Management Study of the

Development Review Process

 

CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2470 El Camino Real, Suite 210

Palo Alto, CA 94306

v.650.858.0507      f.650.858.0509

 

November 2006

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

1.    INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

This initial chapter of the report introduces the approaches utilized in this study and summarizes key findings, conclusions and recommendations to be found in this report.

1.         INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT

 

The Matrix Consulting Group was retained by the City of Lawrence, Kansas to conduct a review of the Development Review Process including a review of the permit, plan check, and inspections processes.  In reaching the conclusion of the study, the project team has assembled this final report, which summarizes our findings, conclusions and recommendations.  As part of this study, the Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the following specific areas, as well as other related topics:

•           The range and extent of services provided by the Planning, Neighborhood Resources, Utility, Public Works, and related departments relative to the development review processes;

 

•           The staffing needs and assignments within the departments;

 

•           The organization and operation of the employees and positions within the development review functions located in the various departments;

 

•           The extent of cost recovery within the development review process and the workloads associated with City versus County development projects;

 

•           How these services and workloads compare to other comparable communities; and

 

•           How current services in the City of Lawrence compare to ‘best practices’ in the development review process.

 

2.         DESCRIPTION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY

 

As part of this study of the City of Lawrence’s Development Review Process, project team conducted the following activities:

•           Detailed interviews with all staff involved the development review process including employees in the following Departments:  City Manager’s Office, Planning, Neighborhood Resources, Public Works, Utilities, and Fire Medical Services;

 

•           Conducted data collection to gather relevant information regarding the services provided, the volume of work staff has to manage, and the time frames in which the work is completed;

 

•           Conducted five focus groups with representatives of various community interests including residents, developers, and neighborhood associations to elicit information regarding their perceptions of the development review process;

 

•           Conducted a confidential employee survey to provide another opportunity for staff to provide feedback and input into the study;

 

•           Performed a comparative assessment comparing the City of Lawrence with comparable communities throughout the region;

 

•           Completed a best practices comparison that gauged the current practices in the City of Lawrence against a set of “best management practices” for development review activities;

 

These activities enabled the project team to analyze the current performance of duties, the duties assigned and allocated to staff, and the organizational structure.  The analysis conducted had led to the recommendations that are contained in the later chapters of this report.

3.         THE STUDY FOUND A NUMBER OF POSITIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE CITY OF LAWRENCE’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

 

While a study of this nature tends to focus on the opportunities for improvement, it is also important to identify and note those strengths that currently exist within the organization and the processes utilized.  During the course of this study, the project team noted many strengths in the existing development review process. Examples of these strengths include the following: 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department with the implementation of the IVR system enables request for inspections to be requested until 7:00 a.m. of the day of the request inspection that provides a high level of service to the construction community;

 

•           Combination Inspectors are utilized for residential inspections;

 

•           Building Permit Plan Reviews are done concurrently by Neighborhood Resources and Fire Medical Department staff;

 

•           The City has recently updated and adopted a policy regarding the setting and assessment of fees to cover administrative costs associated with processing the applications;

 

•           The City utilizes an inter-departmental review committee where representatives from each department gather to discuss applications and submit conditions of approval;

 

•           The newly adopted Planning Ordinance provides greater authority for Planning Staff to administratively approve many types of minor permits and site plans;

 

•           A single planner is assigned to coordinate each submittal and is responsible for the coordination and follow-up with other departments on plan review comments;

 

•           A preliminary completeness review is conducted for discretionary and administrative permits to ensure that basic necessary information is contained in the application;

 

•           The Planning Commission conducts periodic work sessions with the City Commission to discuss major policy issues; the Planning Commission has adopted by-laws and utilizes a consent agenda in an attempt to streamline their meetings;

 

•           A Planner of the Day is assigned to assist walk-in traffic with questions regarding the City’s requirements and application procedures;

 

•           A variety of application handouts are available to the public for various permit types outlining the requirements for submittal;

 

•           All applications submitted to the Planning Department are distributed for concurrent review to other Departments including: Utility, Public Works, Neighborhood Resources, and Fire Medical; and

 

•           The departments and divisions that participate in the discretionary and administrative permit process have access to GIS including the assessor parcels, zoning districts, aerials, flood and drainage data, utilities, etc;

 

These are illustrative examples of some of the more significant strengths of the existing development review processes.

During the time period that the audit was being conducted, several additional improvements have been implemented by the City of Lawrence, specifically in the Neighborhood Resources Department, that were identified as opportunities for improvement.  These changes are positive improvements to the process.  The project team concurs with the changes that were implemented and typically they are not reflected as a specific recommendation in this report unless further clarification or improvement opportunity still exists.  Examples of these changes include::

•           Implementation of the IVR System for handling voice activated inspection requests and inspections results;

 

•           Implementation of a Permits Technician position to improve the application review and processing;

 

•           Reorganization of supervisory responsibilities to focus an individual on Plan Reviews.

 

4.         SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table provides a summary of the key findings and recommendations contained within this report.   Recommendations are listed in the order they appear in the report.  The suggested timeframe for implementation takes into consideration the relative priority of the item and the ability to implement.  Some items, while perhaps higher priority for improvement, can only be implemented after certain other recommendations have been implemented.

Section	Recommendation	Management Responsibility	Suggested Timeframe	Estimated Cost
7.1	The City of Lawrence should implement a comprehensive software package for the Development Review Process.  All Departments involved in the Development Review process should be required to utilize the selected system for scheduling, processing, and reporting on work activities.	City Manager	1st Quarter, 2007	Depending upon bids and software selected. Estimated at $250,000 to $700,000
	The City of Lawrence should form a steering committee made up of city employees, industry representatives, customers, and other stakeholders to guide the definition of system needs, review various software packages, and guide the implementation of the selected product	City Manager	1st Quarter, 2007
7.2 (a)	The City should modify its approach to data collection in the HTE building permits module to capture additional information regarding processing times.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
7.2 (b)	If alternative software is not chosen, the City should acquire and install the HTE Planning and Engineering module.	City Manager	1st Quarter 2007.	$75,000 to $150,000
7.2 (c)	Utilize The “Click2Gov” Module From HTE To Provide Public Access for Building Permits	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
7.2 (d)	Acquire and Utilize The “Click2Gov” Module From HTE To Provide Public Access for Planning and Engineering Permits.	City Manager	1st Quarter 2007.	$20,000
7.2 (e)	The City should acquire and utilize the “Click2Gov” wireless module from HTE for building inspectors to record inspection results and print correction notices.	City Manager	1st Quarter 2007.
7.3	All of the departments and divisions should utilize the HTE automated permit information system for all aspects of the development review process.	City Manager	2nd Quarter 2007.
	Modules, applications and reports should be developed within the HTE automated permit information system to support the work of these departments and divisions.	City Manager	2nd Quarter 2007.
7.3 (cont)	Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the use of the HTE automated permit information system.	City Manager	2nd Quarter 2007.	Can be performed in-house.
8.1	The Neighborhood Resources Department should modify the dates maintained in the HTE building permit module to include the dates that each division and department completes their plan check – 1st check, 2nd check, 3rd check, etc. – the date the applicant is notified that their plans are ready to be picked up after each plan check – 1st check, 2nd check, 3rd check, etc., and the date(s) the applicant submits and re-submits the building permit plans.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
8.2	The City should revise the building permit plan check timelines.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
8.3 (a)	Responsibility for plan checking residential plans and commercial remodels should be reassigned from building inspectors to the plans examiners.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
8.2 (b)	The City of Lawrence should authorize two additional Plans Examiner positions	City Manager	1st Quarter 2007.	$108,000
8.3(c)	Utilize the newly reclassified position of Plan Check Technician to ensure that building permit applications and plan submittals are complete prior to review by Plans Examiners.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
8.4	The Neighborhood Resources Department should increase the number of building permits issued over-the-counter to 55% to 60% of all building permits issued.	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
	The Plan Check Technician should be utilized to provide over-the-counter plan checking of minor and miscellaneous building permits.	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
8.5	The City should adopt the most current version of the International Code Council building codes	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
	The City should continue its efforts to fully implement the entire ICC building codes rather than continuing the use of a blended code.	City Manager	2007
8.6	The City should expand the use of HTE to enable applicants for single trade permits to complete a permit application online	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
	The City should adopt an objective of issuing 10% of its building permits online.	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
8.7	Post common plan check corrections on the City’s website to provide guidance to architects in the construction requirements in Lawrence.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter – 2007
8.8	The plan check checklists developed by Neighborhood Resources Department should be posted to he Department’s website.	Neighborhood Resources Director	Immediately
8.9	Develop standard building permit plans for use by the public in minor residential improvements.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter – 2007
	Develop a “Home Improvement Center” web page on the City’s web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building permit plan check and inspection process.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter – 2007
8.10	The Neighborhood Resources Department should develop a comprehensive manual of code interpretations.  The manual should be utilized for internal staff training and be posted to the website for use by the development/construction communities.	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter – 2007
8.11	Selected types of building permits should be routed to the Planning Department, Engineering Division, and the Utilities Department for plan checking.	City Manager	3rd Quarter – 2007
	The City should develop and adopt a policy regarding the distribution of the different types of building permit plans to the various divisions and departments involved in the development review process.	City Manager	3rd Quarter – 2007
9.1 (a)	The Planning Department should establish guidelines for reviewing departments to respond to all submissions by applicants and establish clear timelines at each step.	Planning Director	4th Quarter, 2006.
9.1 (b)	The applicant should be informed regarding the name of the project manager assigned to their permit application within five working days of submittal of the application and provided their contact information.	Planning Director	Immediately
9.1 (c)	The project manager in the Planning Department should be responsible for the communication among the multi-disciplinary team, and the resolution of conflicting conditions of approval or competing code requirements.	Planning Director	4th Quarter, 2006
9.1 (d)	The authority of the project manager should be clearly spelled out in a written policy by the Planning Director, and approved by the City Manager.	Planning Director / City Manager	Immediately
9.2 (a)	The Assistant Director should plan and schedule the analysis of permit applications submitted to the Planning Division.	Assistant Planning Director	Immediately
9.2 (b)	The timelines for processing permits by the Planning Department should be revised.	Planning Director	2006
	The timelines for processing of permits by the Planning Department should be published on the Department’s website.	Planning Director	2006
9.3 (a)	The standard conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions and departments in the review of discretionary and administrative permits should be documented.	Planning Director	1st Quarter, 2007
	The adopted standard conditions of approval should be posted to the Planning Department’s website.	Planning Director	1st Quarter, 2007
	The Planning Department should take lead responsibility in facilitating the development of these written conditions of approval by all of the divisions and departments.	Planning Director with assistance from Directors of Utilities, Neighborhood Resources, Public Works, and Fire Medical.	1st Quarter, 2007
9.3 (b)	The Planning Department should document interpretations of the new zoning ordinance and make these available to the public on the Department’s website.	Planning Director	Immediately and on-going
9.3 (c)	The Planning Department should develop a procedures manual.	Assistant Planning Director	1st Half, 2007
9.3 (d)	The Planning Division should develop and utilize checklists for the review and processing of discretionary and administrative applications by its own staff.	Assistant Planning Director	1st Quarter, 2007
	The checklists should be posted to the City’s website for use by those individuals submitting plans to review requirements that will be required and reviewed by staff.	Assistant Planning Director	1st Quarter, 2007
9.4	The Planning Department should conduct training sessions over the next few months to familiarize staff with the new zoning ordinance.	Planning Director	Immediate
	A separate training budget should be established for the Planning Commission.	Planning Director	2007
9.5	Two additional current planners should be added to the Planning Department to perform the development review planning functions.	City Manager	2007/2008	$55,000 per position ($110,000 in total)
9.6	The Planning Commission should undertake a detailed review of its meeting schedule and agenda management process during its next annual planning meeting. As part of this review, the Board should have discussions with the City and County Elected Officials regarding the appropriate role of the Board.	Planning Commission	2007
10.2	The existing level of building inspection staffing should not be modified.	Neighborhood Resources Director	Immediate
10.3	The Neighborhood Resources Department should adopt formal service level targets.  Performance against these targets should be monitored on a regular basis.	Neighborhood Resources Director	4th Quarter, 2006.
10.4	The Neighborhood Resources Department should provide the training necessary to its Combination Inspectors to enable these inspectors to function as Combination Inspectors for residential and commercial inspections.	Neighborhood Resources Director	2007.
10.5 (a)	Checklists should be provided to each Inspector in the Division and their use required on each inspection.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter, 2007
	These checklists should be published at the Neighborhood Resources Department’s website.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter, 2007
	Completed inspection checklists should be stored with the permit files.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter, 2007
10.5 (b)	The code Enforcement Manager should allocate a proportion of his/her time to quality control and consistency of code interpretations by the Building Inspectors.	Neighborhood Resources Director	4th Quarter, 2006
10.5 (c)	The Neighborhood Resources Department should document official code interpretations and publish them on the Division’s website.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter, 2007
	The Neighborhood Resources Division should develop policies on how official code interpretations are made and published.	Neighborhood Resources Director	4th Quarter, 2006
10.5 (d)	A training needs assessment should be developed for employees in the Neighborhood Resources Division.	Neighborhood Resources Director	4th Quarter, 2006
	The training budget for the Neighborhood Resources Department should be increased	Neighborhood Resources Director	2007	$5,000
	The Code Enforcement Manager should coordinate bi-weekly training and be responsible for the quality of in-house training.	Neighborhood Resources Director	Immediately
	One hours of training should be provided bi-weekly for the staff of the Division.	Neighborhood Resources Director	Immediately
11.2	All development review should be co-located at a common facility.	City Manager	4rth Quarter, 2008
11.3	The Departments of Neighborhood Resources and Planning should be merged into a new Department of Community Development.	City Manager	1st Quarter, 2007	$25,000
11.4	The Utilities Department should designate a single individual to be responsible for plan reviews.  This individual should be trained in all of the components of plan review for each of the relevant functional areas.	Director of Utilities	1st Quarter, 2007
	The City of Lawrence should devote one employee from the Utility Department exclusively to the performance of development review activities.  This position should be located in the One Stop Shop Center.	City Manager	2007
11.5	The current separation of duties relative to plan review for traffic and transportation issues should be combined into a review conducted by the Traffic Engineer.	Public Works Director / Planning Director	1st Quarter, 2007
	One individual from Public Works should be assigned to the One Stop Shop to handle all development review functions for the Public Works Department.	City Manager/ Public Works Director	2007
11.6	The plan of organization of the Planning Department should be modified, and two Planner positions upgraded to Senior Planner.	City Manager/ Planning Director	1st Quarter, 2007	$25,000
11.7	The City of Lawrence and Douglas County should consider the joint provision of Building Inspection Services through a cooperative arrangement.	City Manager / County Manager	1st Quarter, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   PROFILE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.    PROFILE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

 

This initial chapter in the development review study presents background information regarding the City of Lawrence and the departments involved in the development process. The chapter includes the following:

•           Organizational structures for the divisions and departments involved in the development review process including the divisions within the Utilities and Public Works Departments that are significantly involved in this process, the Planning Department, the Neighborhood Resources Department, and the Fire Medical Department.

