6 mistakes cities make with citizen requests and how to fix them for good

Small cities run lean. You’re not choosing between “good” and “bad” systems, you’re choosing between doing everything or doing what matters.

But here’s the truth: poorly handled citizen requests create friction that burns out your team and breaks citizen trust.

In my work leading Gestisoft’s CRM practice for municipalities across Canada, I’ve seen how even small inefficiencies in citizen request managementmultiply quickly. Every dropped request isn’t just an administrative problem — it’s a missed opportunity to prove the city is listening.

Here are the 7 most common mistakes I see, and how your city can turn them into long-term advantages — even with limited staff and budget.

Mistake #1: Letting requests come in from everywhere

Frontline teams juggle voicemails, emails, Facebook messages, texts, and front-desk walk-ins. Each channel adds more confusion. Without one clear entry point, requests slip, duplicates pile up, and staff waste hours chasing updates.

Why this matters?

• Inefficiency: staff spend time reconciling instead of resolving.
• Accountability gaps: no one is sure who owns what.
• Erosion of trust: citizens don’t see the effort, only the silence.

The fix: centralize intake

• Use a 311 hub or citizen request platform as the single-entry point.
• Standardize communication, so residents know exactly where to go.
• At Gestisoft, we often implement Civio to integrate departmental tools into one consistent system.

The advantage

• One source of truth for reporting.
• Staff focus on solving, not searching.
• Leaders gain visibility into volume and trends.

Takeaway: The simpler the intake, the smoother the service — for staff and for residents.

Mistake #2: Treating all requests the same (or differently across teams)

Departments often operate in silos: public works uses one system, bylaw another, and parks may track requests in email folders. Each applies its own priorities. From a citizen’s perspective, the experience feels inconsistent and unfair.

Why this matters?

• Confusion: residents don’t care which department owns what.
• Delays: inconsistent triage means urgent issues get stuck.
• Visibility loss: no shared view of priorities.

The fix: unified triage

• Define what counts as urgent, routine, and deferrable — across all teams.
• Route all requests through a shared intake process.
• Use a centralized CRM hub to distribute requests consistently while letting each department work in its own way.

The advantage

• Predictable response for citizens.
• Better coordination between departments.
• Shared accountability across the city.

Takeaway: A unified triage model makes small cities look bigger, more reliable, and more citizen-focused.

Mistake #3: Relying on memory, spreadsheets, or disconnected tools

I often see requests logged by front-desk staff, then forwarded by email to another department — and then disappearing. Each team may have its own system, but none of them connect. Leaders can’t get a full picture without pulling multiple reports.

Why this matters?

• Requests vanish between systems.
• No audit trail: accountability is impossible.
• Fragmented leadership view: decisions are based on incomplete data.

The fix: integrate systems

• Build a citizen request hub as the single interface.
• Connect departmental tools into a shared data layer.
• Use platforms like Civio to track requests end-to-end without replacing every system.

The advantage

• Clear accountability across teams.
• One complete view of citizen needs.
• Leaders finally see the full story without manual reports.

Takeaway: Integration is not about adding more systems — it’s about connecting what you already have.

Mistake #4: Making citizens follow up themselves

Citizens file a request, then wait in silence. Eventually, silence turns into frustration, and the city hears back — this time louder. Staff spend more time answering, “What’s happening?” than fixing the original issue.

Why this matters?

• Trust erodes with every unanswered request.
• More inbound traffic: calls, emails, complaints.
• Staff time wasted on follow-ups.

The fix: proactive communication

• Automate status updates via SMS or email.
• Give residents a portal to track their own requests.
• Close the loop by sending a message when it’s done.

The advantage

• Citizens feel heard and informed.
• Staff reduce unnecessary call volume.
• The city projects transparency and responsiveness.

Takeaway: Silence is the most expensive mistake cities make — automation solves it.

Mistake #5: Hiding the data

Without centralized reporting, no one knows how many requests came in last month, which areas face the most issues, or whether response times are improving. Leaders can’t plan or justify resources effectively.

Why this matters?

• No visibility into patterns.
• Harder to argue for staffing or budgets.
• Leadership lacks evidence for decision-making.

The fix: make data visible

• Create dashboards that show volumes, response times, and hot spots.
• Use request data to tell a story to council.
• Monitor trends to act before complaints escalate.

The advantage

• Data becomes a political tool, not just an internal report.
• Leaders can justify resources with evidence.
• Chronic issues are spotted early and addressed proactively.

Takeaway: If you can’t see the data, you can’t lead with confidence.

Mistake #6: Assigning tasks based on who’s “available”

I often see staff pulled into issues simply because they’re free — not because they’re the right person for the job. This creates confusion, delays, and rework that frustrates both employees and citizens.

Why this matters?

• Delays and duplication.
• Role confusion, poor morale.
• Lower quality of service.

The fix: smart routing rules

• Assign tasks by department, skillset, or geographic zone.
• Free managers from constant firefighting.
• Automate routing logic through your CRM hub.

The advantage

• Faster resolutions.
• Better alignment between staff skills and requests.
• Improved morale and service quality.

Takeaway: Matching the right task to the right person builds efficiency and team satisfaction.

Mistake #7: Waiting for complaints to act

Too often, issues quietly pile up until a resident posts on Facebook or contacts a councillor. By then, the problem has escalated into politics.

Why this matters?

• The city is always on defence.
• Public complaints damage reputation.
• Council confidence erodes.

The fix: move from reactive to proactive

• Monitor trends in citizen requests.
• Share response metrics before they become a point of criticism.
• Build preventive programs based on recurring issues.

The advantage

• Fewer public complaints.
• Stronger trust with council and residents.
• A reputation for being ahead of problems, not behind them.

Takeaway: Proactivity isn’t about being perfect — it’s about being prepared.

Conclusion: build a system that earns trust

Fixing these mistakes doesn’t mean hiring more staff or working longer hours. It means giving your existing team the visibility, structure, and tools they need to work smarter.

The small cities I’ve partnered with prove this every day: you don’t need the budget of a big metropolis to deliver excellent service. You just need the right citizen-first systems to back up the people who serve on the front lines.

Final takeaway: When cities simplify intake, share priorities, connect systems, and keep citizens informed, they do more than resolve requests — they build trust.

What’s your city struggling with most right now?

At Gestisoft, I’ve helped municipalities across Canada modernize their 311 and citizen request platforms without adding headcount. The results are measurable: fewer lost requests, faster responses, and stronger citizen trust. You may read more about how we helped City of Laval here.

Let’s talk about how we can do the same for your city.