Loading...
Council PKT 10-17-2002 Special - Study Session AGENDA FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Special/Study Session Council Chambers - City Hall October 17, 2002 - 5:30 p.m. (www. ci.federal-way, wa. us) I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. 2003-2004 BIENNIAL BUDGET - October 16® Study Session Follow-Up - Stakeholder Recommendation/Permit Process Improvements Community Development Department Presentation Recess (approximately 20 minutes) Public Works Department Presentation III. ADJOURNMENT October 16 Budget Study Session Follow-up Items The following is a list of questions and follow-up items raised by thc Council at last night's study session. Staff is working on collecting the responses which will be provide to you at the October 24* study session. In the mean time, if there are any items we missed or if you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to let us known. For tracking purposes, the follow-up items are grouped by general budget questions which are not department specific and those related to specific department or programs. General: 1. Would like to see 5 years of Budgeted vs. Actual Expenditures. 2. What are the rates for B&O and Utility tax in other six flags communities 3. Why the 2002 adopted budget in this year's document does not tie to the 2001/2002 adopted budget document? Kenneth Jones Pool: 1. Direction for Discussion with King County: A. Staff to negotiate with KC for additional considerations in exchange of the assumption. These could include properties King County owns both in the city limits or in the PAA. The ones in city should include the District Court facility and the Kentwood Pit. B. Make sure any agreement provides the city sufficient lea ways in exiting the obligation; C. Requesting KC to extend its operation for 3 - 6 month to allow time for negotiation and orderly txansition. 2. Direction for Discussion with FWSD about the land ownership/lease issue 3. Questions to follow-up: A. Do KC's comnmtment and/or obligation under Forward Thrust Bonds allow them to abandon the pool after 2003? B. What is the economic impact generated from the pool? Location sensitive? C. What would be the operating results if we double the fee for non-citizens? D. Does it make sense for the city to invest in a 32-year-old pool or, as an alternative, to look at incorporate the pool with Senior & Community Center to build a facility that can server multiple needs of the community? · What would be the additional capital and operating cost for a combined facility vs. maintaining 2 separate facilities? 4. Addition for Council deliberation: Move the combined Senior/Community Center to the top priority project category based on 2002 community investment survey results, and add the pool as an additional element to the project. Parks Budget: 1. Does School Dis~ct plan on con~buting $ to the artificial turf upgrade for Saghalie since it's shargd? 2. How would the change in grade structure (Saghalie form 3-year jUmor high to 2-year middle school) impact the use of the facility? 3. What is the life cycle cost of the synthetic turf (life expectancy, operating cost saving) from this investment. 4. Do we have nay park facility in planning area G? Public Safety Budget: 1. How our calls for service compares with other Valley Corn cities? 2. What is the composition of these calls for services and is there any change over time? 3. Is there any response time standards? How our response time compares? 4. Needs more comparative information on crime rates on per capita basis. 5. What is the Department's turnover rate for the past few years? 6. How are our recruiting efforts? 7. Why we include full year cost for SRO in 2003 since school does not start until September? 8. Why the 2004 ongoing expense of $55K for the 2 SROs is more than 25% of the cost 2 officers, considering each officer cost is $77k. Permit Process Budget Presentation Background At its annual retreat in January of this year, City Council established three priorities for 2002. One of the priorities directed staffto conduct a review of the City's development permit process. The goal was to solicit input from stakeholders in order to improve the permit review process and the community's perception of the City's level of service. One part of the community involvement was a survey sent to applicants of permits submitted over the past two years, (approx. 3,600) which resulted in 388 responses. The majority of applicants responded positively to the questions asked in the survey, but the purpose of the review was to focus on the negative perception and how that could be improved. The results of the survey are included in this packet as Appendix A. A Stakeholders group was invited to provide input about their experiences in the permit process. (Appendix B) They had an opportunity, as a group, to review the results of the survey and make recommendations for changes. The group met from April through October of this year, with final recommendations included in this report. Process The Stakeholders met to review the results of the survey and to discuss their experience with the permit process. Although thc results of the survey and the comments of the Stakeholders showed that thc permit process was "not broken," five areas were identified where developers were sometimes frustrated and needed improvement. Those five areas are listed below: 1. Predictability and Consistency 2. Service Culture and Resources 3. Process and Timeframcs 4. Codes and Requirements 5. Coordination and Communication These five areas provided the focus for research into comparisons and best practices of other cities by Shockey/Brent, consultants. Stakeholders provided a list of questions they wanted to ask other cities. The research for the consultant report was conducted in the following manner: · Review of the development community surveys · Interviews with in-house permitting staff · Review of the current permitting forms, web site, and codes · Interviews with members of the Stakeholder Group · Research of Auburn, Bellevue, Kent, Renton, Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila, and King County · Review of permit application fees The consultant report provided more that thirty recommended improvements. Staff made some additional suggestions and drafted an implementation plan. The plan consists of five initiatives and target dates for completion of all the recommended improvements. Implementation After review of the draft implementation plan in September, the Stakeholders wanted assurance that all of the recommendations would be implemented in a timely basis. They requested a "Milestone" schedule showing approximate dates when each initiative would be completed, with implementation of all recommendations by the end of 2003. Following is a summary of the attached Implementation Plan: Initiative L Thirteen process changes are proposed in the preparation and attendance of pre-application meetings, format of response letters resulting from these meetings, application completeness review, "expedited review," official publications, permit issuance, and review of codes related to clearing, grading and SEPA. Budget Impact - minimal direct costs Initiative II. Eight service level improvements are proposed by hiring one traffic engineer and one building plan reviewer to reduce the number of projects each employee currently carries. This would provide more opportunity to set target dates, assign teams to complex or high profile projects, provide earlier notification of issues and approvals, and create formal channels of communication to ensure consistency. Budget Impact- $155,000 est. annually $ 30,000 est. one