External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Executive Summary The Lewis County area is economically challenged by unemployment, underemployment and generational poverty. Community leaders and community members are seeking ways to improve the economic health of the area in order to improve the overall quality of life. One possible approach is to leverage the cheaper land and lower development costs to encourage new businesses to locate here. This benefits the community in multiple ways – new jobs, additional tax revenue, and construction acts as an economic kick-3starter for a local economy. A group of community leaders involved in economic development views the permitting processes of the three largest jurisdictions (Cities of Centralia and Chehalis and Lewis County) as vital components to this work. When the lower development costs are combined with a healthy and effective permitting system, it translates to a competitive advantage for this area that can encourage businesses to invest in our area. As with any process improvement effort, the voice of the customer is a key component to identifying where to invest resources for improvement. This project, sponsored by five community organizations, reviewed the customer experience from hundreds of customers, through focus groups, interviews and a survey. This report provides a summary of the customer feedback, and compares the current state to phase two of this project, conducted in 2009. This Is a (Mostly) Good News Story Customer satisfaction with all three jurisdictions is high. The County is to be commended for their improvement over the years in the area of customer satisfaction. Both Cities have sustained good levels of customer satisfaction. Many people shared that they like working in Lewis County and that they can build positive working relationships with the government representatives. They find that the process and regulations here are less onerous than in other places. This report shares many of these positive experiences, and the quantitative results from the survey reflect an overall positive situation. Here are some of the positive themes that emerged:
Major opportunities for encouraging new business exist and can be capitalized on.
There is a shared understanding of what a “business-friendly” process is: fair, transparent, predictable and reasonable. No one had unreasonable expectations for what the government agencies should be doing. October 2016
1
2
Customer service is high, and staff are accessible and willing to help – more so than other areas.
Most projects get permitted fairly quickly, and faster than in other areas.
As with any review process, opportunities for improvement were also identified. A few of the larger improvement themes that emerged include:
The UGA accountabilities are not always clear and hinder development.
On-line presence and function is seriously under-utilized.
Fractured relationships within the community are damaging progress.
Government leadership are missing opportunities to set clear vision and direction related to economic development.
Predictable timelines are still not in place, and are critical to encouraging development. Customers do not perceive that government agencies feel the same sense of urgency.
Commercial customers and developers feel that government employees often do not understand their business context and the costly impact of delays, unclear decisions, and variable interpretations of codes.
This report contains many recommendations for the government jurisdictions to consider. Some of these recommendations are low hanging fruit – small and easy to implement. Others require more of a commitment. We hope that all will be carefully considered. A complete list of all recommendations is available at the end of this report.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Contents Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 1 Project Background and Purpose___________________________________________ 5 Project Purpose _____________________________________________________________ 5 Why Is This Important? The role of permitting in a local community’s economic health. ___ 5 Project Sponsors ____________________________________________________________ 7 Guiding Principles ___________________________________________________________ 7 Phases 1 and 2 ______________________________________________________________ 7 Phase 3 Project Scope ________________________________________________________ 7 About the Consultant ________________________________________________________ 8
Methodology __________________________________________________________ 9 “Voice of the Customer” ______________________________________________________ 9 Sources for Customer Input ____________________________________________________ 9 Government Perspective – Our Subject Matter Experts ____________________________ 11
General Findings _______________________________________________________ 12 Opportunity Knocks _________________________________________________________ 12 Rowing in the Same Direction _________________________________________________ 13 What is a “Business Friendly” Permitting Process? ________________________________ 17 Positives to Build On ________________________________________________________ 18 A Missing Link: Line of Sight to the Customer Context _____________________________ 19 UGA “Unclear Government Accountabilities?” ___________________________________ 20 The Land of Opportunity is On-Line ____________________________________________ 21 Customer Segments _________________________________________________________ 25
Jurisdictional Results ___________________________________________________ 26 Organization of This Section __________________________________________________ 26 City of Centralia ____________________________________________________________ 27 City of Chehalis ____________________________________________________________ 33 Lewis County ______________________________________________________________ 37
Building on Phase One and Two __________________________________________ 48
October 2016
3
4
Closing Remarks _______________________________________________________ 51 Appendix A: Project Timeline _____________________________________________ 53 Appendix B: Example of a Simple Flow Chart for Customers ____________________ 54 Appendix C: Customer Satisfaction Survey __________________________________ 55
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
5
Project Background and Purpose Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to strengthen local government permitting processes by exploring the customer experience and providing recommendations based on the customer’s experience. The three jurisdictions involved are the City of Centralia, City of Chehalis and Lewis County.
Why Is This Important? The role of permitting in a local community’s economic health. Construction of all kinds is one of the foundations of local economic development. Commercial development allows businesses to locate and grow in the community, bringing jobs and dollars in. Residential development kick starts the economic engine, bringing jobs and dollars. Remodels and site preparation also feed the local economy. There are several resources that assess the economic impact that development brings to a local community. The Nevada Rural Housing Authority offered this research-based assessment:
Economic Benefits of Construction and Development Primary Benefits •Construction-Related Jobs: contractors, realtors, lenders, site preparation, etc. •One-Time Tax Revenue •Annual Tax Revenue Secondary Benefits •Construction Materials Suppliers •Finishing and Furnishing Suppliers •Lodging and Meals Providers Tertiary Benefits •Tax Revenue for Schools •Tax Revenue for Community Improvements •Stronger Employment Base
Economic Impacts of the Development of 100 Single Family Housing Units Based on an average metropolitan statistical area, and homes with an average construction value of $145,372.
Jobs Supported
Wage and Salaries
Business Owners’ Income
Local Taxes
One Year Impact
253
$7,388,000
$2,670,000
$854,000
Annual Recurring Impact
76
$1,983,000
$416,000
$393,000
Source: Nevada Rural Housing Authority; http://nvrural.org/sites/default/files/EconomicImpact_web.pdf
None of this work can be done without an effective permitting process.
October 2016
6 Permitting is either the grease or the molasses for many kinds of economic development. We asked focus group participants and interviewees what the value is of a healthy permitting process: Permitting is one of the things different industries coming into the county look at. They look for predictability and answers because time is money. It is tremendously important. If we want to get our county anywhere near the state averages for employment, we’ve got to be able to say, “Come to Lewis County with your good paying jobs and we’ll do everything we can to make it possible.” It’s huge. When we’re doing small projects, we can do the project quicker than the county can permit. Sometimes we have to take a few days or a week off while we’re waiting for the permit. It’s like dominos. A good permitting process gets the project on the tax roll faster, gets people employed, helps businesses that sells the supplies. If the process is broken, it becomes a timeline scenario for a contractor/developer. If you can’t get your comments and info back, it costs more money – materials costs increase, ownership trying to build is frustrated, they have employees they need to employ and it grows as an impact. A healthy community, where things get done, draws business. A permitting process that allows the work to proceed smoothly feeds a “virtuous reinforcing loop.” It builds on itself, drawing in more and more business, all contributing to the health of the community.