 

•           Workload and staffing trends for these departments where available; and

 

•           The role of staff within the permit, plan check, inspection, and code enforcement process.

 

The first section provides information on the City of Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Department.

1.         PLANNING DEPARTMENT

 

The Planning Department is responsible for both long-range planning and development permits. A description of the primary responsibility and the mission of the Planning Department is presented below.

•           The Planning Department’s primary responsibility is implementation of the Comprehensive Plans [Horizon 2020 and Transportation 2025] through development and administration of regulatory tools that include the: City & County zoning codes, City and County subdivision regulations, Historic Resources code, Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP), special area plans, and City & County development policies.  Although a city department, the County funds 1/6 of the department’s budget.

 

•           The department’s mission is the effective and efficient delivery of services to the community in a timely manner consistent with the adopted land use plans, which includes providing guidance on land use planning principles & practices. In performing this mission, planning staff provides support to: the City & County Commissions; five advisory boards (Lawrence/Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission, Historic Resources Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals/Sign Code Board of Appeals, City/County Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Transportation Advisory Committee); and, numerous ad hoc committees/task forces of these Boards and Commissions. 

 

The department has two divisions, in addition to support staff. These divisions are: Current Planning and Specialized Areas Planning (Long-Range, Area/Neighborhood, Historic Resources, Transportation, and GIS/Web). Two administrative personnel support the Department and provide customer service.  The organizational chart, below, provides a graphical depiction of the Department’s organization.

Important points to note regarding the organization are provided below.

•           The Planning Director has a span of control of eight, excluding the Historic Preservation and Transportation Interns.

 

•           The department has a flat plan or organization.  There are only two managerial positions:  the Planning Director and the Assistant Planning Director.  The remaining positions are classified as Planners (excluding the administrative support staff, GIS Analyst, and interns).

 

•           The Planning Director position is vacant at the present time.

 

•           The Historic Preservation Design Intern is funded 40% by the departmental budget.

 

•           The Transportation Planner and Transportation Intern positions are funded 20% by the departmental budget.

 

The table below provides a summary of the key roles and responsibilities of personnel within the Planning Department:

Function	Staffing By Classification		Roles and Responsibilities
Administration	Planning Director	1	·          The Planning Director is responsible for the overall administration and management of the Planning Department. ·          The Director is responsible for developing the annual budget. ·          The Director develops policies and procedures and establishes the overall mission and goal of the Department. ·          Planners assigned to the Special Areas Planning Division report directly to the Director. ·          This position if currently vacant and is filled by the Assistant Planning Director who acts as the Interim Planning Director.
	Assistant Planning Director	1	·          The Assistant Director is responsible for administration and management of the Current Planning Division. ·          Assists in the development of the annual budget. ·          Develops policies and procedures for Current Planning Division. ·          The Assistant Director is currently acting as Interim Director. ·          Direct reports include the Current Planners and the Administrative Staff.
Current Planning Division	Current Planner	5	·          Current planners review all development permits including site plans, development plans, plats, re-zoning, use permitted upon review (UPR), and flood plain development permits.  Ensure development is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. ·          Current planners coordinate the development review process related to land use. Building permit review is a separate process that occurs after the review of zoning, subdivision, and flood plain review. ·          Current planners share responsibility for staffing the Planning Commission meetings, Board of Zoning Appeals, and various subcommittees. ·          Current planners meet with applicants during a pre-submittal conference to outline submission requirements. ·          Current Planners and Specialty Planners share responsibility on a rotating basis for acting as Planner of the Day (POD).  The POD is responsible for staffing the front desk to answer zoning and land use questions for incoming applicants. ·          Current planners work five eight hour days each week and may attend evening meeting of the Planning Commission.
	Administrative Clerk III	2	·          Responsible for intake and tracking of all development permits. ·          Staff the front desk, and answer applicant questions related to submission requirements and/or directs applicants to schedule pre-application meeting with Current Planners. ·          Prepare agenda packets and minutes of Planning Commission meetings. ·          Prepares Planning Department payroll for submittal to Finance/HR. ·          Prepares legal notices, mailings, ordinance preparation and CC/BCC packets. ·          Handle and route all incoming mail and phone calls.
Special Areas Planning Division	Historic Preservation Planner   Historic Preservation Intern	1       1	·          The Historic Preservation Planner acts as case manager for all development applications within the environs of a Historic District.  ·          The Historic Preservation Planners involvement in the development review process includes coordination of land use review and building review to ensure compliant with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Historic Resources code. ·          Prepares all staff reports related to development within Historic Districts/environs. ·          Staffs the Historic Resources Commission. ·          The Historic Preservation Intern assists the Historic Planner through research and administrative support. ·          Historic Preservation Planners shares Planner of the Day (POD) responsibilities with Current Planners
	Long Range Planner	2	·          Long Range Planners prepare the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Horizons 2020), conduct research and develop specific area plans, and prepare updates and revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. ·          Facilitate public meetings on area plans and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. ·          Provide support to the Planning Commission and subcommittees. ·          Share Planner of the Day (POD) responsibilities with Current Planners.
	Area/Neighborhood Planner	1	·          Prepares area specific area plans for the City . ·          Facilitates public hearings regarding development of area plans. ·          Shares Planner of the Day responsibilities.
	GIS Planner GIS Analyst	1 1	·          The GIS Planner conducts advanced planning research related to the Comprehensive Plan, area plans, and transportation plans. ·          Assists with Comprehensive Plan and area plan updates. ·          Assists with zoning and subdivision ordinance research and development. ·          The GIS Analyst produces all zoning and land use maps, specific area maps, maintains data layers re: land use and zoning, flood plains, historic resource and special areas, transportation elements, etc ·          Share Planner of the Day (POD) responsibilities with Current Planners.
	Transportation Planner   Transportation Intern	1     1	·          Researches and prepares City transportation plan. ·          Maintains and updates the City’s traffic impact model. ·          Reviews site plans and development plans for traffic impacts.  Verifies projected trip generation and evaluates the access management plans. ·          The Transportation Intern provides administrative and research support. ·          Share Planner of the Day (POD) responsibilities with Current Planners.

 

The table, that follows, summarizes service levels, hours of operation, and other workload elements of the Planning Department.

 

 

 

2.         NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

The Neighborhood Resources Department is organized into three divisions: Building Safety Division, Codes Enforcement Division, and Community Development Division. The Building Safety Division is responsible for building inspection, plan review, contractor and trades licensing and enforcement. 

As stated in the City’s FY 06 Budget, the purpose of the Building Safety Division is to “preserve the viability and stability of the business and residential districts and prevent deterioration and blighting influences within the community.” In order to accomplish this task the Department has several responsibilities including:

•           Responsibility for the enforcement of building and environmental codes.  Plan reviews and inspections ensure buildings and structures provide safe and proper occupancies for all individuals.

 

•           The Department reviews and recommends adoption of applicable construction related codes. These codes establish the minimum standards and regulations to which buildings and structures are to be built.

 

•           The Department also runs the contractor licensing program for the City, which ensures that contractors meet minimum standards for building construction.

 

The City’s budget also lists the following objectives over the coming fiscal year:

•           Implement “Click2Gov” inspection request component;

 

•           Implement scanning/imaging program for documents associated with environmental, zoning, and rental housing complaint cases;

 

•           Develop customer service standards for Neighborhood Resources Department staff;

 

•           Continue adoption process for updated building, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing codes; and

 

•           Implement licensing and continuing education program for building and building specialty contractors.

 

Seven personnel are assigned to the Building Safety Division. 

Community Development is responsible for administering community development projects such as low income housing initiatives and CDBG programs.  Four personnel, including one manager, are assigned to the Community Development Division. Community Development is not directly involved in development review. A Director manages the Department and is supported by one Secretary. 

The organizational chart below shows the structure of the Department:

It should be noted that the organizational chart above includes the addition of a Code Enforcement Manager.

The key roles and responsibilities of those personnel directly involved in development review in the Neighborhood Resources Department are presented in the table below.

Function	Staffing By Classification		Roles and Responsibilities
Administration	Director	1	·          The Director is responsible for the overall administration and management of the Neighborhood Resources Department. ·          The Director is responsible for developing the annual budget. ·          The Director develops policies and procedures and establishes the overall mission and goal of the Department. ·          Directly supervises the Community Development Manager, Code Enforcement Manager, and Zoning Enforcement Manager.
	Secretary	1	·          Secretaries are responsible for handling all walk in applicants for building permits, contractor licenses, and inspection requests. ·          Secretaries provide initial intake of applications for permits and enter information into the HTE building permit and inspection system.  A PIN number is also generated to allow applicants to track the status of their application online. ·          Handle and route all incoming mail and phone calls.  Building permit applications and plans are routed to the Plans Examiner/Inspection Supervisor for assignment.
Code Enforcement	Building Safety Manager	1	·          Responsible for oversight and management of the Code Enforcement Division. ·          Develops Division policies and procedures, goals and objectives, and strategic initiatives. ·          Currently oversees the implementation of the IVR system that allows telephone based inspection scheduling and inspection result access. ·          Oversees processing of contractor license applications. ·          Reports directly to the Director of Neighborhood Resources.
	Senior Plans Examiner	1	·          The Inspection Supervisor currently acts as the Plans Examiner for the Division.  This includes coordinating the assignment and routing of all plans and files.  ·          Monitors the status of building plan review. ·          Develops plan review and inspection checklists. ·          Reviews building plans for conformance with City codes. ·          Coordinates plan revisions with applicants.
Code Enforcement (Cont’d)	Building Inspector IIs:	4	·          Inspectors review building plans for conformance with the locally adopted building codes including: -     1997 Uniform Building Code -     2005 National Electrical Code -     2003 Uniform Plumbing Code -     2000 Uniform Mechanical Code ·          Two inspectors are combination residential inspectors and one is certified as a combination residential and commercial inspector. Inspectors perform a variety of commercial inspections. ·          Conduct inspections during various stages of construction to ensure compliance with approved building plans. ·          Inspectors do not carry tablets/laptops in the field to report results of inspections but have recently implemented a phone activated IVR system to update this information.
	Code Enforcement Manager	1	·          Responsible for supervision and oversight of the Zoning Inspector and Environmental Inspectors.  ·          Develops policies and procedures and checklist related to code enforcement. ·          Monitors inspection productivity and resolution of code violations. ·          Resolves issues that require coordination with building inspections or planning. ·          Attends weekly meetings to review new plans/review status of outstanding permits.
	Zoning Enforcement Officer	1	·          Conducts inspections to ensure compliance with approved site plans.  ·          Coordinates with Planning to ensure design elements, landscaping, screening, and ADA requirements comply with approved site plan. ·          Conducts final inspections prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy to ensure revisions and or approved plans were followed. ·          .

 

The table, that follows, provides information on key services and workload of the Neighborhood Resources Department.

 

 

 

 

3.         FIRE AND MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

 

The City of Lawrence and Douglas County jointly fund the Fire and Medical Department. The City funds the fire services and the County funds a portion of the emergency medical services. Overall, the city funds seventy-five percent of the shared costs. Fire services are only provided within the City of Lawrence, while emergency medical services and hazardous material responses are provided for the entire county.

The Fire and Medical Department is divided into six divisions. The Fire Prevention Division is one of six divisions of the Fire and Medical Department. The staff of Fire Prevention is co-located with the Neighborhood Resources Department. Fire Prevention is responsible for planning and fire protection engineering, enforcement of Uniform Fire Code and Life Safety Code, fire control management areas, investigations, cause and origin investigations, and the juvenile fire setter program. The Fire and Medical Department is authorized 146 full-time equivalent staff. The organizational chart, below, depicts the organization of the Department.

As shown above, three personnel within the Department are involved in development review.

The table below provides a summary of key roles and responsibilities of Fire and Medical Department personnel involved in development review.

Function	Staffing By Classification		Roles and Responsibilities
Administration	Division Chief	1	·          The Fire Marshal is responsible for overall management and oversight of the Prevention Division. ·          Develops policies and procedures for the Prevention Division. ·          Reviews site plans for conformance with the locally adopted fire code and life safety code. ·          Directly supervises the Fire Inspectors.
Inspection/Plan Review	Fire Inspector	2	·          Fire Inspectors are responsible for reviewing site and building plans for conformance with the 1997 Uniform Fire Code and Life Safety Code. ·          Prevention staff provides inspections on new construction, site plans, day care operations, nursing homes, congregate residences, and business inspections. In addition permits are issued by Prevention for blasting operations, explosive storage, and open burning. ·          One Fire Officer/Inspector does plan review and inspections for new construction, attends development review meeting at Planning Department to identify issues with development proposals.  The Fire Officer/Inspector also attends meetings with code enforcement staff to review status of building permits. ·          The other fire inspector conducts inspections of existing dwellings including multi-family establishments, schools, day care, businesses, and other high occupancies/high hazard occupancies.

 

The table, that follows, describes the workload and services provided by the Fire and Medical Department related to development review. As indicated in the table, the Fire Inspector performed 166 site plan reviews, 164 building plan reviews and 150 final occupancy inspections. A total of 890 inspections or 703 hours were spent conducting inspection, performing plan review, and testing fire suppression systems.

 

4.         PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

 

The Public Works Department is a full service department. The department provides a wide range of services including Solid Waste, infrastructure maintenance including Streets, Traffic, and Stormwater, design and construction management of public improvements through Engineering, and internal services such as Buildings and Structures and a Central Maintenance Garage. 

Two divisions of the Public Works Department are involved in the development review process: the Engineering Division and the Traffic Engineering Division. The following points describe the functions of these two divisions.

•           The Engineering Division is authorized 9.66 full-time equivalent staff. The Engineering Division is responsible for the review and approval of all plans for streets, plats and site plans, sewers, sidewalks, and storm sewers. The division administers these projects and inspects project construction, evaluates pavement condition and contracts for major pavement restoration and replacement. The City Engineer provides supervision for the traffic, pavement management, and stormwater programs.

 

•           The Traffic Engineering Division is authorized 8 staff. There is only one engineer in the division - the Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineering Division reviews plats and site plans, street plans, analyzes traffic data, and provides professional and technical data to the Traffic Safety Commission. Field crews assigned to the division are responsible for signal maintenance, signal timing, street signs, and pavement markings. Crews also maintain school beacons, conduct electronic and manual traffic counts and school crossing counts.

 

It should be noted that the Planning Department analyzes and develops traffic mitigation measures and not the Traffic Engineering Division.

The organizational chart, that follows, provide a graphical depiction of the organization of these two divisions:

 

The table, that follows, provides a description of the key roles and responsibilities of the staff in these two divisions involved in the development review process. 