time for fumiture, equipment, and space Initiative III. Four issue resolution items are addressed by designating the Community Development Deputy Director and Deputy Director for Public Works as key decision makers to administer the "no surprises" policy, make early determination of standards and requirements if warranted, and solve problems as they ar/se. Budget Impact - minimal direct cost Initiative IV. Nine communication improvements would be addressed by hiring an intern to complete such things as updating the website, creating an e-mail address book of those interested in periodic updates, and determine printed materials needed at the counter Budget Impact - $15,000 est. for ongoing part time intern, plus $15,000 est. in one-time set up costs and addition of half time intern for first year. Initiative V. Six recommendations focus on improving staff training in areas such as customer service, codes, standards, and technology. Budget Impact - $4,000 est. Recommendation At the last meeting held on October 15, 2002, the Stakeholders made a recommendation to City Council to move forward with all of the items listed in the Implementation Plan. They also recommended funding the costs of improving the permit process by an increase in development fees equal to the amount needed to recover full costs of the improvements. The full cost recovery considered by the Stakeholders Group for the permit process improvements would be approximately 15% increase in fees. Stakeholders Forum Participant List Business Susan Streifel Jeff Stock Kenny So B J Jenkins Residential Developers Tom Barghausen Monte Powell Commercial Developers Bob Couper (Lloyds) Kristin Jensen (Quadrant) School/Church Projects Rod Leland Wade Fisher Professional Jeff Greene (Architect) Larry Petersen (Engineer) Citizens Ron Walker Skip Priest Jennifer Dovey Environmentalists Chris Carrel Adele Freeland Tracy Engels PERMIT PROCESS MILESTONES Implementation Plan October 15, 2002 Initiative 1. Process - Changes are proposed in the permit process, specifically pre- application meetings, response letters, official publications and application acceptance. Initiative II. Service - Hire one traffic engineer and one building plan reviewer to reduce the number of projects each employee currently carries, provide faster turnaround time for permit review and better coverage for staffon leave or in meetings. Initiative III. Issue Resolution - Designate Community Development Deputy Director and Deputy Director for Public Works as key decision-makers for issues requiring resolution. Initiative IV. Communication - Hire an intern to initiate communication improvements. Initiative V. Training - Improve staff training in customer service, codes, standards, and technology. Fourth Quarter 2002 Action Items 1. Initiative I. Process Change - Staff participants in pre-application meetings must visit the site prior to the meeting. 2. Initiative I. Process Change - Staff attendance and preparation for pre-application meetings is mandatory. 3. Initiative I. Process Change - Time lapse for official notifications can be reduced if official newspaper is a daily paper. 4. Initiative 1. Process Change - Review the city's policies and regulations on clearing and g~ading. A more flexible approach will assist with development timing and cost. 5. Initiative I. Process Change - The City holds meetings with outside agencies involved in permitting and impacting our stakeholders. Issues raised by the Stakeholder Group will be presented at those meetings for discussion and future resolution. 6. Initiative III. Issue Resolution - Deputy Directors will be responsible for administration of "No Surprises" policy and late changes to requirements based on pre-application assumptions and health and safety issues. 7. Initiative III. Issue Resolution - Deputy Directors and key staff will attend weekly Development Review Committee meetings currently scheduled for Thursday mornings. Key staff will have the responsibility to brief the Deputy Directors on issues requiring resolution and the Deputies will be responsible for resolving the issue. 8. Initiative III. Issue Resolution - Deputy Directors will be responsible for "debriefing meetings"(mortality conferences) on an as-needed basis. 9. Initiative III. Issue Resolution - In limited cases where there is no disagreement on standards, Deputy Directors may determine, in the pre-application process, that a special study might be avoided. '4 10. Initiative V. Staff Training - Quarterly staff training sessions on a variety of issues will be provided for all permit review staff. First Ouarter 2003 Action Items 1. Initiative II. Service Level -Screening and selection of traffic engineer, building plan reviewer, and intern. 2. Initiative IV. Communication Improvements - Create publicity plan, which may include press releases, website announcements, mailings, workshops and other possible avenues to publicize changes in Federal Way's permit process as well as positive results fi.om thos~ changes. Initiative II. Service Level - Supervisors will establish performance goals for permit process improvements and customer service. 4. Initiative I. Process Change - Assumptions about the project will be clearly stated at the beginning of the pre-application meeting and the follow-up letter. 5. Initiative I. Process Change - Not everything can be known about a site, but the applicant should get a clear understanding about what is known. Letters resulting from pre-application meetings should highlight major site specific findings, such as' · traffic issues · adjacent road standards · sidewalk requirements · known critical area issues · sigaificant tree issues · site visit observations 6. Initiative V. Staff Training - Encourage agency networking to stay current on new efforts to streamline permit processes. 7. Initiative V. Staff Training - Training will be provided on the role of the inspector. Second Ouarter 2003 Action Items 1. Initiative I. Process Change - A comprehensive application checklist will be created tO determine application completeness. 2. Initiative I. Process Change - The 28-day appfication completeness review will be reduced or eliminated by determining completeness at the counter or shortly after. The City will consider making appointments available on an optional basis. 3. Initiative I. Process Change - The application completeness determination will be followed by a letter stipulating further technical review. 4. Initiative I. Process Change - Review the city's SEPA regulations to possibly reduce the linear public comment and appeal process with the city's development review process. By overlapping some of the public comment period, as much as two weeks could be eliminated fi.om the process. 5. Initiative II. Service Level - Complex or high profile projects will be assigned a key contact and review team. Additional staff will ensure that creating teams are possible. 6. Initiative II. Service Level - Review staff will be responsible for early notification of issues, approvals, or problems to the developer and the property owner. Staffwill call, e-mail, or FAX issues, decisions, and approvals, then send a letter. 7. Initiative Il. Service Level - Counter staff will be responsible for setting target dates for first review of tenant improvements and single-family residence applications at submittal. Review staff set target dates and follow-up with the applicant as additional issues impact timing. 8. Initiative IL Service Level - Make every reasonable effort to provide adequate coverage when staff is on vacation, military leave, jury duty etc. 9. Initiative IV. Communication Improvements - Clean up old information on the website. 