Development provides revenue
More people employed at better wages
Community resources increase schools, infrastructure, quality of life
Investors choose the area Permitting process is healthy
This project represents a commitment from the sponsoring organizations to our local community. They understand the critical role permitting has, and offered their own resources to solicit customer feedback and provide suggestions in order to ensure the process is as healthy as it possibly could be. It was not driven by a particular event or concern, but by a belief in the value of continuous improvement, helping the customer, and making our community attractive to new business and development.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
As one interviewee said, At my company, we do an annual 360 – don’t always hear things we want to hear, but it helps a lot. This project is an opportunity for the government agencies to hear what their customer’s thoughts are on improving the process. They may not want to hear everything, but it can help a lot.
Project Sponsors The project was sponsored by five local organizations:
Centralia-Chehalis Chamber of Commerce, represented by Alicia Bull Industrial Park at Trans-Alta, represented by Allyn Roe Olympia Master Builders, represented by Troy Nichols Port of Centralia, represented by Kyle Heaton Port of Chehalis, represented by Randy Mueller
Guiding Principles The Steering Committee established a set of guiding principles for the project. These were used to keep focused on the core purpose of the project and to communicate intent to the government agencies involved and the community. 1. This effort is focused on data not personalities. 2. This is a check-up, intended to strengthen the health of our community. 3. We want to partner with our local jurisdictions in this process, seeking to include both inside and outside voices. 4. This is important to all of us, and we want to help the community understand how permitting processes contribute to the economic health of our community. 5. We want to be proactive about our community’s growth. 6. We want to encourage the use of appropriate, legal flexibility to achieve effective and efficient permitting. 7. We believe consistency is important in the permitting process.
Phases 1 and 2 Similar efforts were conducted in 2007 and 2009. These reports are available at the CentraliaChehalis Chamber of Commerce website: http://chamberway.com/.
Phase 3 Project Scope This project focused on the customer experience of the permitting processes in the three local jurisdictions. It included permits related to building and land use. Customers who applied for permits from 2012 – June 2016 were invited to participate.
October 2016
7
8 The project did not include a review of processes in other jurisdictions for benchmarking purposes, except for some limited research regarding on-line resources available in other jurisdictions. A project timeline is included in Appendix A.
About the Consultant Kelly Johnston, with Clarity Consulting Partners, led the project. She also led the previous two phases. She holds a master’s degree in organizational health and development. She has worked extensively with local and state levels of government, both as a public servant and as a consultant. Her areas of expertise include enterprise performance management, performance measures, process improvement, executive team alignment, aligning organizational structure to strategy, leadership development and change management.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Methodology “Voice of the Customer” The term “voice of the customer” comes from lean/six sigma practices. The idea is that value is defined by the customer, and processes are identified and then tightened to reduce waste. A continuous improvement process is used until all waste has been eliminated. The foundational principle is that value is defined by the customer. In order to understand how the customer defines what is valuable, the voice of the customer must be sought out and utilized on a routine basis. This project focused on hearing the voice of the customer in order to help strengthen the processes involved. A Note on Government This project focused on the primary customer of the permitting system – landowners who were interested in developing or improving their land for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Government has secondary and tertiary “customers” who represent other interests government is designed to protect – like environmental, future owners of properties, communal land use, etc. For this reason, there are steps in the permitting process that are non-value added for the customer. At times, government will challenge the value of the customer perspective if it does not represent all stakeholders. In our discussions with customers through this project, there is a shared acceptance that the process includes elements of regulation and compliance that don’t directly support their efforts, and they did not seek changes to the process that would exclude other interests.
Sources for Customer Input Interviews We conducted seven interviews with individuals who were positioned to have unique insights into the process. People interviewed included:
Customers currently working through the process on large projects that included both land use and building permitting Land use attorneys and planning professionals who work in this area and other counties in the state
Focus Groups 21 people participated in six different focus groups. The focus groups were 90 minutes. Each group was asked the same set of questions:
What is your experience with the permitting system and in which jurisdiction? How would you describe the value of a healthy permitting process for our community? What is working well? What isn’t working well? How clear is the path for the customer from application to issuance?
October 2016
9
10
How timely is the process? What change would you suggest that would make a significant different to the process? What do you suggest we ask in the customer survey?
The focus groups included:
Realtors and Lenders
Surveyors, Title Companies and Engineers
General Contractors
Well Drillers and Septic Installers
Commissioners and Executives
East County
Customer Satisfaction Survey A customer satisfaction survey was sent to all applicants in the three jurisdictions who applied for a building or land use permit between January 2012-June 2016. We used three collection methods: direct email link, web collector and hard copy surveys. 801 surveys were sent out, 36 returned as undeliverable or unusable. 130 total responses were gathered for a 17% response rate. This is slightly lower but in line with previous efforts: phase one overall response rate was 22%, and phase two was 21%. Survey Response Rate
Hard Copy (includes web collectors)
Combined
203
598
801
9
27
36
total #
194
571
765
Returned
76
54
130
39%
9%
17%
Originally sent undeliverable/returned
Response rate 2007 Overall:
22%
2009 Overall:
21%
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Government Perspective – Our Subject Matter Experts The Steering Committee sought several opportunities to include the perspective of people working in the process – the government employees. At the start of the project, the consultant met with the City Manager of Centralia, the City Manager of Chehalis, and the County Commissioners and the Community Development Directors in all three jurisdictions to explain the project, answer questions, respond to concerns and ask for their support. Technical Advisory Group A Technical Advisory Group, composed of representatives from each of the three jurisdictions, met twice to review focus group inputs, survey design, and initial survey returns. Jurisdictions were invited to send as many people as they wanted. Each jurisdiction chose to send one person. Employee Survey The Steering Committee selected to use an employee survey as one way to understand the employee’s work environment and context. The Committee selected the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) for this purpose. The DOCS is used by more than 5,000 organizations worldwide as a tool to evaluate organizational culture. This instrument uses normative scoring – results are benchmarked against a global database comparing high and low performing organizations. It is rooted in 25 years of research linking organizational culture and leadership practices to various performance metrics. The DOCS was used in Phase 2. It requires 10-12 minutes for an employee to complete, thus minimizing disruption in the workplace. The City of Centralia and Lewis County participated in the DOCS. The City of Chehalis elected not to participate. Observation, Interviews and Artifact Review As described in the Guiding Principles, the Steering Committee sought to partner with the government agencies throughout the process. In order to do this, we asked each government agency, during our initial meeting, to let us know who we should talk to in the agency to learn more, what documents and materials are provided to the customer that we could review to understand the process, and what meetings might be appropriate to attend. We specifically asked to attend the pre-submission meetings for each jurisdiction, and any other meetings that would be helpful in understanding the process. City of Chehalis and Lewis County provided information for attending their pre-submission meetings. All jurisdictions directed us to resources on-line for review. Centralia provided a few background documents. Beyond that, we were repeatedly told that the employees were too busy to participate and would not be available for additional requests.