Function	Staffing By Classification		Roles and Responsibilities
Engineering	City Engineer Project Engineer	1 1	·          Reviews discretionary permits including preliminary plats, final plats, site plans, use permits, and final development plans for city code compliance such as right-of-way, sidewalk (ADA requirements), easements, public improvement requirements, etc.  Develops correction comments and conditions of approval. ·          Attends the inter-departmental development review meetings. ·          Reviews all public improvement construction drawings for compliance with the City’s standard details, and compliance with conditions of approval in previously approved discretionary permits. ·          Responds to phone calls from residents about construction issues.
Stormwater Engineering	Stormwater Engineer	1	·          Manages the implementation of the 1996 stormwater master plan. ·          Reviews discretionary permits including preliminary plats, final plats, site plans, use permits, and final development plans for stormwater design criteria, use of stormwater best management practices, compliance with the standards proposed in drainage studies as appropriate, etc.  Develops correction comments and conditions of approval. ·          Attends the inter-departmental development review meetings. ·          Reviews all public improvement construction drawings submitted by consulting engineers for compliance with the City’s standard details, compliance with conditions of approval in previously adopted discretionary permits, and compliance with City ordinances. ·          Responds to phone calls from residents regarding problems with stormwater drainage.
Traffic Engineering	Traffic Engineer	1	·          Manages the Traffic Division including signs and markings, signals, support of the Traffic Safety Commission, and development review. ·          Responds to and analyzes requests from residents for traffic signs, stop signs, and traffic signals.  Conducts special studies. ·          Reviews discretionary permits including preliminary plats, final plats, site plans, use permits, and final development plans for compliance with traffic standards, traffic flow design criteria, previously approved conditions, etc.  Develops correction comments and conditions of approval. ·          Attends the inter-departmental development review meetings. ·          Reviews all public improvement construction drawings submitted by consulting engineers for compliance with the City’s standard details, compliance with conditions of approval in previously adopted discretionary permits, and compliance with City ordinances.

 

The table, that follows, describes the workload and services provided by the Public Works Department related to development review.

 

 

5.         UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

The Utilities Department is allocated 115.5 full-time equivalent positions. The Utilities Department’s mission it to “provide the City with an adequate supply of clean, safe, drinking water and properly return this precious resource back to the environment so that its life-sustaining properties can be utilized for generations to come.” The primary responsibilities of the Divisions involved in the development review process include the following:

•           The Engineering Division is responsible for reviewing preliminary and final plats, development plans, site plans, and public improvement plans to ensure that water line and sanitary sewer connections are consistent with the design and capacity of the City’s water distribution and sanitary sewer collection systems and that sufficient capacity is in place.  Inspection of water and sanitary sewer extensions during construction are also performed throughout each project.   The Engineering Division consults with the Water Distribution and Wastewater Collections staff as required.

 

•           The Water Quality Division also reviews development permits and new construction to ensure design and construction conforms to the Clean Water Act.  A Water Quality Manager is dedicated to this latter function.

 

The organizational chart, below, illustrates the organization of the Divisions and personnel involved in development review process.

As shown above, seven to eight staff within Utilities are involved in reviewing development and public improvement plans. The Director is typically not involved in development review.  The table, that follows, provides a description of the key roles and responsibilities of these personnel related to development review:

Function	Staffing By Classification		Roles and Responsibilities
Administration	Water Division Assistant Director   Wastewater Division Assistant Director	1     1	·          Provide oversight and management of their respective divisions. ·          The Assistant Directors typically do not review development and public improvement plans but are provided plans so that they are aware of new development and potential impacts on water distribution and wastewater systems.
Engineering	Utilities Engineer	1	·          Responsible for oversight and management of the Engineering Division. ·          Oversees all utilities infrastructure design and construction. ·          Attends meetings with the development community to evaluate proposed development areas and provide guidance on requirements for connection to and extension of the water and wastewater utilities. ·          Reviews development plans for the following types of issues: design/compatibility with City’s water and wastewater systems, capacity issues, etc. ·          Reviews plans to identify design, access, and capacity issues with water and wastewater systems. ·          Reviews public improvement plans for conformance to city codes, accepted design standards, and capacity. ·          Typically does not attend development review meetings at Planning Department.
	Field Project Manager	1	·          Directly supervises the Inspections Supervisor and Project Inspectors. ·          Reviews development and public improvement plans to identify design, access, and capacity issues with water and wastewater systems. ·          Oversees inspection of water and sewer line construction. ·          Manages the construction of all developer funded water and sewer public improvements including final acceptance letters, sanitary sewer video inspections, assuring warranty inspections are conducted, etc.
	Project Engineer	1	·          Responsible for document review and the management of inspection staff. ·          Responsible for managing the construction of all developer funded water and sewer public improvements including final acceptance letters, sanitary sewer video inspections, assuring warranty inspections are conducted, etc. ·          May attend development review meetings at Planning Department. .
	Inspections Supervisor	1	·          Responsible for supervision of water and sewer line construction inspections. ·          Directly supervises the project inspectors (4). ·          Reviews development and public improvement plans to identify design and access issues, capacity issues, and construction standards. ·          May attend development review meetings at Planning.
Water Distribution	Water Distribution Manager	1	·          The Water Distribution Manger is responsible for field operations within water distribution. ·          Reviews site plans for the following types of issues: fire hydrant spacing, connection valves, service connects / how lines cross lots, capacity issues, and access points to water mains. ·          Does not attend development review meetings at Planning Department.
Wastewater	Wastewater Field Collection Manager	1	·          Responsible for oversight and management of field operations within wastewater collection and treatment. ·          Does not attend development review meetings at Planning Department.
Water Quality	Water Quality Manager	1	·          Responsible for all water quality issues for the Utilities Department.  ·          Enforces provisions of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. ·          Typically reviews site plans to identify potential water quality issues.  Reviews include the following types of elements: potential discharge of contaminants into the water system, manhole requirements, and wastewater treatment. ·          Does not typically attend Planning Department development review meetings

 

 The table, that follows, describes the workload and services provided by the Utilities Department related to development review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.             SUMMARY OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

 

 

3.    SUMMARY OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

 

The Matrix Consulting Group conducted a survey of employees of the Departments involved in the development review process to obtain feedback on the effectiveness and efficiency of the review process as well as to identify management, organizational, and operational issues within each review department. This survey was conducted as part of the Management Study of the Development Review Process.  Surveys were distributed to all Department employees.  Of the 50 surveys that were distributed, 27 were received for a response rate of 54%. While the survey was anonymous, employees were asked to indicate to which Department they are assigned and their primary role.  The tables, below, present the results.

 

Note that the largest proportion of respondents were from the Planning Department and involved in Plan Review or Administration. The section, which follows, presents a brief overview of the results of the employee survey.

1.         GENERAL FINDINGS

 

In reviewing the results of the employee survey, it is useful to review the overall pattern of responses. The chart, below, shows the overall average rating of each statement by respondents. Note that strongly disagree is a score of 1, while strongly agree is a score of 5. An average score of 3 represents a response of neutral or ‘neither agree or disagree.’ Also note that ‘neutral’ is represented by the red line.

As shown above, the majority of the responses were positive. Only five statements received negative responses – questions 4, 10, 22, and 28. In addition, the overall average response rating was 3.5, which represents a response between neutral and agree. The sections, which follow, provide a detailed discussion of the results of the employee survey for each of the topic areas as identified.

2.         RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED TO EVALUATE STATEMENTS REGARDING THE OVERALL PROVISION OF SERVICE BY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENTS.

 

The employee survey contained several statements relating to the provision of service to the development community, citizens, and other stakeholders.  Statements included overall responsiveness, timeliness, consistency, and clarity of the process. The chart, below, provides a comparison of the results for statements relating to the general provision of service.

The points, which follow, provide the results for the statements presented in the above chart.

•           In response to the statement, ‘the development review and permitting processes are fair and responsive for all applicants,’ 63% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ 19% select ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’, 11% selected ‘neutral’, and 7% did not answer.

 

•           When provided the statement, ‘the development review and permitting processes are timely and efficient,’ 56% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ 22% selected ‘neutral,’ and 19% selected ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘agree.’

 

•           In response to the statement ‘my division prides itself on providing fast, high quality service to all applicants in the development review process,’ an overwhelming majority, 81%, selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’, compared to 11% who chose ‘neutral.’

 

The next chart, below, provides response results to additional statements related to customer service and general service provision.

The points, which follow, present a discussion of the information presented in the chart.

•           In response to the statement, ‘The City of Lawrence makes it easy for applicants or the general public to obtain complete, accurate information about all aspects of the development and permitting processes,’ only 33% of respondents agreed, compared to 41% who disagreed, and 26% who were neutral.

 

•           The vast majority of employees, 89%, agreed with the statement “customer complaints are handled quickly and courteously in my division.

 

•           When provided the statement, ‘The City of Lawrence’s permit processes ensure that applicants are advised of all application requirements and permit standards early in the process,’ only 41% of respondents indicated agreement, while 26% disagreed, and 33% were neutral.

 

•           Respondents positively evaluated the statement, ‘It is rare that new requirements are added by staff after an application has been accepted and deemed complete,’ with 56% of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ and 22% selected ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree.’

 

The chart, below, provides additional response results to statements regarding customer service.

The points, below, provide a discussion of the results presented in the chart.

•           In response to the statement, ‘The City of Lawrence has developed clear and understandable codes, regulations and development standards for staff and the public,’ only 22% indicated agreement, compared to 44% who disagreed, and 33% who indicated ‘neither agree or disagree.’

 

•           When provided the statement, ‘applicants have easy access to staff to obtain information about permit application and approval requirements,’ 81% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ while 11% indicated ‘neutral.’

 

•           Respondents agreed almost unanimously with the statement ‘my division provides a high level of service to the City of Lawrence.’

 

In summary, respondents had mixed perceptions of the provision of development review services. While respondents generally agreed that the reviewing departments provide high levels of service to the City, they also indicated that the City could do a better job of providing information to residents and development customers and clarifying rules and requirements.

3.         EMPLOYEES EVALUATED STATEMENTS REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND THE REVIEW PROCESS.

 

The employee survey included several statements regarding management of their respective departments and coordination of the development review process.  The chart, below, presents the results with respect to employees’ perceptions of management of their departments.

The points, which follow, present a discussion of the employee survey results with respect to department management.

•           In response to the statement, ‘my division is effectively managed and operates efficiently,’ 63% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree.’

 

•           When provided the statement, ‘my division has clear, well document policies and procedures to guide my involvement in the development review process,’ 52% selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ and 37% selected ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree.’

 

•           Respondents had positive perceptions with respect to the statement, ‘managers in my division are receptive to new ideas and employee suggestions for improvements in the building permit and land entitlement process,’ 74% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree.’

 

•           In response to the statement, ‘managers of my division delegate responsibility for processing of development permit applications to an appropriate level, while taking steps to ensure good quality control,’ 67% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ and 22% selected ‘neutral.’

 

Overall, respondents had positive perceptions with respect to managers and management practices. However, respondents also strongly indicated that policies and procedures could be improved. 

Additional statements were presented related to performance standards and the coordination of the development review process. These data are show in the chart below.

The points, which follow, present a summary of the employee survey results.

•           In response to the statement, ‘my division has established clear performance standards for processing applications and routinely monitors performance with regard to development review/permitting processes,’ only 33% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ compared to 33% who indicated disagreement, and 30% who were ‘neutral.’ 

 

•           When provided the statement, ‘coordination between my division and the others involved in development review and permitting processes is effective,’ only 41% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree.’ 37% of respondents indicated disagreement and 22% selected ‘neutral.’

 

Overall, while respondents generally view division managers positively, many respondents believe the review process can be coordinated more effectively. The next section provides response results to statements related to staffing and organization of development review departments.

4.         EMPLOYEES EVALUATED STATEMENTS RELATED TO ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS.

 

Employees were provided with a number of statements related to staffing, organization, and operation of the department in which they are employed.  The first chart, below, shows response results to statements regarding staffing and organization.

As shown above, only 22% of respondents agree that their division is staffed appropriately based on workload.  However, a clear majority, 63%, indicated that the organization of their division ‘is well suited to its responsibilities in the development review process.’ The next chart, below, shows results to statements regarding other operational issues.

The following points highlight the information presented above:

•           In response to the statement, ‘my division has an effective plan for responding to high demand in development review/permit processes without compromising quality or timeliness,’ only 33% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ compared to 41% who indicated disagreement, and 22% who were ‘neutral.’ 

 

•           When provided the statement, ‘my division has the information technology it needs to accomplish its functions efficiently and effectively,’ the vast majority, 70%, indicated agreement.

 

•           In response to the statement, ‘my division uses processes that allow different types of projects to be processed differently according to complexity and number of approvals required,’ only 37% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ compared to 26% who indicated disagreement, and 37% who were ‘neutral.’ 

 

•           The vast majority, 74% believe that their division is clear and consistent in its interpretations of regulations and permit or development standards.

 

The next three statements relate to problem resolution.

The following points can be made regarding the chart above.

 

•           In response to the statement, ‘The City of Lawrence delegates authority to staff for approval of minor permits to speed and simplify the development approval process,’ 56% of respondents selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ compared to 15% who indicated disagreement, and 30% who were ‘neutral.’ 

 

•           A clear majority of respondents indicated agreement with the statement ‘I am encourage to take the initiative in resolving problems faced by applicants in the development review process.’

 

•           A majority of respondents, 56%, responded positively to the statement ‘I receive sufficient ongoing training to maintain and improve my skills and fulfill my responsibilities in the development review process.  There was an equal distribution of respondents who indicated disagreement and ‘neither agree or disagree (22%).’

 

The final chart, below, provides response results to statements related to obstacles presented in the review process:

•           As shown above, only 26% of respondents agree with the statement ‘Most of the time, the information submitted by permit applicants is complete and adequate to allow prompt action on an application.’  The largest share, 44%, indicated disagreement with this statement, and 30% were neutral.

 

•           Only 33% of respondents agreed with the statement that ‘ codes, regulations and development standards do not present unreasonable or unnecessary obstacles to development.  A majority, 52%, indicated ‘neither agree or disagree.’

 

Overall, respondents believe there are a number of improvement opportunities related to organization and operation of the review departments and review process.  The next section provides a summary of written comments by respondents.

5.         RESPONDENTS IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES WITH THE REVIEW PROCESS AND REVIEW DEPARTMENTS.

 

Employees were provided an opportunity to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the review process.  The list of points, below, provides a summary of comments made by respondents regarding the strengths of the review process.

•           Good teamwork

 

•           Good supervision

 

•           Employee dedication

 

•           Resources

 

•           Autonomy

 

•           Qualified and experienced staff

 

•           Good communication

 

•           Pleasant place to work

 

•           Training

 

•           Good technological support

 

The points, that follow, present a list of improvement opportunities identified by responding employees.

•           Better trust from upper management.

 

•           Workload needs to be more evenly distributed.

 

•           More staff.

 

•           Better pay.

 

•           Incomplete applications delay progress and increase workload. Need process to turn back incomplete applications to customers.

 

•           Website needs to be updated & improved.

 

•           Future Land Use Map needs to be updated.

 

•           Business licenses: “going out of business” license required, but no license required to start business.  This could generate revenue for the City.

 

•           Need to approve updated codes

 

•           Improve compensation of technical staff.

 

•           Better communication with upper management.