10. Initiative IV. Communication Improvements - Develop survey tool and procedures to measure change in public perception. Survey will be ongoing to capture current customer feedback. 11. Initiative V. Staff Training - New employees will be matched with current knowledgeable employees for a one-year training period. 12. Initiative V. Staff Training - Staff will be briefed on the City Council's vision for development. Third Quarter 2003 Action Items 1. Initiative I. Process Change - Coordinate the actual permit issuance so that the process runs smoothly. A checklist can be provided to the counter staff and applicant to ensure a smooth transaction. Determination that needed bonds are in place will be a part of this checklist. 2. Initiative I. Process Change - The "expedited review process" will be reviewed and updated to better inform the applicant of what is being offered. The city wilt improve the internal process so that the applicant sees a uniform application. 3. Initiative IV. Communication Improvements ~ Create an e-mail address book for those who wish to be notified of code amendments and administrative determinations. 4. Initiative IV. Communication Improvements - Plan annual workshop with stakeholders. Fourtl~ Ouarter 2003 Action Items 1. Initiative II. Service Level - Establish formal channel to share interpretations, research, and conclusions with all staff members in a timely manner. 2. Initiative II. Service Level - As interpretations are made, review staff will determine if a clarifying amendment is needed. 3. Initiative IV. Communication Improvements - Coordinate publication of Administrative Determinations and Public Works Modifications for the front counter and the website. 4. Initiative IV. Communication Improv/~ments - Determine the various pamphlets in the permit center for each type of perrrfit, develop a list for each, and display the pamphlets publicly. (space permitting) 5. Initiative V. Staff Training - One of the quarterly training sessions will provide a broader view of the development process outside of the City responsibilities. Permit Process Improvement "What a Successful Permit Process Looks Like" September 24, 2002 I Background The primary purpose of initiating the review of the permit process was to identify areas of needed improvement and to develop recommendations that could be implemented that would address these areas of needed improvement. Once the agreed upon recommendations have been implemented it is the expectation of all parties involved that the permit process will be improved. To this end, the following outcomes or results would clefine what a successful permit process looks like in Federal Way. In order to evaluate whether or not the desired outcomes or results have been accomplished, a survey of applicants from all permit types will be conducted at the end or at an appropriate stage of the permit process. II Outcomes/Result Measures Based upon the input received to date from the Stakeholders Committee, City staff, survey of permit applicants over the past two years and the consultant interviews/research, the following suggested outcomes or ~results could be used as a basis for determining if the implementation plan and associated actions were successful. (1) Predictable/Competitive Permit Process turn-around times (2) Consistent Application of City Codes and Policies (3) Improved communication/coordination within and between City Departments, Lakehaven Utility District, Federal Way Fire Department, and the applicant an~t/or representative. (4) Increased unclerstanding by the applicant of how the Expedited Review process works, the potential benefits and the estimates cost prior to engaging in the process. (5) Thorough pre-application process that provides the applicant with a good understanding of how their proposed project relates to the City, Lakehaven, and the Fire Department codes and policies. (6) Availability of informational handouts and pamphlets in the permit lobby area and on the City's web page. (7) Improved image and perceptions of the permit process by its customers. 1H Method of Measuring Outcoraes/Results The proposed method to measure whether or not the implementation plan and associated actions were successful would be to develop and conduct a survey that generates feedback on the above ictentified outcomes/results measures. It is proposed that applicants from all permit types be surveyed and that the specific timing of the survey would vary depending upon the type of permit or process. City of Federal Way Permit Process Improvement Program Prepared for the City of Federal Way by: Shockey/Brent, inc. Everett, Washington September 2002 Section I: Summary of Findings Summary of Findings According to a survey conducted for the Stakeholder Committee, the City of Federal Way gets generally high marks for customer service. Shockey/Brent was not asked to address the positive, but rather to investigate any service or regulatory deficiencies and to see what other jurisdictions have done to address similar issues. The overall goal of the process was to provide the City with consensus recommendations of stakeholders, City staff and others on solutions to identified deficiencies in the current permit review processes of the City. These would then form the basis for recommendations by the Administration to the City Council on how to implement improvements. These initiatives will be presented separately by Staff. Approach In preparation for this report, Shockey/Brent, Inc. carded out the following approach during the month of July. We reviewed the results of the development community surveys. We held over 17 hours of in-house interviews with permitting staff at the City. We reviewed the City's current permitting forms, web site and codes. We held individual interviews with several members of the Stakeholder Committee. We consulted with the cities of Auburn, Bellevue, Kent, Renton, Seattle, Tacoma, and Tukwila, and with King County. We visited several permitting centers within these jurisdictions. We reviewed typical permitting application fees. We met with the Stakeholder Committee to discuss our findings. In summary, the improvements recommended by the Consultants were as follows: Communications An e-mail address book to inform the public of changes to rules and procedures. Periodic Stakeholder meetings to discuss matters with the development community and hear their concems Citizen surveys to assess the quality of service by the City. An "administrative determination" register showing how codes are being interpreted. Development of a GIS property file to provide accurate, up-to-date information A permit workshop for citizens and developers to educate them on how to apply for permit applications that allow expeditious review Convening a task force: innovative techniques to understand what works and doesn't work with the City's incentive programs for development. A clean up of the City's website to dispose of outdated information. Codes and Requirements Code amendments to clarify standards Designation of a key decision-maker in each department Brochures outlining permit requirements. Mandatory pre-application site visits by City staff More definitive pre-application determinations, recorded by staff Training and mentoring to ensure a well-informed permit staff. Predictability A register of Public Works modifications "No surprises" procedures that keep applicants informed through the process Internal review meetings by department directors Internal review meetings by technical staffs Process Early notification to applicants of problems A single expedited review process A better explanation of expedited review - what it is and what