October 2016
11
12
General Findings Opportunity Knocks
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS IN LEWIS COUNTY Why people want to develop in Lewis County:
Land is cheaper and available Unemployment and underemployment means there is a willing and available workforce. Permitting fees are cheaper – no impact fees, etc. No gophers. Proximity to I-5 and major metropolitan areas. Most people find the local jurisdictions are reasonable to work with.
The Lewis County area has the opportunity to attract new and significant development. We have a competitive advantage right now when compared to multiple other counties. Developers are interested in bringing their resources to the area and making an investment in the area. They see many potential benefits and opportunities in setting up their businesses here. (See Sidebar: Opportunity Knocks in Lewis County) Several people mentioned their appreciation for the sense of support and positive working relationships they had – they have a perception that they can get things “done on a handshake” and move quickly. This is by no means universal. If it were, however, and the Lewis County area developed a strong reputation for being a great place to build, it is clear that money and jobs would follow. Cost Comparisons Our area currently has lower costs for people interested in land development and construction. This is an advantage that can be capitalized on.
A comparison of costs between the City of Chehalis, Lewis County and Thurston County demonstrates this advantage. The following table is not comprehensive, but offers a sampling of different fees: Chehalis (2015)
Lewis County (2015)
Thurston County (2016)
Boundary Line Adjustment
$250
$575
$1,155
Pre-Submission Conference
$0
$100/hour
$1,043
Demolition Permit
$28
$30.85
$145
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
$300
$2,500
$3,917
$0
$0
SFR Transportation: $1,936.00
Impact Fees
SFR Parks: $1,157.00
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
However, the benefits are predicated on being able to get projects done faster and cheaper than in other jurisdictions. Developers made it clear that when the permitting process is obstructive, it raises their costs. Business Costs of Difficult Permitting Processes Slow Permitting •Employees and equipment idle •Material Costs Increase •Overall project delays due to missing seasonal "construction window" •Contractors now on different job and not available
Unclear Decision-Making •Expense of hiring legal counsel to clarify requirements •Cost of attending additional review meetings
Unclear Process •Applications have to be re-submitted •Work that could happen concurrently is delayed
•Owner abandons project
One developer said it clearly: People come here because the costs are less than other places like King [County]. If the costs go up due to delays, legal hoops, etc., then they’re close to each other in cost. If a company has to make a decision about where to locate (King, Tacoma, Fife) and the costs are similar, then they won’t go to Lewis County because there is a transportation factor.
Rowing in the Same Direction One professional explained that land use projects are based on a three-legged stool: regulation, personality and politics. The person went on to explain:
Land Use
You only need two to win. Personality and politics can sometimes stop a project that otherwise meets the code. One of the more difficult aspects of this project has been to understand the role of local leadership in creating an environment for successful development and progress. While many people have had positive, smooth experiences working with government employees at the counter, the larger political and leadership context has created a situation where entities that could be working together for the benefit of our community are often locked into conflict. People shared stories of when personality and politics “won” and prevented projects from successfully moving forward.
October 2016
13
14
They [people in the Lewis County area] suffer from what constantly seems to be a little bit of a turf war going on. Not unique to the area, but certainly worse there…. Set common goals, get people to go out and execute it, and achieve those goals. Instead of saying I won’t do that because the other group is doing it. - Individual with experience in several jurisdictions
People who are outside the local community notice the conflict, and experience some of the downsides to it. This hurts the overall reputation of the area, and could cause people to think twice about investing in projects here. One focus group discussed the loss of some business for the area because of a lack of collaboration: We lost a huge industrial project for that reason – the cities wouldn’t work together, process was difficult, we lost tens of millions of dollars – gone. We need trained staff that will work together. It is insulting to the businesses to be treated this way by their government. A focus group member sees that things may be starting to shift.
Several key organizations (this project’s Steering Committee is an example) are meeting together and communicating. Not our town vs. your town – they get together and provide free expertise to one another. If you have a strong permitting process, and people who talk back and forth and communicate, and not so many articles in the Chonicle – potential employers look at this. Given the “three-legged stool” concept, leadership has the opportunity to set the tone for how politics, regulations and personalities will work together to strengthen the local community. It is not enough to say that they want to work together, they must actually be respectful, open and inviting, and provide the follow-through that allows things to happen. When that is in place, it gives customers a sense of confidence, and a greater patience to work through the inevitable issues in a process. One customer said it well: Leadership and climate. Leadership promotes a climate of service. If the expectations of the staff is on service and focuses on service and delivery, you will see a definite change in the attitudes and type of engagement. This leads to better perceptions and customers can deal better with bumps in the process because they believe that overall it works. Was this Project an Example or an Outlier? The Steering Committee felt it would be instructive to include a brief mention regarding the experience of leading this particular project. It was unnecessarily difficult, and the question emerged: Was the experience with this project a microcosm of the overall process and environment, or an outlier and not representative of the larger system? This project represented an opportunity for business leaders and government representatives to work together to strengthen the permitting process. Business leaders provided the funding and customer perspective. Government representatives were repeatedly provided opportunities to be involved and provide information and expertise. Several government leaders expressed public
15
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
support for the effort and an interest in partnering closely on the project. In some cases, it went very smoothly. Information was provided in a timely manner, meetings were generally friendly and open. In many cases, however, it did not. Here are a few examples of the difficulties experienced in completing the project: -
Agencies did the “bare minimum” to respond to requests, in some instances being what seemed as purposefully unclear regarding a request.