 

•           Additional technical resources.

 

•           More training.

 

•           Better relationship with Neighborhood Resources.

 

•           Adopt I-Codes.

 

•           Need “one-stop-shop” concept for customers that combines planning, zoning,            Neighborhood Resources, etc.

 

•           Need full time position to handle POD (Planner of the Day) duties.

 

The detailed responses to each question from the employee survey are included as Attachment A to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.   SUMMARY OF THE FOCUS GROUPS

 

 

4.    SUMMARY OF THE FOCUS GROUPS

 

As part of management study of the development review process, the project team conducted a number of focus groups to assist in the evaluation of customer satisfaction and identify issues with and opportunities to improve the development review process. These focus groups were conducted over a 2-day period and including the following:

•           Wednesday, June 14

–          10:00 AM – this group consisted of 12 individuals who work as developers, architects, consultants, real estate professionals, and contractors.

 

–          3:00 PM – this group consisted of 10 individuals, including business owners, advisory councils, University of Kansas associations, and Chamber of Commerce representatives.

 

–          7:00 PM – this group consisted of 10 individuals, including neighborhood association representatives and other Lawrence residents.

 

•           Thursday, June 15

 

–          10:00 AM – this group consisted of 8 individuals, including developers, construction managers, architects, etc.

 

–          1:00 PM – this group consisted of 7 individuals, including developers and residents of the unincorporated areas of Douglas County.

 

In total, the project obtained input from 47 focus group participants. All meetings were conducted on a confidential basis to obtain as much candid feedback as possible, with no City staff in attendance.

The following sections summarize the focus group perceptions regarding a variety of topics and issues. Responses are organized into two groups: the development community / business interests and neighborhood associations, and City and County residents. Words and phrases in quotes represent actual comments made by the focus group participants.

1.         THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS GROUPS IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF ISSUES AND METHODS TO STREAMLINE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.

 

Several developers, architects, consultants, business owners, and other groups participated in the focus groups to provide their insight regarding the issues and challenges of the development review process, as well as a number of recommendations. The participants identified a number of issues and recommendations regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of the process and overall staff support.

The project team asked participants about the level of customer service of each of the Departments involved in development review, timeliness and consistency of the process, effectiveness of the process, and overall perceptions of customer service. The following points provide the general comments provided:

•           Customer Service.  Participants indicated that customer service levels vary by Department. 

 

-                      The Planning Department is generally viewed as not customer service oriented.  Many participants indicated that the prevailing attitude within Planning is “you can’t do that” not “how can we get this done.” 

 

-                      Neighborhood Resources was viewed more favorably. The Department is seen as making an effort to improve customer service. An example given was the recent change of allowing same day footing inspections. 

 

-                      Engineering review was generally viewed as not customer oriented and disjointed.  A common comment regarding the engineering review process was that “departments change their mind frequently.  Something that is approved at one stage is not allowed at another.” 

 

-                      Additional comments made regarding customer service include:

 

••         “The City deals with an iron hand.”

 

••         “The objective of the review process is to hinder development.”

 

••         “You never know when you will get approval.  It’s a crapshoot.”

 

••         “The culture of the City is out of control.”

 

••         “The City has made it so expensive to get development off the ground.”

 

••         “City planners lack experience.”

 

••         “Planning staff is rude.”

 

•           Accountability. Participants stated that there is an overall lack of accountability within the development review process. A common theme among participants was that no department or individual takes ultimate responsibility for development review decisions. They also indicated that there is a general “lack of leadership to get things done.” Specific comments regarding the issue of accountability include:

 

-           “Each department is just trying to limit their own liability. No one wants to make a mistake.”

 

-           “The Engineering review process takes too long. Departments will disapprove something that they approved at an earlier stage.  The requirements change all the time.”

 

-           “Departments do not apply the zoning ordinance and subdivisions regulations consistently. They use the rules to support their personal position.”

 

-           “Requirements come out of the blue and do not relate to the comprehensive plan, zoning, and subdivision regulations.”

 

-           “Departments are afraid to make decisions.”

 

-           “Developers need to know how long something will take to get approved.”

 

-           “Improvements need to start at the top.”

 

•           Consistency.  Participants indicated that the review process is very inconsistent. They also stated that there are not agreed upon rules or criteria that can be used to know if a project will be approved.  They also stated that Departments apply conflicting requirements for projects and frequently disallow plan items that were previously approved. Additional comments received include the following:

 

-                      “Plans are approved at one stage by a Department and disapproved at another.” 

 

-                      “The City has changed the requirements for submitting comments to staff reports before Planning Commission meetings. They have reduced the time available to review staff reports and submit comments, and changed the day for public hearings.  This makes it difficult to be prepared for these meetings.”

 

-                      “You never know what will pop up in a staff report.”

 

The project team asked the participants what are the most significant and important changes that should be made over the next several years, their responses included the following:

•           Improve the level of accountability within the process.  Participants indicated that someone should be empowered to make final decisions and resolve issues.  Other recommendations include:

 

-           Create a “Planning Ombudsman” to provide an avenue for appeals.

 

-           Provide customers with realistic time frames for project approval.

 

-           Outline standard rules and regulations that will be followed in reviewing development applications.

 

-           Provide an opportunity for applicants to sit down with all of the departments involved in the review process to resolve issues early on.

 

•           Improve the coordination of development review between the Departments involved.  A common complaint from participants was that the Department involved in the process does not communicate well with one another. This issue relates back to the accountability issue identified by participants. A recommendation was made to assign a project manager for development projects who can coordinate comments and make decisions regarding requirements.

 

•           Make the review process consistent and transparent.  As indicated above, participants stated that many review comments and conditions were not based on the rules and regulations governing development.  A consistent suggestion was to require City staff to base their conditions on City ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, accepted engineering practices, and other regulations adopted by the City.  Participants indicated that all review comments should be made with clear references to these rules and regulations.  Another suggestion was to extend the time for responding to staff report prior to Planning Commission meetings. 

 

The following section provides the issues and recommendations identified by neighborhood associations.

2.         RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ISSUES AND CHALLENGES REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND PROVIDED A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

The project team met with neighborhood association representatives and residents to discuss their perceptions of customer service, effectiveness and consistency of the review process, and general issues related to development.  The points that follow provide a summary of the most commonly identified issues raised and recommendations made by focus group participants:

•           Communication. A number of participants indicated that there is a lack of communication between the Planning Department and Lawrence residents and neighborhood associations.  The issue of communications was discussed in several areas including access to information on new development, how to develop neighborhood plans, and code interpretations. Some comments, such as the one regarding the appeal process for the County, may indicate a general lack of understanding of the existing process. Specific comments include:

 

-           “Planning has not told us what needs to be done to develop neighborhood plans.”

 

-           “Neighborhood associations are not notified of new development proposals.”

 

-           “The comprehensive plan is not user friendly.  It’s hard to figure out what the rules say.”

 

-           “Neighborhood association comments are not being incorporated into staff reports.”

 

-           “County residents are not informed about the status of development plans.” Particular reference was made to road extensions into unincorporated areas and the impact on residents.

 

-           County residents do not know what’s going on.  Participants also felt that they were “losing their rights.”

 

-           “County residents do not have an appeals process.  There is no Board of Zoning Appeals on the County side.”

 

-           “Planners aren’t getting out and looking at areas proposed for development.”

 

•           Political influence.  A common concern expressed by participants was that the development community has too much influence over the review process and Planning Commission. Specifically, participants stated that developers have too much influence over the Planning Commission and review Departments and that the comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision regulations are “cherry picked” to suite developers purposes. Another concern was that developers get unlimited time before Planning Commission while Public comments have strict time limits.

 

•           Application of rules and regulations. Another common theme among participants was that the rules and regulations that govern how development will occur within the City and County are not consistently followed or not appropriately developed. Common statements concerning this issue include:

 

-           The comprehensive plan is often ignored or certain elements of it are “cherry picked.”  Common examples of these issues were “big box” retail development projects, which were larger than zoning regulations.

 

-           “Commercial nodes are overbuilt.”  The Planning Commission ignores restrictions on the size of retail development.

 

-           The City does not adequately consider the need for parks and neighborhood connectivity.

 

-           The City does not require impact fees for new development.  This limits the City’s ability to provide and maintain infrastructure and city services.

 

-           Participants expressed concerns about grandfathering of development projects.  Submittal of site plans before adoption of new code gives applicants the option of using the old or new code.  Participants did not think this was appropriate.

 

-           County residents unanimously expressed concern about the current building moratorium and lot restrictions within the unincorporated areas. Participants indicated that this issue should be resolved as soon as possible so that residents can develop land.

 

In addition to the comments identified above, neighborhood associations and residents made several recommendations to improve the development review process:

•           Better leadership. Participants agreed that resolving these issues will require leadership “from the top.” A common statement made was that “one person needs to have the final decision.” Participants indicated that change should come from the City Manager.

 

•           Improve Communication. Participants indicated that information should be made more accessible from Planning.  Neighborhood association representatives stated that this should improve with the implementation of the new code, which requires notification for new development projects.

 

•           Accountability. Participants indicated that planning staff should not be evaluated based on how quickly they get projects approved, but rather based on performance measured against the comprehensive plan and growth management skills.

 

•           Other Recommendations: Participants also offered recommendations to improve the review process, including:

 

-           Develop a zoning appeals process for the County.  Participants indicated that the Board of Zoning Appeals is not available for county residents.  As previously noted, this comment may indicate a need for greater education regarding existing procedures and boards and how they interact in the process since an appeal mechanism is currently in place.

 

-           Charge developers impact fees to adequately fund infrastructure maintenance and additional city services (e.g. police, fire, public works, etc.).

 

-           Move the Planning Department to a separate facility and co-locate them with Neighborhood Resources.

 

-           Provide additional information to county residents about proposed developments and planning issues via the newspaper or other methods.

 

-           Update the comprehensive plan to make it more user friendly and to reflect actual development patterns.

 

Overall, the focus groups were well attended and provided a significant amount of input to the project team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.   RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE SURVEY

 

 

5.  RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE SURVEY

 

As part of the management study of the development review process, the project team conducted a comparative survey regarding development service operations in other comparable municipalities in the region. The project team developed a survey instrument that was distributed to thirteen cities. The project team received six partially completed surveys. This document presents a summary of the information collected from other cities, as well as a comparison to the current development services in the City of Lawrence.

1.         SURVEYED CITIES PROVIDED GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS.

 

Comparative agencies were asked to provide general data regarding the workload levels of the department.  Attachment B at the end of this report presents a summary of the data gathered. The following points present a discussion of the information presented in Attachment B.

•           The median number of building inspection performed by the comparable communities was 25,992 with an average of 25,905. The number of inspections ranged from 13,242 to 46,131. The City of Lawrence conducted 12,671 inspections.  The following table presents the results by city.

 

Comparative City	Number of Building Inspections Performed
Lawrence, KS	12,671
Columbia, MO	46,131
Overland Park, KS	28,236
Ames, IA	N/A
Lincoln, NE	25,992
Lenexa, KS	15,927
College Station, TX	13,242

 

•         The median number of building permits issued was 3,277 with an average of 2,514. The number of building permits issued ranged from 1,159 to 4,496. The City of Lawrence issued 694 permits or approximately 79% below the mean value of the comparable communities. The table, below, presents the results by city.

 

Comparative City	Number of Building Permits Issued
Lawrence, KS	694
Columbia, MO	3,277
Overland Park, KS	4,107
Ames, IA	N/A
Lincoln, NE	4,496
Lenexa, KS	1,159
College Station, TX	2,484

 

•           The median value of building permits issued was $323,555,257 with an average of $323,117,562 The City of Lawrence issued $131,265,191 in building permits. The City of Lawrence’s building permit value is approximately 67% below the mean value of the comparable communities. The table, below, presents the results by city.

 

Comparative City	Valuation of Building Permits Issued
Lawrence, KS	$131,265,191
Columbia, MO	N/A
Overland Park, KS	$464,624,807
Ames, IA	N/A
Lincoln, NE	$481,836,169
Lenexa, KS	$182,485,707
College Station, TX	$163,523,566

 

•           Data was collected regarding the number of commercial plans reviewed by the responding departments. The median number reviewed was 570 with an average of 1,500.  The number of commercial plan reviews ranged from 66 to 4,650. The City of Lawrence’s review numbers are well below the median and average values.

 

Comparative City	Number of Commercial Plan Reviews
Lawrence, KS	232
Columbia, MO	570
Overland Park, KS	1,968
Ames, IA	N/A
Lincoln, NE	4,650
Lenexa, KS	248
College Station, TX	66

 

•           The table, below, presents the number of residential plans reviewed by each specific comparative agency. The median number reviewed was 627 with an average of 602. The City of Lawrence was below the average by 41%.

 

Comparative City	Number of Residential Plan Reviews Performed
Lawrence, KS	354
Columbia, MO	0
Overland Park, KS	919
Ames, IA	NA
Lincoln, NE	958
Lenexa, KS	501
College Station, TX	627

 

•           The median number of site plan reviews performed was 44 with an average of 583. The City of Lawrence is approximately 83% below the average and over twice the mean of the comparable communities. The table, below, presents the results by city.

 

Comparative City	Number of Site Plan Reviews Performed
Lawrence, KS	101
Columbia, MO	2,660
Overland Park, KS	N/A
Ames, IA	44
Lincoln, NE	135
Lenexa, KS	39
College Station, TX	36

 

•           Data was collected regarding the number of preliminary plats reviewed by the responding departments. The median number reviewed was 19 with an average of 17.8.  The number of commercial plan reviews ranged from 4 to 36. The City of Lawrence’s number of preliminary plats reviewed is greater by approximately 50% than both the median and average values. The table, below, presents the results by city.

 

Comparative City	Number of Preliminary Plats Reviewed
Lawrence, KS	28
Columbia, MO	N/A
Overland Park, KS	36
Ames, IA	4
Lincoln, NE	19
Lenexa, KS	8
College Station, TX	22

 

•           The median number of final plats reviews performed was 46 with an average of 62. The number of plats ranged from 9 to 153. The City of Lawrence has the same number of final plats as comparable communities compared to the median and is 29% below the average of the comparables. The table, below, presents the results by city.

 

Comparative City	Number of Final Plats Reviewed
Lawrence, KS	46
Columbia, MO	N/A
Overland Park, KS	77
Ames, IA	9
Lincoln, NE	153
Lenexa, KS	39
College Station, TX	46

 

•           The table, below, presents the number of development plans reviewed by each specific comparative agency. The median number reviewed was 30.5 with an average of 30.8. The City of Lawrence reviewed 28 development plans just below the median and average value.

 

Comparative City	Number of Development Plans Reviewed
Lawrence, KS	28
Columbia, MO	N/A
Overland Park, KS	N/A
Ames, IA	N/A
Lincoln, NE	15
Lenexa, KS	47
College Station, TX	33

 

•           Data was collected regarding the number of rezoning processed by the responding departments. The median number reviewed was 20 with an average of 25.6.  The number of rezoning applications ranged from 6 to a high of 58 for the comparables. The City of Lawrence’s number of rezoning applications is four times greater than both the median and averages of the comparables. 