it isn't. Key contact persons in each department Over-the-counter permitting for minor permits A permit tracking system Better pre-application meeting: attendance by staff Schedule follow ups to pm-application meetings. Highlight special findings of each project to its applicant Allow early project feasibility consultations with applicants Determine applications completeness at time of submittal. Minimize review by outside agencies, require only utility availability certificates. Service Culture Encourage networking with other permit agencies Improve the permit center Mentoring new staff as they train Staff training sessions: Understanding development · Customer service · Training: role of the inspector The following pages present additional detail on these recommendations along with comparisons of permitting costs and the structure of other agencies in the regions. Section I1: Recommendations Recommendations This section provides additional description to the potential service improvements summarized in the preceding section. Also provided is the opinion of Shockey/Brent, Inc. as to the level of cost and logistics (i.e. ease of "setup") for each. We also indicate which actions ai-e recommended based on the importance of the issue to the City and the goals outlined for the study. Communication Action Description Cost Setup Recommended E-mail Address Book The City's website allows people to sign up for e-mail news. A separate address book should be available for those who wish to be notified of Low Easy X code amendments, and administrative detemmaaxtions. Stakeholder Breakfast A bi-monthly or quarterly meeting with the development community to update on process, Low Easy X new standards, etc. Citizen Surveys A form sent to applicants at the end of the process asking for comments, suggestions, Low Moderate praise or criticism A.D. Register A compilation of administrative determinations (code interpretations) is located in permit center. Low Moderate X Needs to be on website and publicized to developers. GIS Property File Allowing citizens/developers, etc. to fred property on computer and view information on High Significant zoning, permits, special development conditions, etc. Permit Workshop A quarterly offer to the public to attend a two- hour workshop where permitting processes and Moderate Moderate X general development retluirements are explained Expedited Review The process needs to be better explained to the development community: what it is and what it is not. There must also be a commitment by Moderate Moderate X City staff and City consultants to abide by its provisions. Task Force: A task force to investigate why innovative Innovative Techniques techniques are not being used by developers. Moderate Moderate Website Clean-Up There is old information on the website that is beginning to affect its usability and clarity. Low Easy X Codes/Requirements Action Description Cost Setup Recommended Code Amendments to Much criticism about conflicting intenpretation of clarify Standards standards. As interpretations are made, the City should determme if a clarifying amendment is Moderate Significant needed. Key Decision-maker One person (a departmem head) is designated as the final authority on various codes. Disputes resolved after hearing arguments and researching precedents. Low Moderate Findings entered into AD register. X Permit Matrix Cross- For each type of development, the various Referenced to pamphlets in the perm/t center are listed for ease of Low Moderate X Pamphlets. Pamphlets location by applicants. Publicly Displayed. Mandato~ Each participant in a pre-application meeting should Pre-Application be required to visit the site prior to the meeting. Low Low X Site Visit Pre-Application The pre-application meeting should produce clear, Determinations site-specific fmdings regarding: Traffic issues Adjacent road standards Sidewalk requirements Known critical area issues Significant tree issues Moderate Moderate Site visit observations X Not everything can be known about a site, but the applicant should get a clear understanding of what is known. StaffTraining The City should hold internal workshops for key pemfitfing staff regarding: The City's vision The comprehensive plan Thc Amanda system Building Codes Sign~ftcant Significant · Public Works standards Staffneed not be experts on all of these items, but they should understand what they are. Predictability ] Description Cost Setup Recommended Action A.D. Register Admiinstmtive determinations will stipulate whether an interpretation serves as a precedent Low Easy X for all future project reviews or is unique to the particular case. Public Works As with AD's, need to be indexed, recorded and Modifications explained to applicants. Big developers know Low Easy X about them, smaller-scale applicants do not. "No Surprises" There will be early contact by the key contact of Procedures emerging issues. I The City will use the results ofpre-app review as the overriding criteria in cases of later code Low Significant interpretations. X The burden of proof to change a condition will rest with the City staff. Interval Review The Commta~ty Development, Public Works Meetings - and Building Dept. heads will meet every two Department Heads weeks. Their staffs will have the responsibility Moderate Moderate X to brief them on issues requiring resolution. The meeting will produce resolution to those issues. Internal Review Pennit-rehted staffs will meet every two weeks Meetings - Tech Staff to prepare brie£mgs for department head meeting and to coordinate permit processing for projects Moderate Moderate according to agreed schedule. Key contact personnel (pennittin~ team) will attend. "Mortality" Conference Key people should meet after a project process "goes bad" to determine what could have Moderate Moderate prevented problems and how to prevent them in the future. Process Action [ Description Cost Setup I Recommended Early Notice of Applicants should be notified of emerging issues Low Easy X Problems as soon as they arise. Expedited Review - There are now expedited reviews for conunnnity Single Process development, building and public works Low Low X reviews. Should be one. Key Contact Reward position based on project planner who shows ability to resolve conflicts at project review level. Existing "project planner" coordinates materials and responses. Also is able to resolve conflicts when the particular person is assertive. Project : Moderate Moderate X planner should represent the permit review team as contacL Team should act as one unit so that when various staffare on vacation the process does not come to a halt. System breaks down when planner is unable to resolve conflicts. Over-the-Counter Development community fully understands Permitting those permits that can be issued ever the In-place In-place In-place counter. Process works well. Permit Tracking System Amanda system in place. Additional training Moderate Moderate X required. Pre-App Meeting: Mandatory at both internal and applicant Attendance meeting. Develop better links between Moderate Moderate X departments (assign project review teams), Pre-App: Highlight Significant (perhaps fatal) issues need to be Special Findings highlighted in letters to applicant. Reorganize Easy Easy X applicant letters so main issues are clear and addressed upfront. Standards vs. Reports In limited cases, where there is no disagreement on a standhrd (e.g. traffic improvements, etc.), then a special study (TIA) might be avoided. To Low Low X be determined during pre-app. Prepare Handouts Prepare handouts to be posted in local businesses, such as hardware stores, noti~fing citizens that permits are