-
Comments that discounted the project and the value of customer feedback, particularly related to the survey.
-
Public statements about leveraging resources between this effort and a similar one funded by the County were not followed up on with contact information and access.
-
Requests for information were delayed.
-
Repeated statements that employees were “too busy” to participate and that this took time away from their customers. Concurrently, however, the County held an internal review process that consisted of five full days of meeting times for some employees.
-
A County Commissioner exhibited hostile and aggressive behavior.
-
Blame for the challenges related to economic development was repeatedly placed on outside organizations.
While the above comments are subjective, one lens through which the experience could be evaluated is by the responsiveness of each jurisdiction to requests for support and help with the project. Here is a recount of that process, as of October 7, 2016. City of Centralia Original Request
Original Request Date
Date Received
Duration
App. # of followups required
Single Point of Contact
7/11/16
7/11/16
1 day
0
Names for Denison
7/11/16
7/22/16
11 days
1
Permit Applicants with Email Addresses
7/11/16
7/11 with no emails; 8/18 final
38 days
2
Names of People for TAG
7/11/16
7/11/16
1 day
0
Info on meetings to observe, other materials to review
7/11/16
7/11/16 – told to look on-line
1
October 2016
16 City of Chehalis Original Request Date
Date Received
Duration
App. # of follow-ups required
Single Point of Contact
7/12/16
7/12/16
1 day
0
Names for Denison
7/12/16
7/27/16 (not participating)
15 days
3
Permit Applicants with Email Addresses
7/12/16
7/28/16
16 days
5 – worked on format and email addresses
Names of People to participate in TAG
7/12/16
7/27/16
15 days
3
Info on mtgs to observe, other materials to review
7/12/16
7/27/16 – told to look on-line
15 days
3
Original Request
Lewis County Request
Original Request Date
Date Received
Duration
App. # of followups required
Single Point of Contact
8/1/16
Not provided
68 days
Names for Denison
7/18/16
9/14/16
59 days
13
Permit Applicants with Email Addresses
7/18/16
8/18/16
32 days
9
Names of People to participate in TAG
7/18/16
8/3/16?
14 days
5
Info on mtgs to observe, other materials to review
7/18/16
9/19: ask consultant to attend staff mtg
64 days
Several times reiterated availability
Impact WA info
7/18/16
9/26/16 – received report, but no charter, scope or additional info
81 days*
11
Offer to Meet with Impact WA consultant
7/18/16
Not provided
81 days
>11
East County Focus Group
6/10/16
8/17/16
68 to schedule/ 104 to hold
5
EDC Info
8/24/16
9/16/16
23 days
3
*County offered to provide Impact WA charter info on 10/7/16. At that point, it was too late to be used, so we told the County it was no longer needed.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
17
It is possible that this particular project is not representative of the common experience. In fact, many customers were exceedingly positive about their experience. The sense of discomfort, however, with community stakeholders gathering customer input to provide feedback and suggestions to the local jurisdictions, was very high in this case. Recommendation 1: Elected officials and appointed leaders demonstrate in words and actions their interest in and support for customer input. Increase responsiveness to requests from stakeholder groups.
What is a “Business Friendly� Permitting Proce ss? Over the course of the project, we asked multiple people for the definition of a business-friendly process. On this topic, people of all perspectives shared the same understanding of a businessfriendly process.
A business friendly process is:
Fair
Reasonable
Predictable
Transparent
Government agencies often say that they want to be respectful, responsive and right. This is exactly what businesses want from their government as well. There is an opportunity for both sides of the counter to work together. One interviewee remembered a previous time when the government planner was a part of the sales team. The planner would meet with potential developers to learn about the project and provide feedback on what would be required to successfully complete the project. Not trying to harpoon government employees or anything like that. It just could be so much better. I want them to be more than just regulators. I want them to be part of the development team. Want them to be excited about doing something very positive for their community. One person suggested that a flow chart that shows how the government entity gets paid (tracing back to development) might be helpful. Predictable Timelines A key element of a business-friendly process is that it is predictable. People want to know how long the permitting process will take so they can plan accordingly. The Cities do not publish any timelines for potential customers. One professional felt strongly that there should be an
The companies we’re working with, their bosses want definite answers about timelines. They need dates.
October 2016
18 expectation that government be able to state the typical timeframes and stick to it. All the professionals who provided input to this project understood that there are exceptions to the process – sometimes timelines can’t be met. But, they feel it is very reasonable for government to share what normal timelines are and generally meet those timelines. The feedback shows that most customers are satisfied with how long things take. They just want that information shared. No accountability – no timeline, no way to track where you are. Think about your computer and when you’re loading. When you see it moving, you’re kind of calm. When it stops moving, you start freaking out. I want to be fair to everyone involved – don’t want to set a timeline that is impossible. Definitely think there have to be times that are attractive to the developer. But, it has to be a firm date. We need to be able to say it will be permitted by September 1, and then have it ready by Sept. 1. Recommendation 2: Provide employees with a visual depiction of how development provides their funding source to help with line of sight between their daily work and funding. Recommendation 3: Both Cities publish expected timelines for routine processes.
Positives to Build On Accessibility
I can run down to the office and ask someone to talk. The accessibility is unique – developers in other counties say this doesn’t happen.
Customers talked about the ability to call people, walk into the office and speak to someone, and get a human with needed information. While there is some concern about availability due to vacations, training, etc. (discussed later), there is a sense that the people on the other side of the counter are accessible and want to help. I like the accessibility of all of them. As frustrated as we all
are, people are a phone call away. Down here, they talk to you, communicate with you and let you know if something doesn’t go right. With code, varies from jurisdiction, it is gray enough that it is open to interpretation. We have to educate each other and they will listen to that and over time you learn what works and what doesn’t.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
19
Timeliness Timelines are not provided, nor is there an expressed commitment to meet certain timelines. This hurts opportunities with businesses that need clear timelines in order to invest significant dollars in a project. Timeliness, however, is a strength. Most customers felt that things got done here faster than in other areas. This is something to capitalize on. Did a project in Boise and we had a permit in 4 months. Same building in City of Olympia took 2 years. Here it would take maybe 4-5 months. In Lewis County it takes 2-3 weeks to get a septic install permit. In Thurston, I’ve been waiting 8 months. Desire for Customer to Succeed Most customers felt that the government representatives wanted them to succeed. There wasn’t a majority who felt they had to fight the system to get anything done, although a few people have had that experience. One customer said:
As a contractor, I feel that the City of Centralia and City of Chehalis want me to succeed. I feel in this area people want me to grow and prosper while doing business.