 

Comparative City	Number of Rezoning Applications Processed
Lawrence, KS	83
Columbia, MO	N/A
Overland Park, KS	29
Ames, IA	6
Lincoln, NE	58
Lenexa, KS	15
College Station, TX	20

 

            *                       *                       *                       *                       *                       *

 

Overall, the level of development-related workload within the City of Lawrence is less than that of these other comparable cities even for cities of comparable population such as College Station and Lenexa, Kansas.

2.         BUILDING INSPECTION AND PLAN CHECKING STAFFING LEVELS IN THE CITY OF LAWRENCE DIFFER IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER CITIES.

 

The cities included within the comparative survey provided general data regarding the staffing levels building inspection and plan checking. The following points present a summary of the data gathered.

•           The number of staff allocated for commercial and residential building plan reviews ranges from one to eight. Overland Park (authorized 8 staff) had the highest number of staff assigned to commercial and residential building and plan reviews. On the other hand there is only one person assigned to commercial and residential building plan reviews in Lenexa and College Station. The City of Lawrence has one staff assigned to commercial and residential building plan reviews and this position is a Senior Plans Examiner.

 

•           The number of commercial and residential inspectors ranges from four to nine. Except for Columbia, MO the number of inspectors assigned to commercial and residential inspections does not vary. Lenexa, KS, Overland Park, KS, and College Station, TX utilize combination inspectors. For Lawrence, two of the four building inspectors are combination inspectors and one is a certified combination residential commercial inspector.  Building Inspectors in Lawrence have a variety of commercial certifications and perform a variety of commercial inspections.

 

Overall, there are a number of important differences between the building inspection and plans examining staff in Lawrence and these other comparable cities. The City of Lawrence does not utilize combination inspectors as extensively as Lenexa, KS, Overland Park, KS, and College Station, TX, and the City’s plans examiner, classified as a Senior Plans Examiner.

3.         THE CITIES INCLUDED IN THE COMPARATIVE SURVEY SUPPLIED INFORMATION REGARDING THEIR OPERATIONS AND APPROACHES TO PROVIDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SERVICES.

 

The cities included within the comparative survey provided information regarding a variety of the key elements of development review programs and services. Important points to note concerning this information are presented below.

•           All of the cities, except Columbia, MO, provide residential plan check services. The City of Lawrence also provides residential plan check services.

 

•           None of the cities use consultants to provide building permit plan services. The City of Lawrence does not use consultants to perform building permit plan checks.

 

•           All cities require construction-level drawings for site plan review. The City of Lawrence also requires construction level drawings for site plan reviews.

 

•           Most of the cities provide over-the-counter building permit plan checking services. Columbia, MO is the only city that indicated that they do not provide over-the-counter permit plan checking services. The most common over-the-counter building plan checking services provided are for decks, residential remodels and simple additions. The estimated proportion of building permit plan checking services that are performed over-the-counter ranged from 10% to 40% of all building permits issued. The highest percentage of building permits issued over-the-counter was by Lenexa, KS.

 

•           Building permits plans in Columbia, MO are routed only to the fire department. The other three cities (Overland Park, Lenexa and College Station) route their plans to the planning department, the engineering department, utility departments, and to the fire department. The City of Lawrence routes building permit plans only to the Fire Department.

 

•           Overland Park and Lenexa have both adopted processing targets for building permit plan checking services. There is some similarity in the targets for single family residential - 5 business days. Building permit plan checking targets for projects such as multi-family residential, apartment complexes and large commercials are set to 15 to 20 business days. The City of Lawrence also adopted processing targets. Their targets are set to 5 business days for single family residential and 10 business days for multi-family residential and, apartment complexes, and 15 business days for commercial.

 

•           All of the cities, except Columbia, MO, indicated that 100% of their inspection requests are processed the next working day. The City of Columbia, MO indicated that 90% of their inspection requests are responded to in the next working day.  City of Lawrence is providing next day inspection requests.

 

•           Two cities provide the opportunity for applicants to apply for building permits using the Internet: Overland Park, KS and Lenexa, KS. In Overland Park, building permits that do not require building permit plans can be applied for online, while in Lenexa all permit types are available electronically. Lawrence does not provide an option to apply for building permits online.

 

•           With the exception of Overland Park, KS, none of the cities use the case manager concept for processing of building permits. The City of Lawrence does not utilize a case manager concept that tracks building permit plans from application through the building permit plan check process.

 

•           All of the cities provide building inspection and plan checking services Monday through Friday. The City of Lawrence provides these services Monday through Friday.

 

•           With the exception of College Station, TX, all cities charge a building permit plan check fee. In Columbia, MO and Lenexa, KS, the building fees are set at 50% and 40% of the permit fee. In Overland Park, KS, the fee is $100 for new residential one and two family homes. Columbia, MO and Overland, KS do not have inspection fees. In most of the cities building permit plan check and inspection fees are set based on square footage or value of construction. The City of Lawrence charges a permit fee covering administration of the building permitting process (including related inspections) that are based upon the value of the construction.

 

•           Of the three responses regarding ICC certifications, Overland Park and Lenexa both require certification for their building inspectors as well as their plan examiners. The City of Lenexa currently requires an ICC certification within 6-18 months.

 

•           Most of the cities have adopted processing targets (turn around times) for administrative and discretionary planning permits. The City of Columbia is the only city without processing targets. The City of Lawrence has also adopted processing targets.

 

•           All of the cities utilize an automated permit information system to manage the plan check and inspection of permits. Two cities, Columbia, MO and College Station, TX, are using the same computer system as the City of Lawrence. There are four other automated permit information systems being utilized in the other cities. Overland Park, KS utilizes Accela Tidemark. Ames, IA uses a “homegrown” system developed using Microsoft Access. Lincoln, NE utilizes Accela Permits Plus. Lenexa, KS utilizes Cornerstone CL. All cities, except Columbia, MO and Ames, IA, enter building permit plan review and administrative and discretionary permit comments directly into the automated permit information system. The City of Lawrence also uses HTE computer system, only for building permit plan functions including plan reviews, and building permit plan review comments are entered directly into the system.

 

•           There is not a particular pattern to the organizational placement of zoning enforcement. In Columbia, MO and Lincoln, NE, zoning enforcement is part of building and safety In Overland Park, KS and College Station, TX, zoning enforcement located in the planning department. In two other cities, Ames, IA and Lenexa, KS, zoning is part of a community development department co-located with planning and building and safety. The City of Lawrence is has placed its zoning enforcement within the Neighborhood Resources Department.

 

•           The type of planning and zoning permits that can be approved administratively were similar in most cities and included site plans, minor amendments to special permits, minor permits including home occupation permits, certificates of appropriateness. In the City of Lawrence, staff can administratively approve site plans and minor alterations along with lots splits and simple division of lots.

 

•           With the exception of the City of the Columbia, MO, all of the cities route discretionary planning permit plans such as site plans, plats, development plans and rezoning applications to departments besides the planning department for review and comment. The City of Lawrence routes discretionary planning permit plans to utilities, public works, fire, police, and parks and recreation.

 

The response from each participating city is presented in Attachment B at the end of this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.   BEST PRACTICES ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.  BEST PRACTICES ANALYSIS

 

While the study of the development review process is designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of operations, organization, staffing, and management, this chapter of the report represents an important step in the assessment of the City’s performance against best practices. In order to make the assessments of strengths and improvement opportunities, the project team developed a set of performance measures which we call “best management practices” against which to evaluate these processes.

1.         BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECKING AND INSPECTION

 

There are a number of positive aspects to the building permit plan check and inspection process utilized by the City of Lawrence. These positive aspects are presented in the paragraphs below.

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department has established a response time target of responding to inspection request by 4:00 p.m. of the next business day. Same day inspection requests are honored for a charge of $47.50.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department has established a will-call inspection process for foundation walls, sewers, and footings, which allows for same day inspection of these items.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department has recently implemented an IVR system, which will allow applicants to schedule inspections over the phone 24/7. This system will be linked to the HTE permit tracking system.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department typically utilizes combination inspectors for residential construction only. Two inspectors are certified residential combination inspectors, and a third is certified combination residential and commercial.  The Department offers a 2.5% salary increase for each additional certification. Residential combination inspector certification provides a 5% increase. Incentives are capped at 10%.

 

•           It is estimated that the four building inspectors spend approximately one and one-half hours per day in the office (including training and plan review time).

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department charges a fee of $47.50 for the third building inspection of an item that was previously disapproved to manage the extent of re-inspections.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department utilizes an automated permit system – the HTE financial information system. However, the Neighborhood Resources Department and the Fire Department only use this system to track building permits.  No other Department involved in the development review process utilizes this system.  In addition, the Neighborhood Resources Department utilizes this system for a variety of other tasks including to schedule and track inspections, issue certificates of occupancy, place holds on applications and permits, calculate fees, track approvals, manage contractor licensing. This information is linked to the Neighborhood Resources Department’s website and allows applicant’s to check the status of permits and inspections.

 

•           Building permit plan checking is accomplished concurrently by the Neighborhood Resources Department and the Fire Department.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department coordinates with the Planning Department to ensure zoning clearances for permits within historic districts/environs and floodplain are obtained prior to issuance of building permits.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department provides residential building permit plan check services in a shorter amount of calendar days than benchmarks (based upon a sample by the project team). These processing times are calculated based upon available data from the system and may reflect initial date of application rather than date of application completion.  More specifically:

 

–          New single-family residential plan checks were completed in ten (10) calendar days for the first check;

 

–          4-plex residential plan checks were completed in eleven (11) calendar days for the first check; and

 

–          Multi-family residential plan checks larger than 4-plex were completed in twenty (20) calendar days for first check.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department participates in the development review meetings held every Friday by the Planning Department to discuss current development projects, requirements and conditions of approval.

 

•           Costs for the Neighborhood Resources Department are covered by the fees the department charges for its services. The City has recently adopted a new Council Policy regarding the assessment of building permit fees and a procedure outlining the costs that will be included as City costs for performing this function.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department utilizes a periodical (2-3 times per year) to keep architects, engineers, and contractors informed of relevant building permit plan, building inspection, and building code information.

 

There are also a number of opportunities for improvement in the building permit plan check and inspection services. These opportunities are identified in the sections that follow.

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department does not monitor inspection performance against this target. Inspection request turnaround time is not monitored to compare actual levels of service to the target levels of service.

 

•           Inspection requests were not accepted until 7:00 a.m. of the day inspection are to be completed. With the recent implementation of the new Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system requests are accepted until 7:00 a.m.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department is authorized four building inspection positions – Building Inspector IIs. Only two of these positions are capable of functioning as combination inspectors for residential construction and one is certified as a combination residential and commercial inspector.

 

•           Building inspectors do not utilize automated input devices to record inspection results or to display inspection history while in the field.

 

•           The HTE automated permit information system is not utilized by all Departments in the development review process to (1) assure the status of each plan submittal is visible during the plan check process; (2) manage the processing time for building permit plan checking by measuring actual performance against cycle time objectives; (3) provide a database of inspection service; (4) enable all of the departments/divisions involved in the building permit plan check process to enter and retrieve data; and (5) facilitate customer service through access to the internet to enable customers to submit building permit and inspection requests.  These functions are performed by the Neighborhood Services and Fire Department for the review of building permit plans. 

 

•           Over-the-counter building permit plan checking is provided for all mechanical, plumbing, electrical projects for single dwelling units. Over-the-counter plan check service is not provided five days a week for plan checking of pools (requires health department approval), patio covers, decks, small single family additions or remodels that do not require structural calculations, and other minor permits.  Some permits for properties located within the historic environs or flood plain require additional approvals before the issuance of building permits.

 

•           Building permit applications cannot be submitted on-line.

 

•           Building permit plans are not checked at the counter at initial submittal for completeness. A cursory review of necessary forms is done. The Neighborhood Resources Department is working on a process to have preliminary checks done at the counter.

 

•           The amount of calendar days required for commercial building permit plan checking is longer than benchmarks. These processing times are calculated based upon available data from the system and may reflect initial date of application rather than date of application completion.  More specifically:

 

–          The plan checking of commercial remodels were completed in twenty-two (22) calendar days for the first check;

 

–          The plan checking of commercial additions were completed in forty-eight (48) calendar days;

 

–          The plan checking of new commercial structures were completed in fifty-six (56) calendar days for the first check.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department still utilizes the 1997 Uniform Building Codes. This is a challenge since inspectors are ICC certified.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department does have adequate space for customer chairs and desk level counters.

 

•           The City does not provide a one-stop shop for its development review services. The Planning Department and the Engineering Division are located in a different building than the Neighborhood Resources Department.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department does not provide nor utilize a detailed building permit plan “checklist” for all permit types that will enable customers to verify that all necessary information is included and submitted.  A detailed checklist is available for one and two family dwelling projects and is available on the Department’s website.

 

•           Building code, policy and ordinance interpretations are presented in the form of memos and amended to a policy notebook. There are few memos that address policy and ordinance issues, and there is not a consistent format for documentation or distribution.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department does not provide a list of the most common building permit plan check comments or corrections noted during plan reviews on its web site.

 

The strengths in the aspects of building permit plan checking and inspection provide a sound basis for improvements in the services provided by the City.

2.         DISCRETIONARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS

 

There are a number of positive aspects to the discretionary and administrative permit process utilized by the City of Lawrence. These positive aspects are presented in the paragraphs below.

•           Periodic joint work sessions are conducted typically once per year between the City Council and Planning Commission.

 

•           The Planning Department provides alternatives and recommendations to the Planning Commission within the staff reports on each item under consideration.

 

•           The Planning Director provides new Planning Commission members an orientation. Six of the ten planning commission members attended the America Planning Association National Conference in the last year.

 

•           The Planning Commission has adopted bylaws to govern their operations and activities.

 

•           The Planning Commission uses a consent agenda.

 

•           The comprehensive plan was adopted in 1998. Since then, minor amendments have been made to the plan in 2000 and 2001. Amendments have been made to the economic development chapter in 2003, the transportation chapter in 2003, and the commercial land use chapter in 2003/04.

 

•           Discretionary permit applications are placed on the Planning Commission agenda when the application is filed.  Unless the applicant does not meet the most of the conditions and requirements identified during the review process, applications proceed to the Planning Commission on the date originally scheduled. Typically, it takes 48 calendar days for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission.

 

•           The Planning Department is open during lunch and five days per week for acceptance of applications.

 

•           The Department assigns a ‘planner of the day” to assist customers at the Planning Department counter. Two administrative personnel are also assigned to the counter to provide information.

 

•           The departments and divisions that participate in the discretionary and administrative permit process have access to GIS including the assessor parcels, general plan categories, zoning districts, aerials, flood and drainage data, utilities, etc.

 

•           Application handouts have been prepared for such permits as variance, conditional use permit, rezoning, site plans, subdivision of property, etc. 

 

•           The zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and comprehensive plan are available on-line.

 

•           The City has recently adopted a new zoning ordinance effective July 1, 2006. All amendments to the ordinance are dated so that the most current version can be identified.  On-line access to the ordinance ensures access to the most current version.

