Management Study of the

Development Review Process

 

CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2470 El Camino Real, Suite 210

Palo Alto, CA 94306

v.650.858.0507      f.650.858.0509

 

November 2006

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

1.    INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

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

1.         INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT

 

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

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

 

•           The staffing needs and assignments within the departments;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2.         DESCRIPTION OF STUDY METHODOLOGY

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

•           Combination Inspectors are utilized for residential inspections;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.         SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   PROFILE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.    PROFILE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

1.         PLANNING DEPARTMENT

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Important points to note regarding the organization are provided below.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

2.         NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

•           Implement “Click2Gov” inspection request component;

 

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

 

•           Develop customer service standards for Neighborhood Resources Department staff;

 

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

 

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

 

Seven personnel are assigned to the Building Safety Division. 

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

The organizational chart below shows the structure of the Department:

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

3.         FIRE AND MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

4.         PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

5.         UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.             SUMMARY OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

 

 

3.    SUMMARY OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

 

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

 

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

1.         GENERAL FINDINGS

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

The following points highlight the information presented above:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The next three statements relate to problem resolution.

The following points can be made regarding the chart above.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

•           Good teamwork

 

•           Good supervision

 

•           Employee dedication

 

•           Resources

 

•           Autonomy

 

•           Qualified and experienced staff

 

•           Good communication

 

•           Pleasant place to work

 

•           Training

 

•           Good technological support

 

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

•           Better trust from upper management.

 

•           Workload needs to be more evenly distributed.

 

•           More staff.

 

•           Better pay.

 

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

 

•           Website needs to be updated & improved.

 

•           Future Land Use Map needs to be updated.

 

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

 

•           Need to approve updated codes

 

•           Improve compensation of technical staff.

 

•           Better communication with upper management.

 

•           Additional technical resources.

 

•           More training.

 

•           Better relationship with Neighborhood Resources.

 

•           Adopt I-Codes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.   SUMMARY OF THE FOCUS GROUPS

 

 

4.    SUMMARY OF THE FOCUS GROUPS

 

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

•           Wednesday, June 14

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

 

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

 

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

 

•           Thursday, June 15

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

-                      Additional comments made regarding customer service include:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

••         “City planners lack experience.”

 

••         “Planning staff is rude.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

-           “Departments are afraid to make decisions.”

 

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

 

-           “Improvements need to start at the top.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

-           Provide customers with realistic time frames for project approval.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.   RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE SURVEY

 

 

5.  RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE SURVEY

 

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

1.         SURVEYED CITIES PROVIDED GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comparative City	Valuation of Building Permits Issued
Lawrence, KS