The past few years when I do projects in Thurston County it feels I am not wanted, I'm doing something wrong. It seems that they don't want to give me a permit. In Lewis County and surrounding cities the permit process is much more pleasant.
A Missing Link: Line of Sight to the Customer Context Customers want government to understand them. Several times, customers dealing with all three jurisdictions expressed a desire for government to have a better sense of their business needs and the impact poor permitting processes have on them. Government revenue is generated through various taxes and fees. The fees for the permitting process are paid by customers who are required to get permits. Unlike business, however, government does not operate in a competitive environment where all revenue is uncertain and dependent on customers. Many businesses looking to expand must manage cash flow and projects that take a long time to come to fruition delay revenue generation while incurring increasing costs. For these reasons, the private sector usually operates with a strong sense of urgency that isn’t always appreciated or understood by government. One customer, who had an overall positive experience, shared: I think they would want to understand a little more about the business the customer is in. They should want to know and provide the opportunity to learn what the person is doing, how many jobs they provide, what their plans are. I think they should find out a little more about the client in the meeting. I’m excited about our business and I wanted to portray that.
October 2016
20 Several people discussed the impact of delays on their work. For some, delays meant that they had to leave equipment sitting idle. Other people moved equipment so it could be used elsewhere, which incurred costs. Others indicated that they had to wait weeks for a meeting, which translated to unproductive wait time for their project. Overall, there is a sense that the people who site inspections, like building inspectors, are helpful and easier to work with than the people in the offices. One reason for that may be the connection built when the government representative is on site with the customer and knows the project well. All customers interviewed respect the role of government in the development process. They simply want government to respect and support the role of business. Recommendation 4: Employees who mainly work in the office make a conscious effort to ask about the individual’s business and express support and appreciation for their willingness to invest in Lewis County. When obstacles are identified, take the time to ask the applicant about the impact and express a desire to help them stay successful and profitable.
UGA “Unclear Government Accountabilities?”
The agreement that didn’t get renewed was a fiasco. When you can’t get the city, county and commission to all work together, you might as well hang it up.
The Urban Growth Act (UGA) required counties to identify growth areas over a period of time. Areas identified as part of the urban growth area would eventually be annexed into the neighboring city. In the Lewis County area, mostly this means that land is expected to be annexed into the City of Centralia or the City of Chehalis.
When a project goes through the permitting process, it must adhere to the relevant codes and regulations. Projects in the urban growth area, then, start in the Lewis County jurisdiction, and once annexed, would be in one of the city’s jurisdiction. At times, the codes and regulations are different. This can lead to confusion for the customer, who wants to understand which codes apply to the project. At times, jurisdictions will enter into inter-local agreements, which identify whose policies apply, which set of codes are applicable, and who has permitting authority. At the time of this project, an inter-local agreement related to the UGA between the City of Chehalis and Lewis County ended. In customer interviews, this came as a surprise and there was quite a bit of confusion regarding what would happen to projects in process. As one person said, “the inter-local ended on Friday, and there was no plan for what to do on Monday.” There is also a perception that even when an inter-local is in place, at times jurisdictions will change the rules midstream. One customer specifically asked for the permitting authority over water to be clarified – indicated that they don’t know which forms to fill out in order to get that process completed.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
21
In addition, inter-locals are renewed, revised and replaced over time. In our community, several versions have existed over the last several years. While most people say it has been working reasonably well, they also point to unclear accountabilities and inconsistent information that make it harder to work through the permitting process. Recommendation 5: Bring together a joint planning group that works to harmonize the UGA codes. Recommendation 6: City of Centralia and Lewis County update their inter-local agreement for the UGA to have one document that includes all the current info in one place. Recommendation 7: City of Chehalis and Lewis County create a new inter-local agreement for permitting with the UGA.
The Land of Opportunity is On-Line Interviews, focus groups and customer survey responses all shared a desire for improved access online. The Technical Advisory Group also indicated that this would be welcome and useful for their internal processes as well. Currently, the internet as a resource is severely underutilized.
They all suffer with accessibility issues: things that are available and searchable online. -Professional with experience in several counties.
Customers cannot:
Submit permits Pay permit fees See permit status Review parcels, zoning, history
(See table on next page.) The Technical Advisory Group indicated that they would be interested in increasing on-line tools for customers. They also said that most of their customers prefer to come to the government office to conduct business. Some felt that customers bundled the trips to the government office with other errands and appreciated the opportunity to do so. In talking with east county customers, they indicated that they would prefer to be able to submit information on-line, as it saves them significant time and money. The trip in to handle the permitting can mean a full day away from the job site, depending on where they are working.
October 2016
22 On-Line Tools and Resources by Jurisdiction Centralia
Chehalis
County
Names and Contact Info Listed?
Names not found, but contact info for departments is available.
Yes.
Yes.
Applications on line?
Yes, for community dev dept. Public works no. Checklists provided too.
Yes for building and planning. Includes some samples.
Yes
Timeliness expectations provided?
No.
No
Yes – for permits – 24 weeks, with a caveat for peak bldg. season. Under FAQs
Flow chart provided?
No
No.
No
Business hours listed?
No
On-line submittal allowed?
No
No.
For Burn Permits.
On-Line status of permit
No
Development Review Committee minutes posted.
No
Ability to look up parcels and see zoning or history?
No
No
No
Yes.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
23
The majority of customers in the customer survey also indicated they would like to have better on-line tools:
I would like to be able to do the following on-line: 68.4% 66.3% 63.3% 60.2% 57.1%
Submit all permit applications
Pay permit fees
View submitted applications and supporting documents
Research new and Access Lewis County historical permit PATS/Regional GIS records including zoning, critical areas and shorelines
Source: Permit Customer Satisfaction Survey, September
In addition, for customers considering investing in Lewis County, the on-line presence is a place to identify the jurisdiction as business-friendly: fair, predictable, reasonable and transparent. Several jurisdictions outside of Lewis County use their on-line presence to state their purpose, philosophy and desire to support customers – both private landowners and commercial. Both customers and the leaders in the jurisdictions identified staffing levels as a significant concern. Staffing levels were reduced during the recession, and often have not been restored at a proportional rate to the increase in permitting as the economy improves. On-line tools can reduce the workload for employees doing intake and working with customers at the counter, and can also help customers be better informed and better prepared which smooths the process for all.
One customer said: This all needs to be online, get with the times!