 

•           The Planning Department has five staff dedicated to advanced planning, not including two interns, a historic resources planner, and a GIS analyst. While these personnel share “Planner of the Day” duties, these responsibilities to not consume a large amount of their time.

 

•           With the adoption of the new zoning ordinance this past July 1^st, staff of the Planning Department are allocated more authority to approve minor permits and site plans.

 

•           The planner assigned a discretionary permit application by the Planning Department assumes responsibility for collection and follow-up on all comments for plan checks completed by other departments to ensure they are received in time for dissemination to the applicant. Typically, one planner is assigned to an application throughout the process unless an issue beyond the planner’s knowledge is involved such as a flood plain development permit or communications tower application.

 

•           Development review meetings are held with representative from each of the reviewing departments each Friday at the Planning Department to discuss discretionary permits and conditions of approval.

 

•           Design review guidelines have been developed primarily for the downtown commercial and historic districts. These guidelines provide broad direction as to required design elements.

 

•           Checklists are utilized for reviewing completeness of discretionary permit applications.

 

•           The actual number of calendar days to provide initial comments by the City to the applicant for discretionary permits is better than benchmarks. The table below shows the average and median number of calendar days to review development permits during 2005. Note that the project team sampled 45 cases.

 

Permit Type	Average 1st Review Time	Median 1st Review Time
Preliminary Development Plan	11.0	11.0
Final Development Plan	10.3	10.0
Preliminary Plat	9.4	9.5
Final Plat	9.0	9.0
Site Plan	10.5	10.8
Total	10.2	10.0

 

As shown above, the initial review of development permits took approximately 10 calendar days to complete. This means that from the data of application to the date the applicant was notified of review comments made, approximately 10 calendar days elapsed. This is based upon a sample of various development permits by the project team to approximate the typical time – calendar days - required to provide these comments since the data is not available in an ongoing monthly report generated by the Planning Department.

 

•           The actual number of calendar days provide initial comments by the City to the applicant for discretionary permits is comparable to benchmarks.

 

Permit Type	Average Approval Time	Median Approval Time
Preliminary Plat	53.0	49.0
Final Plat	80.0	76.0
Site Plan	75.1	61.0
Preliminary Development Plan	62.0	55.5
Final Development Plan	36.0	53.0
Zoning	110.0	50.0
Total	73.7	52.0

 

The following points highlight the information above:

 

–          The average number of calendar days for approval (from application date to commission or staff approval) for all of the development permits sampled was approximately 74 calendar days.

 

–          The median number of calendar days for approval of planning permits was 52 days.

 

–          Preliminary Plat applications were processed in the fewest number of calendar days, based on a median approval time of 49 days. Final Plats required the largest number of calendar days, based on a median approval time of 76 calendar days.

 

–          Based on the average number of calendar days required for approval, Final Development Plans received the quickest processing time, while Zoning permits received the longest processing time.

 

There are also a number of opportunities for improvement in the discretionary permit services. These opportunities are identified in the sections that follow.

•           The Planning Commission does not conduct an annual retreat.

 

•           On-going training of Planning Commissioners in recent years has been limited.

 

•           Planning Commission meetings are not televised.

 

•           Since Planning Commission meetings occur over two days (Monday and Wednesday) of one week, applicants are aware of the week their item is scheduled, but not the specific date until the agenda is developed. Agendas for the meetings are developed using a variety of factors including staff involved, related projects, etc. in an attempt to accommodate citizen and staff schedules.

 

•           The Planning Department does not have sufficient reception space for receiving and serving customers. Space for the Planning Department staff is extremely limited.

 

•           The Planning Department and the other divisions and departments involved in the development review process do utilize an automated permit information system. As a consequence, it is not possible to (1) determine the status of discretionary and administrative permits, (2) assure the status of each permit is visible during the permit review process, (3) manage the processing time, (4) provide a common database of corrections and conditions of approval, (5) enable all of the divisions and departments to enter and retrieve data, and (6) facilitate customer service through online access to the system to enable customers to check on the status permit requests, be notified of corrections and conditions of approval, etc.

 

•           The fees collected by the Planning Department are low compared to other municipalities and do not appear to cover the costs of the permit process.

 

•           Only 3 of the 14 professional Planning Department staff have AICP certification.

 

•           A formal ongoing training program is not provided for the staff of the Planning Department. A needs assessment has not been conducted.

 

•           Due to the implementation of the new zoning ordinance, Planning Department staff are transitioning from one set of standards to another. While the new ordinance was developed to increase administrative approval of some items, staff time to train and understand the new ordinance has been limited.

 

•           The Planning Department has not developed and does not utilize a formal advanced planning work program. The Department does not track labor hours by project for those staff assigned to the advanced planning work program.

 

•           The Planning Department does not have a centralized, formal manual of zoning ordinance interpretations, though some policy memorandums are contained on the shared drive for use by staff.

 

•           Reviews of discretionary permits within the Utilities Department is conducted sequentially, which limits the time available for a thorough and timely review.

 

The strengths in the aspects of discretionary permit process provide a sound basis for improvements in the services provided by the City.  In the chapters of the report, which follow, are provided analyses of the issues raised in this project together with recommendations for change, where necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.   ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.    ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

 

This chapter presents an analysis of technology and its use to support the permit, plan check, and inspection processes conducted by the City of Lawrence.  This analysis focuses on the use and application of an automated permit information system, and follows with a discussion and review of HTE, the current software utilized by the Neighborhood Resources Department.

Automated permit information systems have changed the way cities do business and interact with their customers, speeding the permit process for the customers most involved - applicants, contractors, neighborhoods, and staff - and providing better and more timely information to decision-makers, managers, and staff throughout city hall and the communities.

Initiated by a few pioneering jurisdictions in the early 1980s, automated permit information systems have become mainstream in municipal government. Software vendors offer a variety of automated permit information systems that can be tailored to a jurisdiction’s needs. Many are integrated into larger, city-wide information technology systems such as ArcInfo. Progressive local governments have adopted automated permit information systems that cover the process from inception to conclusion and that contains all relevant information regarding an individual project.

Regardless of the reason for implementation, automated permit information systems can provide a broad range of benefits, including:

•           Standardized building site and parcel information;

 

•           Improved record keeping and reliable archiving of permitting activities;

 

•           Enhanced communication between customer and staff that produces higher quality plan submissions and reviews, permit applications, and customer service;

 

•           Defined workflow and project tracking that results in more timely review of plans and permits;

 

•           Higher quality inspections (since the inspectors can readily retrieve conditions of approval associated with discretionary permits) with better scheduling and improved reporting;

 

•           More efficient use of staff time and less duplication of effort;

 

•           Better internal management tools for gauging permitting efficiency and service levels and spotting problems,

 

•           Improved financial tracking of permitting, plan review, and inspection fees; and

 

•           Flexible reporting capabilities that document the volume of work completed and the revenue generated by the departments/divisions involved in the permit, plan check, inspection, and code enforcement process.

 

However, the investment that a city makes in permitting software can only be worthwhile if the automated permit information system itself is effectively utilized by the departments and divisions participating in the development review process.

At the present time, the only automated permit information system in place within the City of Lawrence is HTE module utilized by the Neighborhood Resources Department for building permits. Launched in February 2004, this application provides a web access point into the Neighborhood Resources Department new building permit system. Permit holders are issued a Personal Identification Number (PIN) on each permit enabling them to access the permit information and complete inspection activity via the City’s website. This system is used to track applications and capture basic information regarding staff actions.

In addition, the Neighborhood Resources Department has recently implemented an interactive voice response (IVR) system that enables the contractor to schedule inspections and allows inspectors to enter inspection results remotely via phone entry.

None of the other departments involved in the development review process utilize an automated permit information system or any integrated and comprehensive work management software.  All current data that is collected, monitored and reported is done through the use of excel or word documents that are limited to an individual department’s use.

1.         THERE ARE SEVERAL SOFTWARE OPTIONS THAT EXIST FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY OF LAWRENCE THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE CURRENT SITUATION.

 

            It is the project team’s experience that the greatest benefit from the implementation of a permitting software system can be achieved from acquiring one that is specifically designed for the process.  The HTE system has been developed as part of a suite of applications in an attempt to be a full service system serving the municipalities range of needs.  However, these specialized products are often not as user-friendly or feature rich as more specialized software products that are only focused on providing software for the permitting, planning and inspection functions.  There area a number of these programs available on the market including Accela products (which include Accela Land Management, PermitsPlus, PermitsPlan), MuniCity, Hansen, AMANDA (by CSDC Systems, Inc). PermitsSoft and others that more fully integrate the development review functions in a more user friendly software application.  The HTE modules are not industry leaders in the development review software field.  However, given the City’s current investment in HTE, the review and decision to make a change should be based upon the additional features and functions that can be achieved with a new system versus what can be achieved through enhancement of the existing system.  Depending upon several factors, including the software vendor chosen, the functions desired, and the amount of staff involvement in the implementation process, the prices received from the software RFP will typically range from around $250,000 up to $700,000.  The prices at the higher end are typically seen for the more robust or enterprise wide systems such as Accela and Hansen.

            The project team recommends that the City of Lawrence acquire a comprehensive software application that will cover the development process from start to finish and all involved departments be required to utilize the system for processing applications.  The decision of which particular system to utilize should be made after a comprehensive RFP and review process that focuses critically on selecting a system that provides the most features and capabilities relative to the development review process (and incorporates all departments) balanced against the any benefit to be achieved by utilizing one standard software suite for all municipal functions (financial, budgeting, building, planning, engineering, utility, Fire, etc.). 

            In addition, careful consideration should be made regarding the ability to incorporate the County Development Review functions, and potentially County Departments, in the use of the safe software.  At the present time, the County is utilizing a windows based program entitled PTWin32 and there has been some discussion to look to upgrade this software in the near future.  By the end of the year, the County and City Hall will be connected with fiber optic cable that will increase the ability for the parties to share access to whatever software is put in place for the development review process.

            In evaluating the various software options, the City of Lawrence should seek a solution that offers the following functionality (at a minimum) even if the features will be phased into operation:

•           Ability to handle plan submittals and permit applications from multiple departments with the ability to customize the processing of each application/permit based upon type;

 

•           Ability to consolidate data storage within the system and share data between each component of the software to minimize duplication of entry;

 

•           Enables plan review comments to be entered, compiled, and edited electronically.

 

•           Maintains historic conditions of approval attached to each project and/or property address.

 

•           Links the Planning process with the Building Inspections process to ensure that conditions of approval are met prior to issuance of a building permit.

 

•           Allows the scanning and storage of applications and plans within the system.

 

•           Has workflow capabilities to enable schedule generation for staff utilization, routing of applications for electronic comments, and the ability to develop management reports related to actual performance relative to adopted cycle time goals.

 

•           Ability to create, access, process, and store forms and documents electronically to reduce paperwork and enable future options to implement paperless processes over time.

 

•           Supports e-permitting and on-line access to application status, comments/conditions of approval, and inspection results.

 

•           Integrates with the ESRI ArcGIS (the system utilized by both the City and County) data.

 

•           Integrates with Selectron, the City’s current IVR system.

 

            These general requirements should be supplemented by the specific needs of each department with a focus on standardizing the approaches between departments and utilizing more standard approaches in each department.

            To achieve the implementation of a comprehensive system requires the City to take several actions including the following:

•           Develop a citywide approach and strategy for computerization of the Development Review Process and ensure that all divisions and departments adhere to it.

 

•           Develop a vision of the entire software solution, then buy products and implement technologies with that vision in mind.  A key component of this vision is the identification of the desired balance between integration with existing systems and the capability of the system to grow with the City – both in terms of size and features.

 

•           Form a steering committee made up of city employees, industry representatives, customers, and other stakeholders to further define the needs of the system, review and evaluate responses received in response to a comprehensive RFP process, issue a recommendation regarding the best product for the City of Lawrence, and guide the implementation of the selected product.

 

Recommendation: The City of Lawrence should implement a comprehensive software package for the Development Review Process.  All Departments involved in the Development Review process should be required to utilize the selected system for scheduling, processing, and reporting on work activities.

 

Recommendation: Form a steering committee made up of city employees, industry representatives, customers, and other stakeholders to guide the definition of system needs, review various software packages, and guide the implementation of the selected product.

 

2.         IF AN ALTERNATIVE SOFTWARE IS NOT CHOSEN, THE CITY SHOULD EXPAND THE USE OF HTE FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.

 

If a decision is made not to replace the current software utilized in the development review process, the City should proceed to fully implement the various modules that are not in place so that all Departments involved in the review process are utilizing the same system.  The HTE computer software suite also has available other modules including one titled “Planning & Engineering” that can be implemented and integrated with the Building Permits system. The Planning and Engineering module allows a municipality to track and monitor planning and engineering review for applications, provide bond tracking, agreement processing, and track multiple resubmissions of documents through subsequent reviews.  If integrated with the Building Permits module, the system enables staff to prevent a building permit from being issued when there are outstanding conditionals of approval from Planning or from Engineering that have not been satisfied.  In addition, the integration of these modules ensures that the most accurate and up to date information regarding legal descriptions and zoning data are attached to each address. The module also provides a variety of reporting and document generation capabilities including plan review processing times, agenda preparation, staff reports, comment documents and various permits. 

HTE also has available a system entitled “Click2Gov” that enables the information contained within the system to be shared on-line with citizens and contractors relative to planning projects underway and the current status of the projects.  The City of Lawrence has already purchased the “Click2Gov” module and is utilizing it in limited fashion with the Neighborhood Resources Department. 

The major benefit to the City of Lawrence in utilizing the additional modules from the HTE suite of software products is the integration that can be achieved from maintaining all City records on one platform. However, it is the project team’s experience that the greatest benefit from the implementation of a permitting software system can be achieved from acquiring one that is specifically designed for the process.  The HTE system has been developed as part of a suite of applications in an attempt to be a full service system to meet a city’s needs.

The project team recommends that the City of Lawrence (1) more fully utilize the building permit module acquired from HTE and modify some of the data elements captured: (2) acquire the Planning and Engineering module from HTE to address the planning and engineering aspects of the development review process; (3) more fully utilize the “Click2Gov” module from HTE to provide public access for building permits and install the “Click2Gov” module from HTE to provide public access for planning and engineering permits;  (4) acquire the mapping module from HTE, and (5) consider migration to the newest version of the browser interface (moving from the “green screen” to the more user friendly Windows-look.  It is estimated that the additional modules for the HTE system can be acquired for approximately $125,000.  The upgrade to the NaviLine function is more dependent upon user volumes and existing contract agreements.

(a)       The City Should Fully Utilize the Building Permit Module.

 

The building permit module enables a city to manage permit applications and the permit plan check and inspection process. The Neighborhood Resources Department and the Fire Department need to fully utilize the features offered in this module. The features of this system include the following:

•           Expired permit notification - Create and print notice letters for expiring permits. The module works with Microsoft Word so that the department can pull building permits information into its notice letters.

