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.