Could we get archives on line? Then we wouldn’t have to spend the permit techs’ time to look for this. We could do it ourselves and get our client on their way. Some minimal research was done to identify on-line resources available in other jurisdictions.
Jefferson County, Washington, has several resources on-line, including a strong customer service “brand.” See Appendix B for an example of a flow chart they provide on-line to give an overview of the process. City of Tacoma includes timeliness expectations, and a great deal of permitting activity can be done on-line.
October 2016
24 
City of Kirkland has their parcel maps available online. Customers can click on a parcel, and see the history and current status.
City of Kirkland joined forces with several other jurisdictions to develop an on-line permitting process that allows for applications to be submitted, status checks and fees paid. Could the City of Centralia, City of Chehalis and Lewis County join together to fund a similar option for this area? Recommendation 8: Fund technology improvements to provide capability for submitting permit applications and paying fees. Recommendations 9: Use website to establish a business-friendly presence and welcome new investments in the community. Recommendation 10: Until permits can be submitted and paid online, provide an after hours drop box so applicants don’t have to wait for business hours to get things submitted.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Customer Segments There are several different customer segments that apply for permits. Currently, the process is the same for all applicants, except that a pre-submission meeting is utilized with some more complex projects. It could be helpful to explore how to optimize the experience for each customer segment. Customer Type
Description
Unique Needs
Possible Aids
Professionals with routine projects
Usually contractors, engineers, etc. who work for private landowners to do routine site prep and construction.
They know the system and what is needed. They need in and out, updates when regulations change
Ability to opt-in to some kind of quarterly update of policy and code changes.
One-Time Users
Usually private landowners wanting to improve their single family residence or a small business.
Clear direction and help understanding what is needed to be successful.
Option for 1:1 coaching through the process – could have a fee associated.
Savvy and often impatient investors who put a premium on efficiency and predictability.
Clear timeline, accurate, timely decisions on land use regulatory decisions.
Developers with complex, large projects
Flow chart showing what permits must be consecutive and what can be completed concurrently.
Option for an expedited process with an internal project manager to champion the project.
October 2016
25
26
Jurisdictional Results Organization of This Section The jurisdictions asked for their results to be reported separately. So, this section is organized by jurisdiction. Within each jurisdictional section, the report provides customer feedback on the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Quality of Information Provided Timeliness of the Process Overall Environment Staff-Customer Interactions
A few notes on the survey: Most of the survey questions used a 1-5 Likert scale with some form of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree as answer responses. For ease of reading and processing information, the strongly agree and agree responses were grouped together, as were the strongly disagree and disagree responses. Neutral responses were not included. So, the graphs will show the % of respondents who agreed and disagreed with the statements. Because the neutral responses aren’t included in the charts, the percentages don’t add up to 100%. In addition, Centralia and Lewis County participated in the Denison Organizational Culture Survey, so those results are also included.
27
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
City of Centralia Who Answered the Survey? 29 people responded to the survey who applied for permits with the City of Centralia. 92 invitations were sent out, and we are unable to determine which of the non-deliverable surveys were for Centralia applicants, so the survey had at least a 32% response rate. Of the respondents, almost half are professionals working in the field. 38% were private landowners. Note: Due to the small number of respondents, sometimes a small percentage (e.g., 5%) results from a single person’s response. The majority completed a new residential project, closely followed by those working on new commercial/industrial projects.
Field of Work
Private Landowner 38%
Other 14%
Professional 48% Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia
Type of Project Residential (new) Commercial/Industrial (new) Remodel to existing structure Utilities (water, sewer,… Land Division Shop/Out Building (new) Other (please specify)
Centralia Criterion 1: Quality of Information We asked focus group members and survey respondents about the quality of information. The questions covered whether the process was understandable, whether the verbal and written information was helpful and clear and showed how to maneuver through the system.
0
Comments included:
10
15
Centralia's Information Was Helpful and Clear Understandable Process
Overall, this is a strong area for Centralia. In Phase Two, Centralia’s results for these questions were in the 64% - 69% range, and they are comparable. The verbal information results were lower at 57%.
5
Verbal Information Written Information Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia
% Agree
78% 7% 57% 21% 67% 19% % Disagree
The city should provide all technical information in writing, no verbal. The only areas that I feel need a better written checklist is the city light department. They don't have step by step instructions.... it always falls through the cracks.
October 2016
28 Centralia is very good to work with. I have worked with Mason Co, Thurston Co, Grays Harbor Co and the city of Oakville. Centralia is the best to work with. They work with you to solve problems when they come up. Until recently working with departments at the city (Centralia) has been professional. However, over the past several years, responses have been slow, inconsistent, combative, and often times obstructive. The stormwater, streets and ADA areas in particular. I felt unwelcome and indifference, as though I had to apologize for taking up their time. The City of Centralia seemed less than helpful at times. There seems to be too many regulations that make building and expanding in the City overly expensive and burdening. [Building] staff are a phenomenal resource for this community. I have been doing it for 30 yrs and it has been very positive. Centralia is working well as it is today. Overall, the customer response in this area is positive. There were no specific suggestions made to improve the quality of information. Criterion 2: Timeliness of the Process
Centralia's Time Required to Permit 54%
Predictable Time
14% 64%
Reasonable Time
18% 0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Source: 2016 Permit % Agree Customer Survey; Centralia
% Disagree
Centralia Time to Permit Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia
12 10
Most customers ate satisfied with the timeliness of the process in Centralia. Some expressed concern at how growth could affect that – they see that staff is doing well but at capacity. They wonder if there is capacity to grow in volume and keep current turn-around times. The results from phase two and phase three for reasonable time are exactly the same – 64%. The predictability score went down 10 points, but is still up overall from phase one. I find the permitting process in Centralia to be a little more streamlined and quicker.