 

•           Plan review - Track applications through the plan review process. Set up a different plan review sequence for each application type. Track the amount of time each department spent on plan review. Ensure proper plan review by automatically creating and monitoring plan review steps.

 

•           Automatic fee calculations - Define permit fee calculations using unit charges (fixtures, outlets, etc.), valuation, square footage, or a combination. Calculate related fees based on permit valuation.

 

•           Revisions - Create a revision to an application when a plan is corrected and resubmitted if a department during the review cycle rejects a plan.

 

•           Inspection Scheduling – Improve the schedule processing by setting up required inspections and printing a list of daily inspections. Facilitate inspection scheduling, results, and reassignment. Handle all aspects of inspection processing and track daily inspection points, including:

 

–          Inspection scheduling;

 

–          Required inspection sequences;

 

–          Inspection results entry;

 

–          Inspection reassignment from one inspector to another;

 

–          Inspector daily assignments view when reassigning inspections;

 

–          Inspection penalty assessment;

 

–          Inspection inquiry;

 

–          Standard inspection request comments;

 

–          Inspection results - Print certificates of occupancy then you approve a final inspection if all fees have been paid.

 

•           Departmental responsibility - Make specified departments accountable for processing certain kinds of applications and permits. An employee must be assigned to a department in order to process that department’s applications and permits.

 

•           Holds on applications and permits - Prevent processing activity at the application or permit level for records on hold. Place an application on hold so no activity is permitted, or restrict activity of a single permit under the application.

 

The Department is currently utilizing most of these features in their daily work activities including fee calculations, inspector scheduling, project tracking, permitting, etc.  However, several components of the system could be utilized differently in order to better manage the process.  Specifically, this would include entering of data for each review time, the date of application completeness, etc.  Additionally, other Departments should have access to this module to monitor project status and to place holds, when needed, directly on a project.  The City has invested significant funds in the acquisition of this module. The City should more fully utilize the module to enable the better tracking of processing times, reporting capabilities, and managing workloads.

Recommendation: The City should more fully utilize the HTE building permits module.

 

(b)       The City Should Acquire and Install the HTE Planning and Engineering Module.

 

This newly redesigned module supports planning and engineering departments. This module incorporates features such as planning reviews and construction reviews for public improvements, summary and/or detailed bond tracking, agreement processing, and other features. The City should acquire this module for use by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. This module has a number of important features including those noted below.

•           Project review - Project review types are the types of reviews necessary for the Planning and Engineering processes. They consist of a series of review steps needed to accomplish an action. These steps can send e-mail notifications, create documents, schedule events, and automatically update the project status when you complete the step.

 

•           E-mail notifications - When Planning and Engineering close or open a review step, Planning and Engineering automatically generates and sends an e-mail to internal or external agencies.

 

•           Project conditions maintenance. During the review process, Planning and Engineering set up the conditions of approval for projects. Planning and Engineering maintains conditions applied to projects and automatically applies approved conditions to all properties involved in the project, These conditions can then be viewed during the building permitting process in the building permit module, if needed.

 

•           Key project dates - Planning and Engineering can set up a list of important dates for a project that can be used for future notification of such dates as project milestones, condition deadlines, or approval expiration dates.

 

•           Automatic fee calculations. Define the fee schedule for planning and engineering activities. Assess fees based on simple flat rates or complex calculated amounts.

 

•           Hold permit or certificate of occupancy (CO) issuance. Prevent accidental issuance of structural Permits or COs without prior planning or engineering approval by placing holds on building permits or CO issuance process for locations associated with the projects.

 

•           Receipt collections and corrections. Planning and Engineering can process payments for planning and engineering services using features in the module. Processed payments are updated to Planning and Engineering and then to the City’s general ledger accounts. Planning and Engineering can also make corrections to payments before and after they post.

 

•           Bond processing. Bonds are required by Engineering to ensure that projects are developed in agreement with approval conditions. The module provides summary and/or detailed bond tracking by creating simple flat rate bonds or algebraically calculated bonds and by tracking work progress.

 

•           Plan review processing time report. Develop an ongoing monthly reports that indicates the amount of time each division or department spends on plan review.

 

•           Document generation. Project information serves as a valuable resource for creating documents, such as agendas, staff reports, engineering permits, and comment documents Planning and Engineering can pull information from the Planning and Engineering module and the Land/Parcel Management module to produce documents and edit them using Microsoft Word.

 

The Planning and Engineering module would cost approximately $75,000 to $150,000 to acquire and install.

Recommendation: If an alternative software is not chosen, the City should acquire and install the HTE Planning and Engineering module.

 

(c)       Utilize the “Click2Gov” Module From HTE to Provide Public Access for Building Permits.

 

The City has already acquired the “Click2Gov” module from HTE to provide public access for building permits. The City should effectively utilize this module for the full range of features provided by this module. This includes the features described below.

•           Online inspection scheduling - Allow contractors to schedule or cancel inspections. Enable these contractors to schedule and cancel inspections for permits 24 hours a day, 7 days week.

 

•           Provide property and permit information such as address, parcel number, zoning information and ownership information including all details of permits, inspections, plan review fees, and payments

 

•           Online Permit Submittal – Submit online over-the-counter permit applications for single trade permits and obtain online approval.

 

•           Public Inquiry – Allow contractors and homeowners to access an application without entry of a personal identification number.

 

•           Online fees – Allow contractors and homeowners to view and pay project fees online.

 

•           Project view – Offer the contractor or homeowner the ability to view all of the inspections necessary to complete the construction project from start to finish in an easy to read format.

 

This is a powerful tool. The City should fully utilize all of the features provided by the module.

Recommendation: Utilize The “Click2Gov” Module From HTE To Provide Public Access for Building Permits.

 

(d)       Acquire and Install the “Click2Gov” Module from HTE to Provide Public Access for Planning and Engineering Permits.

 

This module, like the module for building permits, is designed to enable homeowners and contractors with the ability to view planning and engineering project information online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This module provides a number of features including the following:

 •          Project inquiry – This feature enables homeowners and contractors to view general project information such as parcel ID, all applicable owners names and addresses, address types, and the name of the planner assigned to the project.

 

•           Review the project step – This feature enables homeowners and contractors to review the steps associated with a project and all of the applicable reviews.

 

•           Project text inquiry - This feature enables homeowners and contractors to view narrative information related to a specific project.

 

•           Associated document inquiry - This feature enables homeowners and contractors to view any associated documents and conditions linked to a project in read-only format. The documents that display are limited to only those documents marked as “public.”

 

This is a powerful tool, just like the same application for building permits. The City should acquire and fully utilize all of the features provided by the module. The estimated cost of this module s $20,000.

Recommendation: Acquire and Utilize The “Click2Gov” Module From HTE To Provide Public Access for Planning and Engineering Permits.

 

(e)       The City Should Acquire Wireless Technology for Building Inspectors.

 

Building inspectors currently utilize a paper-based system to record inspection results and issue correction notices. This system can cause problems within the Department. Correction notices can be lost, writing can be illegible, and inspectors each use different terminology.

A more efficient and consistent method is need for handling inspections. The inspection process should be paperless, and permit history should be available to inspectors if needed. The Neighborhood Resources Department should acquire wireless technology for the use of building inspectors to capture all necessary information regarding the permit on a mobile computer. In the morning, building inspectors would download inspection information for those scheduled inspections, and during the day building inspectors would enter results and corrections using simple use standardized drop-down menus to enter corrections. Correction history would be stored in the HTE database and available for future reference. Building inspectors would print professional and legible Correction Notices on-site, using a portable printer.

This system would enable allows building inspectors to enter real-time results of inspections into the Town's database of information, and within seconds of the inspector completing computer entries, permit holders can receive inspection status on the City's Web site or should be able to access HTE for immediate results.

The estimated cost of acquiring the “Click2Gov” wireless module from HTE for building inspectors to record inspection results and print correction notices would approximate $20,000.

Recommendation: The City should acquire and utilize the “Click2Gov” wireless module from HTE for building inspectors to record inspection results and print correction notices.

 

3.         ALL OF THE CITY’S DIVISIONS AND DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS SHOULD UTILIZE THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO MEET ALL OF THEIR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

 

The City will be making a significant investment in the development review software and therefore use should be maximized. The system will be capable of a broad range of tasks including the following:

•           Plan review tracking;

 

•           Permitting including the issuance and tracking of permits;

 

•           Inspections scheduling and tracking;

 

•           Workflow management;

 

•           Fee calculation and collection;

 

•           Customer communications through web-based customer services;

 

•           Telephone-based voice response services; and

 

•           Inter- and intra-departmental communication and management.

 

All of the departments and divisions involved in the issuance of permits need to fully utilize the automated permit information system for all aspects of the development review process.

Recommendation: All of the departments and divisions should utilize the automated permit information system for all aspects of the development review process.

 

Recommendation: Modules, applications and reports should be developed within the automated permit information system to support the work of these departments and divisions. 

 

Recommendation: Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the use of the automated permit information system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.   ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK PROCESS

 

 

 

8.    ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK PROCESS

 

This chapter presents an analysis of the building permit plan check processes utilized by the City.

1.         THE HTE BUILDING MODULE SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ENABLE THE CITY TO EFFECTIVELY MONITOR ACTUAL PERFORMANCE AGAINST CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVES.

 

The City has established cycle time objectives for completing building plan checks. These objectives are:

•           3 weeks (15 working days) for commercial and multi-family residential plans for 1^st submittal; and

 

•           1 week (5 working days) for residential plans for 1^st submittal

 

The HTE system utilized by Neighborhood Resources is not set up to effectively monitor performance against the above cycle time objectives. One of the major issues with the permit tracking system is that the system does not track the date in which a building permit application is deemed complete. This is critical for fairly assessing the responsiveness of plan review staff within Neighborhood Resources. Currently, an “On Hold” notation is made in the database to indicate that additional information is being requested from the applicant. However, the only entry after this point is an approved date. As a result, it is not clear when the additional information was received from the applicant.

Despite the shortcoming of the available data, the project team collected samples of plan review times to determine the average time required to perform building plan reviews for various types of building permits. The table, below, shows the average and median plan check times achieved by the Neighborhood Resources Department for sample building permits received during 2005.

Permit Type	Average Calendar Days	Median Calendar Days	Sample Size
Accessory Structure	3	3	1
Commercial Accessory	6	6	1
Residential Addition	8	5	10
New Single Family	10	5	34
Residential Re-Model	10	4	42
Multi-Family (4-Plex)	11	11	2
Multi-Family	20	1.5	8
Commercial Remodel	22	6	43
Multi-Family (Duplex)	22	3	10
Commercial Pool	23	22	1
Commercial Addition	48	27	4
New Commercial	56	17.5	8
Total	17	5	164
Standard Deviation		29.5

 

The following points highlight the information above:

·          The overall average number of calendar days from the date of application to permit approval was approximately 17 days for the sample (164 permits). This number varies significantly from the median of 5 calendar days. The large variance in approval times is also indicated by the large standard deviation of approximately 30 calendar days. The standard deviation indicates that approximately 66% of permits were within 30 calendar days of the average.

 

·          As expected, the average and median number of calendar days for approval of building permits was much lower for residential permits than commercial and multi-family permits. Again, note the large variance between the average and median approval times.

 

•           The Neighborhood Resources Department provides residential building permit plan check services in a lesser amount of calendar days than benchmarks (based upon a sample by the project team). These processing times are calculated based upon available data from the system and may reflect initial date of application rather than date of application completion.  More specifically:

 

–          New single-family residential plan checks were completed in ten (10) calendar days for the first check;

 

–          4-plex residential plan checks were completed in eleven (11) calendar days for the first check; and

 

–          Multi-family residential plan checks larger than 4-plex were completed in twenty (20) calendar days for first check.

 

•           The amount of calendar days required for commercial building permit plan checking is longer than benchmarks. These processing times are calculated based upon available data from the system and may reflect initial date of application rather than date of application completion.  More specifically:

 

–          The plan checking of commercial remodels were completed in twenty-two (22) calendar days for the first check;

 

–          The plan checking of commercial additions were completed in forty-eight (48) calendar days; and

 

–          The plan checking of new commercial structures were completed in fifty-six (56) calendar days for the first check.

 

The project team also evaluated the percentage of building permits that were reviewed within the target timelines utilized by Neighborhood Resources. These data are shown below.

Permit Type	Approval Within 1 Week	Approval Within 3 Weeks
Accessory Structure	100%	100%
Commercial Accessory	100%	100%
Residential Addition	80%	90%
Residential Re-Model	68%	83%
Multi-Family	63%	63%
New Single Family	61%	91%
Multi-Family (Duplex)	60%	90%
Commercial Re-Model	55%	79%
Multi-Family (4 Plex)	50%	100%
Commercial Addition	33%	33%
New Commercial	14%	57%
Commercial Pool	0%	0%
Total	60%	81%

 

As shown above, the Department is reviewing approximately 60% of all building plans within one week of the application date, and 81% of all plans within three weeks. Note that 80% of residential additions, 68% of residential re-models, and 61% of new single-family plans were reviewed within 1 week. Also note that approximately 80% of commercial re-models, 33% of commercial additions, and 57% of new commercial plans were reviewed within 3 weeks.

While the statistics above indicate that the Neighborhood Resources Department is providing a high level of service, the project team cannot make clear conclusions due to the way the data are captured by the Department. However, the project team has identified several improvement opportunities related to the plan review process. In addition, areas where the Department is providing high levels of service are identified. These are presented in the sections that follow.

Recommendation: The Neighborhood Resources Department should modify the dates maintained in the HTE building permit module to include the dates that each division and department completes their plan check – 1^st check, 2^nd check, 3^rd check, etc. – the date the applicant is notified that their plans are ready to be picked up after each plan check – 1^st check, 2^nd check, 3^rd check, etc., and the date(s) the applicant submits and re-submits the building permit plans.

 

2.         THE BUILDING PLAN REVIEW CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVES SHOULD BE REVISED.

 

While the cycle time objectives targeted by the Neighborhood Resources Department are within best management practices for residential plan checking, the actual practices do not meet best practices for commercial plan checking. In addition the guidelines utilized by the Department lack differentiation to reflect the complexity of construction. These timelines should be revised. The target for processing a plan for a residential re-roof should be different than a plan for a commercial structure larger than 10,000 square feet.  Possible timelines are presented in the table below. Each of these timelines are less than the existing timelines currently utilized.

 

 

*Time required for first plan check.  Second plan check target would be one-half of these targets.

 

The major differences in the timelines identified above are described below

·          Creating a target for minor permits such as re-roofs and minor R1 additions. The project team believes that the Department should strive to review these types of permits over the counter.

 

·          Differentiating between residential projects with less than and more than 20 dwelling units and Office/Commercial space less than or greater than 10,000 square feet.

 

These timelines reflect best practices in other cities, such as the City of Livermore. These timelines should be provided to applicants and made available to customers via the Internet. Monitoring performance against these targets will require redesign of the HTE permit tracking system (or replacement of the system with a new system) and changes to the current process of reviewing building plans. However, a new permit tracking system is recommended by the project team in another chapter.