needed for smaller Moderate Moderate projects, such as decks and other minor home improvements. Increase Coordination on Develop a system for determining if bonds are in Bonds place as soon as possible in the process so that applicant is not waiting while staff is Easy Easy X researching at the th-ne of permit issuance. Pre-App: Schedule Once a schedule is outlined for the applicant, Follow ups there should be continual ttacking by team to Easy Easy X I ensure it is met. Project Feasibility Different from pre-app, this allows a project Consultation proponent to have a discussion with key people at the City regarding the likely issues Low/Fee Significant surrounding a proposed project. Less detail and Charged less commitment to future project conditions. Action Description Cost Setup Recommended Submittal: Applicants should be allowed to schedule an Completeness Call application submittal with the necessary parties present to review materials. Application should Low i Moderate X be deemed complete at in-take if information is presented and acceptable. Utility Availability In order to reduce the amount of time taken by Certificate Lakehaven to issue the certificate, the City should meet with Lakehaven to discuss agreement on their involvement in the Low Significant permittin$ process. Permit Issuance Targets At the time of submittal, provide the applicant with a reasonable target date for issuance of their permit. If it happens to take longer, make Low Low X sure the applicant is notified as soon as possible. Change "Official Paper" Since some projects are required to be advertised in the City's paper (i.e. NOA, SEPA, public heatings, etc.), a paper that is published Low Low X only twice a week leads to delays. Consider chan[gin~ to a daily publication. Service Culture Action Description Cost I Setup I Recommended Agency Networking Several jurisdictions are undertaking similar permit streamlining efforts. There should be an Low Low X on-going networking effort so that Federal Way can stay current on new ideas. Improve Permit Center The permit center's design should be customer friendly, in line with other recommendations. The current permit area is not ADA compliant. Worktable or areas need to be identified. Significant Significant X Literature should be available explaining all aspects of the permitting process. Mentoring for New Staff New employees should be matched with current "knowledgeable" employee during a training Low Low X period. Staff Training: Staff should attend workshop where developers, Understanding financiers, consultants, architects, etc. take staff Devehipmem through the development process. Provides staff Moderate Moderate X with an overall context and their role in the process. StaffTraining: Customer Staffgets high marks for attitude. Staffwishes Service to do better and would participate in additional customer service training. Adopt a taglme for Moderate Low X the permit staffand center to improve the image of the departmem Staff Training: Role of Inspectors need to understand role in terms of the Inspector accepting conditions/reposed during review Low Low X >rocess, and under what circumstances conditions can be changed. Workshop w/th Council Staff and Council should workshop the city's vision, mutual expectations, the permitting Low Significant X )rocess, the role of the comprehensive plan, etc. Section II1: Jurisdictional Comparison Information From Other Jurisdictions Following is a series of questions that were used as a background for interviews with the cities of Auburn, Bellevue, Kent, Renton, Seattle, Tacoma, and Tukwila; and with King County. I. Permits A. Numbers/process/timeframes/who reviews and approves 1) Single family residential 2) Subdivisions 3) Commercial 4) Tenant improvements 5) Engineering II. Staff Comparison A. Number of counter staff B. Number ofplarmers that do permit review/plans examiners C. Number of public works staff that do permit review D. Number of inspectors (building/public works) III. What kind of guarantee is provided in places like Renton and Tacoma? Clarify what it is and how it works. IV. Do they have "expedited" review? Does it work, and if so, how? V. How do other jurisdictions provide predictability and consistency? Do they have a policy that addresses this? VI. Do other jurisdictions provide a liaison or single point of contact? How does it work? VII. How do other jurisdictions assure quality customer service, i.e., training, supervision, structure? VIII. How do other jurisdictions coordinate between departments and/or special- purpose districts? IX. Is there anything unique in their permit process? X. What do they feel they do best? How do they test this? XI. Do fees cover staff time? Get a copy of the fee schedule. XII. Is a pre-application process required and how does it work? Responses are sununarized on the attached matrix. BELLEVUE KING COUNTY KENT I TACOMA RENTON AUBURN FEDERAL WAY 1) Quantity and Approximately 400 1,470 per year; 63 48 non-basic 450 per year 400 480 per year; 2 175 per year; 65 90 200 per year timeframe for per year; 12.2 week days to process, approvals; 3 week week review, days. 4-6 weeks review of Single review time. review time (Planning, family residential PW, Fire). permits. 137 basic approvals; 1 week review (Planning & PW) 2) Quantity and Approximately 10 - 20 52 Short plats, 24 13 Plats; 90-120 day 14 plats per year 20 per year; 12 week : 10 - 15 per year; Try About 4-6 subdivisions, timeframe for per year; Try to follow formal plats; Typical review time (Planning, planning review to follow 120 day not including short plats. review of the 120<lay clock, review time is 180 PW, Fire) schedule for projects. Timeframe for Subdivision although it gets started days for plats and 144 15 Civil Grading; 75 preliminary plats is permits, and stopped on a days for short plat ( day review (Planning, usually about 1 year. regular basis. Usually review team consists take, on average 20 - of Planner, Engineer, PW, Fire) 60 days longer, traffic review, and 21 Grade & fill; 5 day depending on the sensitive areas review (Planning, PW, complexity of the reviewer). Fire, Engineering) project. The process for short 352 Sewer approvals; ~lats is administrative 5 day review (PW) and approved by staff. 200 water approvals; 3 The plat approval day review requires a public (Engineering) hearing with Hearing Examiner. 3) Quantity and Approximately 80 - 52 per year; 137 days 22 approvals; 9 week Approx. 60 per year 45 per year; 4 week 60 per year; 120-day 16 - 120 working days timeframe for 100 per year; approx, to process, review (Plng, PW, review review process. review of 16.6 weeks for a Bldg, Engring, Fire) Commercial medium-sized project. permits. 4) Quantity and 4.5 weeks 1,100 per year; 35 162 major 477 350 450 per year; 2 90 - 120 per year; 45- 154 timeframe for days to process improvements; 1 week week review day review 3045 days review of Tenant review (building & improvements, fire) 5) Quantity and NA - Engineering 659 per year NA - Engineering NA - Engineering NA - Engineering 60-80 per year;, Most reviewed under other timeframe for reviews are included reviews are included reviews are included reviews are included Various depending on applications. 