8 6 4 2 0 Less than 2 2-4 weeks 5-12 weeks weeks
90 - 120 days
More than 120 days
The City jurisdictions have had a lot of changes, and I’m still impressed with their timeliness.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Centralia is in jeopardy if their volume triples. Wouldn’t take a lot of growth for them to bog down completely. I don't regularly incur delays. If I do have a delay it is most likely due to the agency needing additional information or plan review comments. Delays of this type should be expected. Again, no specific recommendation. If not already happening, Centralia may find it useful, however, to include some forecasting models for permit volume when it prepares its staffing allocation during the budget process. Criterion 3: Staff-Customer Interaction
Centralia Staff-Customer Interaction 80%
COULD MAKE DECISIONS
8% 89%
INTERACTIONS WITH BUILDING POSITIVE
5% 76%
INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC WORKS POSITIVE
14% 83%
INTERACTIONS WITH PLANNING POSITIVE
13% 85%
INTERACTIONS WITH RFA POSITIVE
15% 57%
FIND ALTERNATIVES THAT WORK
13% 81%
PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION
15% 86%
OVERALL KNOWLEDGABLE AND PROFESSIONAL Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia
5% 0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% Agree
% Disagree
All City departments improved their customer satisfaction scores from Phase 2 Phase 3. The overall sentiment from customers is very positive. As one customer stated: Customer service meets the mark. Provides much help to the customer. Survey respondents shared: Centralia, it took a lot of effort on my part, I didn't get the support I would have expected. They are trying their best to help me through the change of what I am submitting. Application for short plat was approved but when the City Planner left Centralia the incoming planner did not agree with approval. We sought legal advice and did eventually receive approval.
October 2016
29
30 It is painful to deal with ADA, stormwater, electrical, and street departments. We cringe when consulting them is necessary. City of Centralia Staff are helpful, knowledgeable and easy to work with. Centralia needs to learn costumer service, you can feel the bad attitude. We have been working with the City of Centralia for 30 yrs and they have been very supportive and excellent to work with. City of Centralia staff is friendly and easy to work with. Even though we had a few hiccups along the way we are very pleased with our interactions. Centralia WA staff were great. The survey did ask if anyone had exceeded their expectations. Several great comments emerged, highlighting the good work of staff. They included: Hillary Hoke at the City of Centralia is exceptional. The building inspector LG is great to work with. Sarah is also good to work with. Centralia community development office is helpful. Yes, Jan the city engineer and LG the now departed building inspector. They took the time and were professional. Everyone is trying to help me through change in what is needed. Several people noted the exceptional experience they had when LG Nelson was the building inspector. Centralia recently hired a new building inspector, and customers are assuming that relationship will be positive, but acknowledge some concern due to the unknown.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
31
Centralia Criterion 4: Overall Environment
Most respondents felt that the system for permitting buildings was working well. There is some room for improvement in the land use/development system, although there were more neutrals for this category – very few disagrees. There were a few concerns shared that the City doesn’t always have the correct answer for some more complicated land use and development projects. Given the low volume of these types of projects, staff don’t have routine, frequent exposure to these issues, making it harder.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF CENTRALIA'S SYSTEM 22% Regularly Incure Costs Due to Delays
35% 52%
Land Use/Development System Designed Well
4% 76%
Building Permit System Designed Well
8% 67% 21%
Business-Friendly 0% Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
% Agree
% Disagree
The results in this category are very similar to phase two. Consistency in Centralia [is good]. What was told to the client at the free development review committee ended up being dependable. Not a lot of curve balls after the fact. City of Centralia wants to be business friendly, but they don’t always provide that clear, cogent, quick response. Centralia is the best. I deal with public works and planning. Applications are simple. You submit it, goes through the site plan review, everyone shows up. I can do a minimal amount of work as far as site design and the client can get a good feel of what it will take to do this work without spending a ton of money on it.
October 2016
32 Centralia’s Denison Results As mentioned under methodology, the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) is a tool to assess organizational culture. Responses have been scientifically linked to higher organizational performance on a variety of performance measures. 11 employees took the DOCS. The results are shown to the left. Generally speaking, more color on the chart indicates stronger organizational culture. Results are shown as percentiles against a normative benchmark. For Centralia, there is some slippage between the Phase Two results and the Phase Three results. As we have seen above with the customer results, Centralia is performing well overall. The lower results under mission, however, are similar to the comments under General Findings regarding the critical role of leadership in establishing direction, goals and vision. There is an opportunity for Centralia to clarify and strengthen employees’ line of sight to organizational goals, strategic direction and intent and provide a strong vision for the City in this community. Recommendation 11: City Leadership and Management clarify strategic direction for the City and provide clear goals for City employees to align to. Include in this effort clear statements about the City’s goals related to supporting business and economic development in the local community.
33
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
City of Chehalis Who Answered the Survey? 30 people responded to the survey who applied for permits with the City of Chehalis. 147 invitations were sent out, and we are unable to determine which of the nondeliverable surveys were for Chehalis applicants, so the survey had at least a 20% response rate. Note: Due to the small number of respondents, sometimes a 4% or 6% results from one person’s response. Of the respondents, 43% were private landowners. The other category included a significant number of retirees. The majority of respondents completed a new residential project or a remodel to an existing structure. Only a small portion worked on land division or commercial/industrial projects.
Field of Work
Other 30%
Professional 27% Private Landowner 43%
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis
Type of Project
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis
Residential (new) Remodel to existing structure Utilities (water, sewer, electrical) Other (please specify) Land Division Commercial/Industrial (new) Shop/Out Building (new) 0
Chehalis Criterion 1: Quality of Information We asked focus group members and survey respondents about the quality of information. The questions covered whether the process was understandable, whether the verbal and written information was helpful and clear and showed how to maneuver through the system.
4
6
8
10
12
14
Chehalis Information Was Clear and Helpful Understandable Process
92%
0%
Verbal Information
78%
11%
Chehalis has exceptional results in this area. Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis
84%
4%
Written Information
Comments included:
2
0%
20%
% Agree
40%
60%
80%
% Disagree
The permit office does not work with the City Manager or the Public Works office. This is a big issue when 2-3 different agencies have no idea what you're doing and why? City of Chehalis was very helpful and pleasant to work with. Chehalis has exceptional customer service! They were extremely helpful and made the process less stressful. I knew I could always contact them if I had questions and they were always very helpful.