Recommendation: The City should revise the building permit plan check cycle time objectives.

 

3.         THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TWO PLANS EXAMINER POSITIONS.  IT IS NOTED THAT AN EARLY RECOMMENDATION TO RECLASSIFY THE INSPECTION SUPERVISOR TO SUPERVISING PLANS EXAMINER HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

 

In assessing the plan check staffing requirements for the Neighborhood Resources Department, the project team utilized review time guidelines developed from its experience with a number of departments across the United States. Data were collected from the Department to document the number of building permits by type to estimate the plan review workload. The table below presents the total number of work hours required for each type of plan review and the estimated number of personnel needed to handle this workload based on net availability (gross hours of work scheduled less vacations, holidays, sick time, training, etc.):

 

As shown above, approximately 3 full-time plans examiners are needed to perform plan review. Currently the Department utilizes its Senior Plans Examiner for plan checking.

The City and the Neighborhood Resources Department should take a number of steps to address this issue.

(a)       Reassign the Responsibility from Building Inspectors to Plans Examiners Review Residential Plans and Commercial Remodels.

 

In order to manage the plan review and inspection workload, the Neighborhood Resources Department has utilized inspection personnel to perform plan review of residential plans and simple re-models. This is an effective use of inspection personnel during times of low inspection activity. The previous section also indicates two of the inspectors are performing outside of the inspection workload benchmarks. The additional plan review workload has been managed by utilizing available inspector time. This process should be continued.

Recommendation: Responsibility for plan checking residential plans and commercial remodels should be reassigned from building inspectors to the plans examiners.

 

(b)       Two Plans Examiner Positions Should Be Authorized.

Given the plan review workload and personnel availability, the City should authorize two additional Plans Examiner positions to handle the plan check workload. This position would assist the current Senior Plans Examiner with plan check responsibilities. The project team estimates that the cost of these two positions at approximately $108,000 in annual salary and benefits.

Recommendation: The City should authorize an additional two Plans Examiner. The estimated cost of this position is approximately $108,000 in salary and benefits.

 

(c)       The Neighborhood Resources Department Should Utilize the Newly Reclassified Plan Check Technician Position to Ensure Applications are Complete When Submitted to Resolve Potential Delays in Plan Review.

 

The Neighborhood Resources Department has recently been authorized through the reclassification of a Secretarial position a Plan Check Technician to handle permit application intake. Verifying that permit applications are complete when submitted saves plan check personnel a significant amount of time contacting applicants and monitoring the status of permit submittals. The addition of a Plan Check Technician should eliminate the backlog created by waiting for additional documents and re-submitted applications.

Recommendation: Utilize the newly authorized Plan Check Technician to ensure that applications and plan submittals are complete prior to review by Plans Examiners.

 

            NOTE:  Early in the review process there was a recommendation to reclassify the Inspection Supervisor to Supervising Plans Examiner.  This recommendation has been completed by the Department.  At the onset of this review process, the Neighborhood Resources Department was utilizing its Inspection Supervisor to provide building permit plan check services.  The classification title for this position did not reflect its primary responsibility.  With the proposed addition of two Plans Examiner positions, this position was recommended to be reclassified to Plans Examiner Supervisor and utilized to supervise the two Plans Examiners and the Plan Check Technician.  It was also recommended that this position should be expected to supervise these three positions and carry a plan check workload.  This reclassification recommendation was completed during the review process and thus is no longer a recommendation for the future.

 

4.         EXPAND THE EXTENT OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED OVER-THE-COUNTER BY UTILIZING THE PLAN CHECK TECHNICIAN.

 

The Department issues a minor proportion of its building permits over-the-counter. Over-the-counter building permit plan checking is only provided for furnace and water heater replacements.  The extent of permits issued over-the-counter should be increased substantively.

The project team does not expect that over-the-counter building permits would be issued for such permits as new multi-family, new commercial, or new single family. However, the project team does expect that over-the-counter permits can be issued for such building permits as the following:

•           Single-family addition. Single story room addition not to exceed 600 square feet;

 

•           Single-family Interior Work. Interior modifications without structural changes;

 

•           Single-family Garage Conversion. Change the garage to living space;

 

•           Single-family Outdoor Pools (if suitable arrangement can be made with the Health Department for expedited approval) and Spas;

 

•           Single-family Patio Enclosures;

 

•           Single-family Patio Covers and Trellis;

 

•           Single-family New Roof Framing Over Existing Roof (without major structural work);

 

•           Office Space: Tenant Improvements for office space less than 4,000 square feet.

 

•           Retail: Interior modifications for retail space less than 1,500 square feet.

 

For commercial projects to be issued over-the-counter, the following restrictions should apply:

•           There will be no storage of hazardous materials of any amount in the space;

 

•           The proposed tenant improvement should not contain any alterations to the structural system of the building (e.g. openings into bearing or shear walls, changes to floor system, etc.). Structural modifications required to install roof mounted mechanical equipment should be exempted pending plans examiner verification;

 

•           The proposed in tenant improvement should not contain any alterations or modification to fire-rated walls; and

 

•           The application does not require any special Fire Department processing.

 

The project team would expect that the division should be able to increase the number of building permits issued over-the-counter to 55% to 60% using these criteria.

The Plan Check Technician should be utilized for the plan checking and issuance of these types of minor and miscellaneous building permits with backup provided by the Plans Examiners.

This assignment should recognize the impact of this additional skill and knowledge requirements. The Plan Check Technicians should be required to obtain certification by the International Code Council as a Permit Technician.  It also recognizes that this position performs other duties, related to contractor licensing, in addition to the ones outlined in this section.

This assignment to the Plan Check Technician should only occur after initial training and certification. This reassignment could be achieved by the following method:

•           The Plans Examiner Supervisor should function as a team leader for the Plan Check Technician to train the Plan Check Technician in the performance of plan checking of minor and miscellaneous building permit plans.

 

•           The Plans Examiner Supervisor should provide code and practical plan check training to the Plan Check Technician for an appropriate period of time.

 

•           Establish a time period for training and implement the program on a target date. Confer with the Plan Check Technician regarding the establishment of the implementation date. Establish the target date realizing that some of the quality expertise will occur with practice. A comfort level can be achieved by realizing that support by the Plans Examiner Supervisor is available.

 

This method will produce quality performing Plan Check Technician that is fully capable of plan checking miscellaneous and minor building permit plans.

Recommendation: The Neighborhood Resources Department should increase the number of building permits issued over-the-counter to 55% to 60% of all building permits issued.

 

Recommendation: The Plan Check Technician should be utilized to provide over-the-counter plan checking of minor and miscellaneous building permits.

 

5.         THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL BUILDING CODES

 

The Neighborhood Resources Department still utilizes the 1997 Uniform Building Codes.  The City should adopt the most current version of the International Code Council building codes. Modernizing the City's building codes involves much more than keeping pace with new materials and technologies. The vision extends to the tangible benefits that will be realized by adoption of an up-to-date code that will add clarity and uniformity to our City's design and construction processes.

The adoption of the most recent International Code Council building codes make it safer, easier, and cheaper to build in Lawrence. Given its comprehensiveness, its ease of use, its flexibility in adapting to local conditions, and its extensive support infrastructure, these ICC Codes promises to make this vision a reality.

Included in this vision is a promise to encourage the growth of affordable housing, stimulate economic development and, most importantly, enhance public safety. These benefits will emerge as a result of various factors, such as: the ability to use modern materials and techniques, the ability to use a modern code that is understood by a broad spectrum of design and construction professionals who use it elsewhere and, ultimately, the savings that will result from a code that is clear and more easily understood.

In order to improve the level of service and consistency provided to the development community and achieve the goals outlined above, the City should continue to vigorously attempt to implement the full family of ICC Codes and move away from the utilization of a blended code family.  In addition to the benefits listed above, the City’s codes will be more consistent with those typically seen in most other communities, the inconsistencies that can occur from the utilization of multiple codes will be eliminated, and the standards expected in Lawrence will be similar to most other municipalities in the region.  It will also provide a benefit to staff by having only to deal with one set of codes that staff need to be trained and certified in. 

Recommendation: The City should adopt the most current version of the International Code Council building codes.

 

Recommendation:  The City should continue its efforts to fully implement the entire ICC building codes rather than continuing the use of a blended code.

 

6.         APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN SIMPLE BUILDING PERMITS ON-LINE USING THE BUILDING PERMIT SOFTWARE.

 

Permits that do not require a plan check, such as single trade permits, often known as over-the-counter permits, are well suited to online permit processing. Similar to e-commerce transactions, such as buying products from a web site, this activity involves credit card processing and the printing of a permit. On-line processing of permit applications can be as basic as automating only the front-end information collection process or as complete as full automation of the entire over-the-counter permit transaction.

At their own personal computer, applicants can apply for a building permit, schedule an inspection, and print the permit and receipt. Credit card payments are secured through the use of encryption technology. Applicants can setup their access so that basic information does not need to be re-entered for multiple transactions.

HTE provides the capacity for applicants to complete a permit application via the Internet. Applicants complete online forms and hit a “send” button to transmit the application to the City’s permit database. HTE processes, reviews, approves, and stores completed permits. The permit system then generates a permit for the applicant. Applicants can pay for permits using a credit card.

There are a number of public agencies throughout the United States that are using this capacity. These cities range from Albany, Oregon to Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Department should implement this feature within HTE for simple building permits including the full automation of the entire over-the-counter permit transaction. Initially, this would include only single trades permits such as plumbing, mechanical, electrical permits, and re-roof permits. Longer-term, this should be expanded to other types of permits such as kitchen remodels.

Recommendation: The City should expand the use of HTE to enable applicants for single trade permits to complete a permit application online.

 

Recommendation: The City should adopt an objective of issuing 10% of its building permits online.

 

7.         THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHOULD PUBLISH A PLAN CHECK CORRECTION COMMENT LIBRARY ON ITS WEB SITE.

 

The Neighborhood Resources Department currently compiles comments and corrections made during the plan check process in the HTE system.  The Division also lists some common questions received by applicants on its website. However, the Division should formalize this approach. These corrections should be analyzed, with the most common comments for each construction type posted on the City’s web site. These corrections should include the following.

 

The posting of the correction library will provide guidance to architects in understanding the requirements for construction in Lawrence, and should include the requirements of all divisions and agencies involved in the review process in the City.

Recommendation:  Post common plan check corrections on the City’s web site to provide guidance to architects in the construction requirements in Lawrence.

 

8.         THE PLAN CHECK CHECKLISTS UTILIZED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED ON THE DIVISION’S WEBSITE. 

 

The Neighborhood Resources Division has developed checklists that are utilized by its plan Check Engineers to assure compliance with the various building code requirements. These checklists should be readily available to architects and the public to act as a guide for the nuances of interpretations of these codes by the City of Lawrence.

Recommendation: The plan check checklists developed by Neighborhood Resources Department should be posted to the Department’s web site.

 

9.         DEVELOP STANDARD PLANS FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF MINOR RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS.

 

A number of residents in Lawrence and other communities are “do it yourselfers” in terms of constructing minor retaining walls, residential patio covers, detached storage sheds, and outdoor fire places. In other instances, residents will pull building permits rather than their contractors for such construction as spas.

The City should assist these “do it yourselfers” meet building permit plan check requirements by developing standard plans. These standard plans, if utilized by the “do it yourselfers” in applying for their building permit, would allow avoiding the retention of an architect or designer for the preparation of these plans, as long as the homeowner utilized these standard plans.

In addition, the Neighborhood Resources Department should develop a “Home Improvement Center” web page on the City’s web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building permit plan check and inspection process. The City of Scottsdale, Arizona has developed such a web page; the City could utilize this as a model.

Recommendation: Develop standard plans for use by the public in minor residential improvements.

 

Recommendation: Develop a “Home Improvement Center” web page on the City’s web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building permit plan check and inspection process.

 

10        THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SHOULD DEVELOP A CODE INTERPRETATION MANUAL TO IMPROVE CONSISTENCY AMONG INDIVIDUAL PLANS EXAMINERS AND TO EDUCATE CUSTOMERS REGARDING EXPECTATIONS.

 

While the City is utilizing a set of national building codes and local ordinances to govern the construction activities with the community, there are at times areas within these codes and guidelines that require further explanation and/or clarification.  These are commonly referred to as “code interpretations.” At the present time, the Neighborhood Resources Department has no comprehensive listing of code interpretations or clarification that they have made.

 The department should memorialize all local code interpretations and clarifications of local policies and ordinances into a comprehensive manual that contains the text of the code, the staff’s interpretation of this code, and the manner in which it will be enforced. Once developed, this should be posted on the City’s website. This provides clear detail to customer of the action that needs to be taken in order to comply with the existing building codes.

The manual should be maintained as an up-to-date document, utilized as part of the periodic training sessions for plans examiners and building inspectors and posted on the City’s website for the development community. Providing this information, in advance, to the construction community, provides an additional opportunity for them to self-educate regarding the City’s expectations and to voluntarily comply with the regulations.  It also demonstrates the City’s service commitment to its customers.

Recommendation: The Neighborhood Resources Department should develop a comprehensive manual of code interpretations.  The manual should be utilized for internal staff training and be posted to the website for use by the development/construction communities.

 

11.       SELECTED TYPES OF BUILDING PERMIT PLANS SHOULD BE ROUTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ENGINEERING DIVISION, AND THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT.

 

At present, building permit plans are plan checked only by the Neighborhood Resources Department and the Fire Department.

Of four other cities that provided data in the comparative survey, only Columbia, MO used the same approach. The other three cities – Overland Park, KS, Lenexa, KS, and College Station, TX – all route their building permit plans to a wider array of departments. This routing of building permit plans is designed to provide these units with the opportunity to assure that these building permit plans comply with the conditions of approval for discretionary permits, with the public improvement plan and standard engineering criteria utilized by the Engineering Division, and the utility master plans, industrial waste, and engineering criteria of the Utilities Department.

Not all of the building permit plans should be routed to all departments. Only select types of building permit plans should receive this wider distribution. A possible distribution is presented in the table below.

Types of Building Permit Plans	Building	Fire	Planning	Utilities	Engineering
Tracts	x	x	x	x
Single family dwelling	x	x	x
Duplex	x	x	x	x
Apartments/condos	x	x	x	x	x
New Commercial/industrial Building	x	x	x	x	x
Restaurants	x	x	x	x	x
Pools (private use)/Spas	x
Patio covers/decks	x
Residential garages	x
Fences/block walls	x
Secondary dwellings	x	x	x
Residential additions (<650 sf)	x
Residential additions (>650)	x	x	x
Tenant improvements	x	x	x
Commercial/industrial Additions	x	x	x	x	x
Grading	x
Fire sprinklers	x	x
Fire alarm systems	x	x
Fire Sprinkler Plans		x
Demolition	x	x

 

Recommendation: Selected types of building permits should be routed to the Planning Department, Engineering Division, and the Utilities Department for plan checking.

 

Recommendation: The City should develop and adopt a policy regarding the distribution of the different types of building permit plans to the various divisions and departments involved in the development review process.