align different mandates in practice?
5. When should you proceed despite tension vs. pause to realign?

SCENARIO CARDS

SCENARIO CARD #1: The Land Disposition Decision

Context: Your municipality owns a 2-acre site 400m from a new LRT station. Market analysis shows you could sell it for $12M to a private developer for market condos. Your housing team proposes selling it for $6M to a non-profit for 100% affordable rental (80 units at 50% AMI with 60-year deed restrictions).

The Numbers:

• Market sale: $12M revenue, 200 market condo units, 20% affordable (40 units at 80% AMI, 10-year restriction)
• Non-profit sale: $6M revenue, 80 rental units at 50% AMI, 60-year restriction
• Station costs $15M; transit agency hoped for land sale to offset costs
• School is at 95% capacity; 200 condos = ~60 kids, 80 rentals = ~25 kids
• Finance modeled $12M for this year’s budget

Additional Information:

• Housing waitlist: 2,400 families, average wait time 7 years
• 50% AMI = $42,000/year household income (current median rent in area: $1,800/month)
• 80% AMI = $67,000/year (market condos will sell $600K-800K)
• Transit ridership projections same for both scenarios
• Both developers are ready to proceed immediately

The Question:  What do you recommend? Proceed with one option, pause for more analysis, or redesign the approach? Each role consider:

• What’s your position and why?
• What would you need to support the other option?
• Is there a third option that achieves multiple goals?
• What are you willing to compromise on? What’s non-negotiable?

SCENARIO CARD #2: The Density & Affordability Dilemma

Context: You’re 6 months into planning a TOD project near a GO station. Community engagement revealed strong support for affordable housing BUT opposition to height/density. Your pro forma shows deep affordability requires 8 stories minimum to be financially viable. Community wants maximum 4 stories.

The Numbers:

• 8 stories: 150 units, 50% affordable (75 units at 60% AMI), project breaks even, $2M station improvement contribution
• 6 stories: 110 units, 40% affordable (44 units at 60% AMI), needs $1M subsidy, $500K station contribution
• 4 stories: 75 units, 30% affordable (23 units at 60% AMI), needs $3M subsidy to break even, no station contribution

Additional Information:

• Environmental assessment only done for 8-story building footprint
• 4-story option requires new EA ($150K, 6-month delay)
• Transit agency needs final plan in 3 months to coordinate station construction
• Housing provider has conditional financing that expires in 4 months

Political Context:

• Councillor facing re-election in 6 months
• Organized opposition group (40 homeowners) threatens to campaign against her
• Silent support from 300-person tenant organization (but they don’t typically show up to meetings)
• Province has $3M available but only for projects with 45%+ affordability
• Business Improvement Area worried about construction impacts on retail

The Challenge:  How do you proceed? What trade-offs are acceptable? Who do you prioritize? Consider:

• Is there a creative solution no one has proposed?
• What’s the minimum viable project?
• How do you balance vocal opposition vs. silent support?
• What are the consequences of delay?

SCENARIO CARD #3: The Crisis Pivot

Context: You’re 18 months into a TOD project. Council approved 6 stories, 40% affordable (60 units at 60% AMI). Construction starts in 2 months. Then:

• CRISIS #1: Transit agency announces LRT opening delayed 3 years (supply chain issues)
• CRISIS #2: Federal funding ($4M) is now conditional on serving deeper affordability (30% AMI instead of 60% AMI)
• CRISIS #3: Construction cost estimates come in 25% higher than projected due to interest rates and material costs

Your Current Situation:

• Housing provider has $8M in financing locked in (but conditional on original timeline)
• Federal $4M available but only if you serve 30% AMI (household income ~$25,000/year)
• Serving 30% AMI means rents of $650/month instead of $1,200/month
• Revenue gap from deeper affordability = $2.5M shortfall over 25 years
• Transit delay means ridership projections won’t materialize for 3 years
• Community opposition is watching—any major change could reignite organized resistance

Your Options:
Option A: Proceed as planned

• Lose $4M federal funding
• Keep 60% AMI affordability
• Housing built before transit opens
• Need to find $2M to cover construction cost increase

Option B: Accept federal funding, deepen affordability

• Gain $4M federal funding
• Serve 30% AMI (deeper need)
• Revenue gap increases to $4.5M total
• Need to find additional $500K for operations

Option C: Pause until transit timeline is certain

• Lose current financing ($8M commitment expires)
• Lose federal funding opportunity
• May lose community trust (“you promised housing”)
• Restart process in 1-2 years with unknown conditions

Option D: Redesign (reduce scope to match resources)

• Reduce from 150 units to 100 units
• Keep 40% affordable but fewer total
• Fits within budget
• Serving fewer families from waitlist

Your Challenge:  You have 30 minutes to recommend a path forward to Council. What do you do? Consider:

• Which crisis is most critical to address?
• What are the cascading consequences of each option?
• Who gets hurt most by each decision?
• Is there a creative solution that addresses multiple crises?