20 EN review of in other review in other review in other review in other review complexity, permits (requiring Engineering processes processes processes, engineering review only) and 510 ROW permits. Number of counter 6 9 permit tech. 4 intake tech., 2 4 I coordinator and I 4 staff 5 office/zoning tech. admin, 4 rotating div flanning assistant I/ELLEVUE ] KING COUNTY I KENT I TACOMA RENTON AUBURN FEDERAL WAY Number of planners 10 plans examiners Building: 8 planners 10 + 2 -3 long range Building: 3 plans examiners 4.5 planners that do permit 11 land use planners 16 plan examiners 5 plan examiners planners l review planner 2 planners 1.5 plan reviewers review/plans 8 grading reviewers 15 engineering 2 plans examiners (2 additional examiners Land-use: planers to be hired) 18 site planners 20 engineering Number of public 5 20 3 engineers, 2 techs, I 20 I building permit 8 engineering & PW 4 works staff that do coordinator, I reviewer permit review secretary Number of inspectors 7 38 7 inspectors and 6 14 inspectors 3 inspectors 4 inspectors 4 building (building/public public works 1 ~5 public works works) inspectors I on-call What kind of No guarantee of costs None. Typically try to No guarantees are SFR within 2 weeks. No refund guarantee. No guarantee but try No guarantee. Every guarantee is or timing now. meet the 120-day provided. When Commercial issued Have set review times, to meet the 120-day effort to meet the 120 provided. Clarify Moving towards timeframe. Permit Center started within 8 weeks, Plat in They are 98% time limit day turnaround. Most what it is and how it guarantee on some council reduced 90 days, if deadline successful on meeting types of permits are works, permits (DSO. Fees (typically by half the not met then plan review times, issued well under that based on hourly rates, allowable timeframe check fees are time frame costs vary for permit reviews) refunded. TI's are accordingly, over the counter Do they have No expedited review. Yes the applicant can No ! No expedited, but No expedited review No expedited review; We have expedited "expedited" review? Cannot get all request to pay ~ expect staff to meet process, but staff are first come first serve review. The applicant Does it work, and if departments consistent overtime for reviewers deadlines. On large expected to meet process, pays for the extra so, how? ability to provide to expedite the project like to talk review deadlines, consultant or staff over manpower. System process. This : early and often, time to put their project should work for typically only happens ahead of others. We everyone, not just on building permits, promise that the first those with the extra review will be within 10 money, working days. How do other Goal is to provide No specific policy. No set policy. A pre- Codes written to In building only have Follow City codes and This is an area that we jurisdictions provid~ consistent timeline Supervisory oversight application is required incorporate comp plan 1 reviewer. In design manual I need to improve on. predictability and and cost. 120<tay is the primary way to for all projects going policies. Regulations planning follow set standards. Most divisions have consistency? Do they i requirement is a assure consistency, through SEPA. A condensed into zones checklists and regular staff meetings have a policy that crock; can only meet ~ Planning team summary letter is which include design policies, but many times the addresses this? by smoke and mirrors, members meet at least prepared from the standards, bulk regs. discussion centers on the starting/stopping the ' every 3 weeks to meeting and sent to If you do the things issue of the day rather clock to make the stats discuss projects, applicant and staff, stated for zone the than any planned look good. Use Staff meet and follow permit will be discussions on calendar days as goal set completeness approved, consistency issues. to complete process, checklists to assure Effort to "educate the consistency. customer" big objective of DSI, get BELLEVUE I KING COUNTY ] KENT TACOMA I RENTON AUBURN FEDERAL WAY good applications in so reduce review cycles. Now as many as 9 cycles. Do other Not under current The team planner is No, the reviews from Each project has staff Yes, the planner for For larger projects the By default, the main jurisdictions provide system, no the point of contact for the different contact. If liaison not land use applications planner is liaison and point of contact is a liaison or single consolidated review the project and will disciplines coordinate available other staff and the plans reviewer other staff send usually the planner point of contact? letter. Permit Center prepare the staff and track the project, can update based on for building comments through assigned to the project. How does it work? : is clearinghouse. May decision for hearing, permit tracking applications them. For smaller go to PM on some Contact can still be system. (only building) bigger projects, not on made with specific permits and projects others. Client need is members, but the the building staff mostly knowing planner is primary member is liaison. status, can get that on contact. web site. PM must have authority over other departments to work. Needs/expectatious of client vary widely (ma/pa vs. professional developer). How do other Stress facilitation New employees are Cross-training of Five years ago there Initial training of new Weekly staff meetings We do ad&ess customer jurisdictions assure rather than regulation, trained by existing intake employees with was an across the employees, support and initial training of service in performance quality customer High standards for Senior Staffbefore all different board TQM training and supervision fi.om new employees, evaluations. We have service, i.e., training, employment. 2 given own projects, departments, for all staff. Training management small training budget for supervision, interdepartmental continues today, each staff person. structure? committees to resolve conflicts, coordinate ~rocess. I committee is supervisors of technical reviewers who ad&ess codes, operational issues; the other is to asst. department heads to address policy issues, resources. Meet every 2 weeks. How do other Interdepartmental see Case by case contact For water and sewer Twice a week meeting Project by project Project by project Coordination occurs jurisdictions above. Very little with other have requirement for with building, basis. Few contact with districts, through the coordinate between outside review by jurisdictions, but have certification of planning, legal, and interactions because Development Review departments and/or other agencies, availability availability. Beyond GMA to discuss any water and sewer are Committee Meeting special-purpose jurisdictions, requirements forms that only project by disagreements on City mn. which is held every districts? for water and sewer, vroiect contact. For issues and vroiects. Thursday. O~.L,~,~S V Ur. r~dm ~ ~.OUI~ I'Y I~ENT 'I'ACOMA I~NTON AUBURN I FEDERAL WAY Health District they All code issues have a ItD staff addressed there. person on site 2 hfs per week to coordinate issues. Is there anything Permit Center that is None The development of Little delay caused by Consolidation of None The over the counter unique in their truly one stop. the Permit Center. citizen opposition permits. In both permit for certain types permit process? Everything from the because the codes are building and planning, of applications and the biggest land use clear and in line with related permits have creativity and project to a small the comp plan and been combined to willingness of staff to tenant improvement, supported by elected make it easier for find creative solutions. They do the officials. Public trusts customers to know interdepartmental the City to do proper what is needed. coordination "behind review. the scenes" rather than making the client do it. Never an appointment necessary. Duty staff person from each dept always available at the center to answer questions, etc. What do they feel Solution~oriented. Staff interaction with