Management Study of the

Development Review Process

 

CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2470 El Camino Real, Suite 210

Palo Alto, CA 94306

v.650.858.0507      f.650.858.0509

 

November 2006

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

1.    INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

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

1.         INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT

 

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

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

 

•           The staffing needs and assignments within the departments;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2.         DESCRIPTION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

•           Combination Inspectors are utilized for residential inspections;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.         SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Section	Recommendation	Management Responsibility	Suggested Timeframe	Estimated Cost
7.1	The City of Lawrence should implement a comprehensive software package for the Development Review Process.  All Departments involved in the Development Review process should be required to utilize the selected system for scheduling, processing, and reporting on work activities.	City Manager	1st Quarter, 2007	Depending upon bids and software selected. Estimated at $250,000 to $700,000
	The City of Lawrence should form a steering committee made up of city employees, industry representatives, customers, and other stakeholders to guide the definition of system needs, review various software packages, and guide the implementation of the selected product	City Manager	1st Quarter, 2007
7.2 (a)	The City should modify its approach to data collection in the HTE building permits module to capture additional information regarding processing times.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
7.2 (b)	If alternative software is not chosen, the City should acquire and install the HTE Planning and Engineering module.	City Manager	1st Quarter 2007.	$75,000 to $150,000
7.2 (c)	Utilize The “Click2Gov” Module From HTE To Provide Public Access for Building Permits	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
7.2 (d)	Acquire and Utilize The “Click2Gov” Module From HTE To Provide Public Access for Planning and Engineering Permits.	City Manager	1st Quarter 2007.	$20,000
7.2 (e)	The City should acquire and utilize the “Click2Gov” wireless module from HTE for building inspectors to record inspection results and print correction notices.	City Manager	1st Quarter 2007.
7.3	All of the departments and divisions should utilize the HTE automated permit information system for all aspects of the development review process.	City Manager	2nd Quarter 2007.
	Modules, applications and reports should be developed within the HTE automated permit information system to support the work of these departments and divisions.	City Manager	2nd Quarter 2007.
7.3 (cont)	Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the use of the HTE automated permit information system.	City Manager	2nd Quarter 2007.	Can be performed in-house.
8.1	The Neighborhood Resources Department should modify the dates maintained in the HTE building permit module to include the dates that each division and department completes their plan check – 1st check, 2nd check, 3rd check, etc. – the date the applicant is notified that their plans are ready to be picked up after each plan check – 1st check, 2nd check, 3rd check, etc., and the date(s) the applicant submits and re-submits the building permit plans.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
8.2	The City should revise the building permit plan check timelines.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
8.3 (a)	Responsibility for plan checking residential plans and commercial remodels should be reassigned from building inspectors to the plans examiners.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
8.2 (b)	The City of Lawrence should authorize two additional Plans Examiner positions	City Manager	1st Quarter 2007.	$108,000
8.3(c)	Utilize the newly reclassified position of Plan Check Technician to ensure that building permit applications and plan submittals are complete prior to review by Plans Examiners.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter 2007.
8.4	The Neighborhood Resources Department should increase the number of building permits issued over-the-counter to 55% to 60% of all building permits issued.	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
	The Plan Check Technician should be utilized to provide over-the-counter plan checking of minor and miscellaneous building permits.	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
8.5	The City should adopt the most current version of the International Code Council building codes	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
	The City should continue its efforts to fully implement the entire ICC building codes rather than continuing the use of a blended code.	City Manager	2007
8.6	The City should expand the use of HTE to enable applicants for single trade permits to complete a permit application online	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
	The City should adopt an objective of issuing 10% of its building permits online.	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter 2007.
8.7	Post common plan check corrections on the City’s website to provide guidance to architects in the construction requirements in Lawrence.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter – 2007
8.8	The plan check checklists developed by Neighborhood Resources Department should be posted to he Department’s website.	Neighborhood Resources Director	Immediately
8.9	Develop standard building permit plans for use by the public in minor residential improvements.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter – 2007
	Develop a “Home Improvement Center” web page on the City’s web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building permit plan check and inspection process.	Neighborhood Resources Director	1st Quarter – 2007
8.10	The Neighborhood Resources Department should develop a comprehensive manual of code interpretations.  The manual should be utilized for internal staff training and be posted to the website for use by the development/construction communities.	Neighborhood Resources Director	3rd Quarter – 2007
8.11	Selected types of building permits should be routed to the Planning Department, Engineering Division, and the Utilities Department for plan checking.	City Manager	3rd Quarter – 2007
	The City should develop and adopt a policy regarding the distribution of the different types of building permit plans to the various divisions and departments involved in the development review process.	City Manager	3rd Quarter – 2007
9.1 (a)	The Planning Department should establish guidelines for reviewing departments to respond to all submissions by applicants and establish clear timelines at each step.	Planning Director	4th Quarter, 2006.
9.1 (b)	The applicant should be informed regarding the name of the project manager assigned to their permit application within five working days of submittal of the application and provided their contact information.