Coordination between Staff Coordination Timely processing and Internal Have significantly they do best? How do Good cooperation applicant, staff, consistent evaluation communication improved single family they test this? among departments, of proposals according between departments review times. Counter Conduct ongoing to codes and and staff members, staff are cross-trained in client surveys to standards. Tested by building and planning reveal problems, etc. the number of permits and are outstanding "mybuildingpermit.co approved in the stated custermer service m" e-permit system timeframes. The City representatives. collaborate with other is 98% successful at eastside cities. All processing w/in uniform submittals, timeframes. requirements. Mostly minor permits. Application can be done on-line. Permit issued in as little as 15 minutes. Goal is to make it regional, consistent process. Small cities can plug into it without expending lots of resources. Comparative Fees As part of its work for the City of Federal Way, Shockey/Brent obtained information from other jurisdictions regarding application and processing fees for various types of land use actions. As it works toward improving its permitting system in a cost-effective manner, the City wants to know if it charges more or less than other agencies for permits. Shockey/Brent found wide variation in the methods and amounts of payments when it contacted six jurisdictions~. While a simple comparison with Federal Way was not possible the following summary provides a fair description of these various methods for use in determining what will work best for the City. Single Family Residential Permits SEPA Checklist Individual w/project Permit Review Inspection Other Total Federal Way $1,590 $1,033 $2,623 Federal Way $1,188 $594 , Auburn $350 $350 Auburn , $2,817 , $2,817 Bellevue Hourly -- part of App. Fee Bellevue $2,522 $1,564 $4,086! Kent $250* $700 Kent $2,876 $2,87C' Renton $1,000 N.A. Renton $2,924 $2,92z Tacoma $1820 $188 $2,00~ Tacoma $322 $ 322 + King County $518 $1,305 $1,179 $3,00; King County $2,000 $2,000 Assumes 2,500 square foot structure..$180,000 valuation * one single family unit on one parcel Binding Site Plan Rezone Residential Apartments Commercial Federal Way $1,674 Federal Way $3,705 $3,705 $3,705 Auburn -- Bellevue $1,347 Auburn $750 $750 $750 Bellevue $82/hr. $82/hr. $82/hr. Kent $500 Rentun $1,000 Kent $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Renton $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Tacoma $1,075 tacoma N.A N.A N.A Kin~ County $12,270 g[ing County $14,300 $14,300 $14,300 Short Plat Flat PerAcre II PsrHour PerUnit II Total ~'ederal Way $1,674 $1,674 ~.uburn $400 $400 Bellevue $1,896 $412 $2,308 Kent $1,500 $50 $1,700 Renton $1,000 $1,000 Tacoma $2,686 $2,686 King County $386 $13,266 $13,652 Bellevue, Kent, Tacoma, Renton, Auburn and King County Permit Process Review Major Areas Needing Improvement The staffhas &ailed a summary of major areas needing improvement in the City's permit process. This draft summary is the result of three different sources of information gathered over the past two months. 1. A survey mailed to 3,600 permit applicants with 388 responses showed the majority of applicants responded positively to the questions asked in the survey. (Appendix A) However, there were numerous negative comments about the applicants' experiences and included suggested improvements. The staffhas compiled those comments into major categories. 2. The Stakeholders Group provided comments about their experience and perceptions related to the permit process. Those comments were categorized and reviewed at the April 30th meeting and have been included in the draft summary. (Appendix B) 3. Bob Couper, of the Stakeholders Group, provided his own analysis of the negative comments on May Ist. The categories in Bob's analysis have also been incorporated into the draft summary. (May 1, 2002 attachment) The "Major Areas Needing Improvement" on the attached page are intended to be summary statements of the areas that received the most negative comments, and will result in the most significant impact in improving customer service and the permitting process. Even though the categories are very broad, these five areas will provide the focus for research into best practices of other cities. The Stakeholders will be asked to review this summary at the June 11th meeting to make sure nothing critical has been missed. Suggested questions to ask other cities for best practices, targeting these major areas, will be gathered from the group. Discussion for potential solutions could also begin if time available. Summary of Survey and Stakeholder Comments Major Areas Needing Improvement in the Permit Process Predictability and Consistency · Lack of predictability in time, cost, codes, and other requirements increase the cost of the project · Introduction of new issues and requirements after pre-application process costs time and money Inconsistent interpretations of requirements between different staff and different departments frustrate applicants · Applicants want to know all the requirements upfront and not be surprised later · Need to live within approved plan review determinations (unless life safety issue) Service Culture and Resources · There is a history of anti-development attitude since incorporation · Negative staff and public interface presents a bad image for development in the city · Line staff must be empowered to make final decisions · Staff needs to have the required information and knowledge to make final decisions · Availability of staff resources and timely response is frustrating and potentially costs applicants Process and Timeframes · Expedited review does not consistently deliver within timelines and, therefore, may not be worth the expense · Permit review took too much time for the scope of the project · Allow the permit applicant to assume more risk · Need to improve response time to inquiries and questions · Be pro-active in informing applicants when projects are approved Codes and Requirements · Too much information is required upfront at the beginning of the process · Codes are too restrictive and prohibit creativity · Codes are difficult to interpret · Codes need to be more flexible · Frontage improvements are a deterrent and expensive Coordination and Communication · Need to improve communication between staff within the same department · Need to improve coordination and communication between departments · Need to improve coordination and communication with outside agencies, such as Lakehaven and the Fire District · Need to improve communication with applicants · Clear concise step-by-step handouts are needed for people new to the process Appendix A Graphs of preliminary results of 388 response to questions in the city's CD survey Survey Question 1 What type of permit(s) or approval(s) did you receive? 31'79°/" I (626 total responses) SL^ i 0.s0% Use Process 3 ~2.08% Sun~ey Question 3 I was treated in a helpful, courteous, and professional manner by all city employees. J47 Strongly Agree 10 56 Agree 24 Neither Agree of Disagree 17 18 Disagree 16 E3 BuiUing/C onstr uction Perm~ls · Land Use Applications Strongly Disagree Survey Question 3 I was treated in a helpful, courteous, and professional manner by all city employees. Slror~y A~ee 27.51% Survey Question 4 The plan review was delivered within the time estimated by the staff. j15 Strongly Agree 20 Agree J 84 84 24 Neither Agree or Disagree 43 _.~29 Disagree 27 [] Building/Construction Permits 21 · Land Use Applications Strongly Disagree · Short-term Permits 15 Survey Question 4 The plan review was delivered within the time estimated by the staff. StnTng;y Disagree lO. 95% 31 Survey Question 5 The timeframe for plan review met the project scheduling needs. ~14 Strongly Agree 19 Agree j 66 126 Neither Agree or Disagree 37 .~41 Disagree 35 r'l Building/Construction Permits · Land Use Applications 26 Strongly Disagree · Short-term Permits 21 Survey Question 5 The timeframe for plan review met the project scheduling needs. Strongly Agree 9.12% Agree 39.51% Neither Agree or Disagree 18~24% Disagree 19.45% Strongly Disagree 13,68% Survey Question 6 inspections were provided when scheduled 32 Strongly Agree 39 _.j s4 Agree 115 26 Neither Agree or Disagree 32 --11 Disagree 12 n Building/Construction Permits · Land Use Applications Strongly Disagree ~r12'* ·Short-term Permits 6 Survey Question 6 Inspections were provided when scheduled SbO~ Agree 21.39% Agree 5241% $3 Survey Question 7 The standards and requirements related to the permit(s) were easy to obtain, read, and understand. -- 13 Strongly Agree -- 21 Agree ~ 84 116 25 Neither Agree or Disagree 28 28 Disagree 21 E3 B uilding/Const ruction Permits · Land Use Applications -- 16 Strongly Disagree Il Short-term Permits 20 Survey OuesUon 7 The standards and requirements related to the permit(s) were easy to obtain, read, and understand. Strongly Agree 11.58% Agree 52.26% Neither Agree or Disagree 14.41% Disagree 12.71% Strongly Disagree 9.04% Survey Question 8 The pre-application meeting was helpful for planning and decision making. 18 Strongly Agree Agree ] 54 56 ~ 46 Neither Agree or Disagree 65 13 Disagree 10 r-I Buiiding/Const ruct ion Permits 10 · Land Use Applications Strongly Disagree al Short-term Permits Survey Question 8 The pre-application meeting was helpful for planning and decision making. Survey Question 9 Key staff membem were accessible and information they provided was accurate and consistent throughout the permit process 21 Strongly Agree 27 Agree ~ 75 101 23 Neither Agree or Disagree 27 26 Disagree 26 n Building/Construction Permits -- 14 ·Land Use Applications Strongly Disagree · Short-term Permits 12 Survey Question 9 Key staff members were accessible and information they provided was accurate and consistent throughout the permit process D~segree 13.69% Survey Question 10 The informaUonal handouts received were easily understood and helpful. Strongly Agree 14 Agree j 89 102 37 Neither Agree or Disagree 49 -- 13 Disagree 12 [3 Building/Co n str uction Permits · Land Use Applications 18 Strongly Disagree · Short-term Permits 7 Survey Question 10 The informational handouts received were easily understood and helpful. Strongly Agree 8.81% Agree 55.02% Neither Agree or Disagree 23.40% Disagree 8.51% Strongly Disagree 4.26% Survey Question #11 Other jurisdications where they had a positive experience with the permit process. 73 Ol~am~.~a Redmon~ Snohcj,~i~h ~oupty State oT washinQmn Thurston ~rl Univers ~ ~[[~ 88 Appendix B Issue areas and summary statements related to Development Permit Process Stakeholder Group Meeting DRAFT - Summary of Input WEAKNESSES Pre-Application · Applicants expect the pre-application process to anticipate and identify all of the issues associated with their projects.~ · Applicants do not appreciate new issues or requirements after the pre-application process, Predictability & Consistency · Inconsistencies occur between staff, departments, and projects. · The unpredictability of time, cost, codes, plan checking, timing and requirements can severely impact the cost of a project. Culture · Too much information required upfront (front-end loading). · Too much detail and concern regarding City Council scrutiny. · Perception that development is bad. · General attitude towards development is not good specifically multi-family. Frontage Improvements (on & off site) · Frontage improvements, both adjacent and offsite, are expensive and a deterrent. Coordination · Coordination between internal departments and with local agencies (Fire Department & Lakehaven) needs improvement. Expedited Review Process · Expedited review option doesn't consistently deliver within expressed timelines and therefore, may not be worth the expense. Codes · Projects that benefit the environment or community should have an easier process. · City codes, especially in subdivision requirements, are too restrictive prohibiting creativity and maximum use of the site. Process · The current process takes too long. · It should allow more risk on the applicant's part. · Problem with perception and marketing. Service · Staff needs to improve response time to inquiries, and questions. · Staff should be more pro-active in informing applicants when projects are approved. · Improve staff resources. STRENGTHS Codes · Federal Way has strong land use and environmental regulations. Process · Over the counter review is helpful. · Building and planning review time is predictable. · When applications are well prepared, the permit process is successful. · Create a definition of a "well-prepared" permit application. Staff · As a whole, staff is well thought of. · Staff is flexible, accessible and knowledgeable. · The continuity and longevity of staff is a positive benefit. · CD staff is friendly, receptive, approachable, courteous, knowledgeable, and committed to maintaining the integrity of the code. · Senior staff is high quality, flexible, available and display good judgment. · Over the Counter staff- helpful and timely · General staff is sincerely interested, available, qualified, & responsive. · Field staff is flexible and make decisions to benefit projects. PERMIT PROCESS REVIEW SURVEY COMPUTATIONS MAY 1, 2002 NEGATIVE STATEMENTS FROM THE SURVEY Inspectors (43) direct negative statements regarding inspectors. Inconsistent Answers Between Departments (62) statements regarding different direction being given by various departments. Poor Attitude and Lack of Accountability (104) statements regarding bad attitude, impoliteness, and being unhelpful - lack of accountability. Lack of Knowledge (57) statements regarding feelings that personnel lacked knowledge of the permitting process. Negative Comments (55) statements made without particulars that were just negative (i.e., that it bordered on harassmen0 Far Too Much Time (107) statements made regarding length of time and delays. Major Problems (10) statements made that the system caused major problems (i.e., one staff member made a decision, later reversed, that would have been FATAL to the business). Availabili .B, (23) statements made that, due to the lack of people, availability was difficult. 6/! Expedited Review (11) statements made regarding payment for expedited review but process still taking far too much time in receiving permits. Change of Direction in Mid-Stream (43) statements made regarding having to change plans, add costly items, and incurring additional time after the pre-construction meetings were held. Poor Customer Service/Lack of Communication (53) statements made regarding poor communication between applicant and various departments. Some stated they could not get service and/or answers. Codes Too Restrictive (45) statements made that the current codes are over-restrictive. In one case, it took eight weeks to obtain a T.I. to add two closets to a residence. Costs (20) statements made regarding permit costs being high, including offsite. Interpretation (11) statements made regarding different departments and inspectors reading the codes in different ways. Took additional time and money to get the problem straightened out. Handouts (19) statements made regarding the inability to mad, understand, and complete the information required. Also, the action required was not the same as what was required by a department.