October 2016
100%
34 Employees in the Chehalis permitting office very helpful and courteous! Overall, the customer response in this area is positive. There were no specific suggestions made to improve the quality of information. Criterion 2: Timeliness of the Process
Chehalis Timeliness 74%
Predictable Time
11% 85%
Reasonable Time
8% 0%
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis
20% % Agree
40%
60%
80%
100%
% Disagree
Chehalis Time to Permit Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Less than 2 2-4 weeks 5-12 weeks weeks
90 - 120 days
More than 120 days
Chehalis customers reported it taking less than 4 weeks for most projects to get permitted. Based on the type of project, Chehalis is working with less complicated and more straightforward projects, so shorter turn-around time is expected. Overall, however, customers felt that the time required to get a permit was both predictable and reasonable. The results are slightly lower than phase two results, but still very positive. There are no recommendations for improving Chehalis’s timeliness.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Chehalis Criterion 3: Staff-Customer Interaction
Chehalis Staff-Customer Interaction COULD MAKE DECISIONS
88%
4%
INTERACTIONS WITH BUILDING POSITIVE
89%
0%
INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC WORKS POSITIVE
84%
0%
INTERACTIONS WITH PLANNING POSITIVE
90%
0%
INTERACTIONS WITH CHEHALIS FIRE POSITIVE
83%
0%
FIND ALTERNATIVES THAT WORK
65%
6%
PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION
88%
4%
OVERALL KNOWLEDGABLE AND PROFESSIONAL
77%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis
% Agree
% Disagree
Clearly, Chehalis is doing many things right in terms of customer service. The results are comparable to Phase Two, which indicates Chehalis is sustaining high levels of customer service. We applaud Chehalis for its excellent work. Chehalis seems to be real friendly and helpful in meetings. They give you a lot of information on the codes. Chehalis has exceptional customer service! They were extremely helpful and made the process less stressful. I knew I could always contact them if I had questions and they were always very helpful.
October 2016
35
36 Chehalis Criterion 4: Overall Environment Overall, customers report being satisfied with the permitting process in Chehalis. The results are also lower here than in Phase Two. There is concern regarding the amount of staff turnover that has occurred in Chehalis. Customers know that a great deal of historical knowledge has left the agency, and are wondering what will happen over time. Generally, people are optimistic and hopeful that the changes will settle down and things will remain smooth with the City. Many people elected not to comment on Chehalis’s processes because of the changes.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF CHEHALIS'S SYSTEM 27%
Regularly Incur Costs Due to Delays Land Use/Development System Designed Well
4%
Business-Friendly
4%
45% 75%
0%
Building Permit System Designed Well
Chehalis is in such a state of flux. Unfair to judge Chehalis right now.
85% 67%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis % Agree
Chehalis has now gone through a full flush out. Is the system in place to work in the absence of key individuals?
% Disagree
Recommendation 12: City of Chehalis: As new staff come on board, ensure that they are fully trained and informed regarding the vision and expectation the City has for a strong permitting process. Chehalis’s Denison Results Chehalis chose not to participate in the Denison Organizational Culture Survey.
37
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Lewis County Who Answered the Survey? 102 people responded to the survey who applied for permits with Lewis County. 567 invitations were sent out, and we are unable to determine which of the nondeliverable surveys were for County applicants, so the survey had at least an 18% response rate. Almost 2/3 of the respondents were private landowners. This increases the number of one-time users with little experience with the process that are County customers. Generally, these folks are more likely to find the process challenging. The majority of respondents completed a new residential project. Only a small portion worked on land division projects. Projects that take place in the County have a few differentiators from projects within city limits.
Field of Work
Other 10% Private Landowner 64%
Professional 26%
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County
Type of Project Residential (new) Utilities (water, sewer, electrical) Shop/Out Building (new) Commercial/Industrial (new) Remodel to existing structure Other (please specify) Land Division
Generally, utilities are not in place and must be included as part of the project. Distance between the project site and the County offices can be significantly greater. Some projects will take place within the UGA, which was addressed under General Findings.
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
County Information Was Clear and Helpful Understandable Process Verbal Information Written Information
84%
4% 6% 13%
77% 71%
County Criterion 1: Quality of Information 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2016 Permit We asked focus group members and Customer Survey; % Agree % Disagree County survey respondents about the quality of information. The questions covered whether the process was understandable, whether the verbal and written information was helpful and clear and showed how to maneuver through the system.
October 2016
38
I like the pre-sub at Lewis County. The pre-sub conference has no fee and you can advise your clients to attend with minimal prep and cost. Gives good info. I like that, want to see it stay and want to see it stay free. Thurston County charges $1,000 for that now.
Survey respondents have overall favorable results. The majority of respondents indicated that the information provided was clear, helpful and understandable. These results are an improvement over the phase two results. Not only are the % agree ratings higher, but the % disagrees are lower by more than half. The County has made great improvements with the quality of their information.
A few opportunities for improvement related to improvement did come up in the survey comments, focus group meetings and interviews. Visual Depiction of the Process In every phase of this project, customers have asked for a flow chart, step-by-step process or some kind of visual picture of the process. In Phase Two, the project included development of a flow chart of the process provided to the County for their use with customers. It does not appear that anything like that is currently available. Jefferson County provides a high-level flow chart, see Appendix B for an example. In addition, Thurston County has an on-line interactive version of a step-by-step process – when the customer clicks on a step, several sub-process steps are provided. Customer comments regarding this include: The permit process is very confusing. Need to make a step-by-step process that actually makes sense. A process of what needs to be done in what order/sequence. Received conflicting advice on how to start and how to expedite the process. Was unclear of the instructions. Had to submit 3 times. Still have no flow charts – no true sense of a consumer walking through the door. Customers can’t figure out the path. Recommendation 13: County provide a flow chart or written step-by-step process for land and building permitting. Make available on-line and hard copy.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Code Changes Professionals want to adhere to the required code. Overall, they work with good intent to follow the codes and do the work the right way the first time. Some of the professionals shared the frustration that codes will change, they don’t know about it, and they end up having to redo work because on inspection they find out it wasn’t done to the new code. This is frustrating and expensive. They asked for some kind of notification process to let them know when codes change. This issue was surfaced in phase two of the project as well. Recommendation 14: All three jurisdictions should develop a notification process that allows professionals to sign up for code change notifications. Legal Lot Determination Procedure A tax parcel may or may not be recorded as a legal lot. Tax parcels get created – legally – for different reasons, and they aren’t always recorded as a legal lot. The legal lot determination process may vary between jurisdictions, as it is a local government ordinance derived from state statute. Generally, the legal lot determination is handled by the planning department for a jurisdiction. This process was a topic for focus group members. They indicated that the County needs to have a clearer legal lot determination procedure that is coordinated between the planning department, treasurer and auditor. Recommendation 15: County create a process map for legal lot determinations. Share broadly with professionals who support clients through the process. Coordination and Clarity between County Departments and Offices The County structure includes various departments that report to the County Commissioners and Offices led by independently elected officials. Customers working through the process find it confusing to move between these areas and are frustrated when they receive conflicting information. In addition, they don’t always know who they are dealing with in various interactions. While it is clear to employees working within the system, a customer may not realize that s/he is talking to two different departments in the same interaction or building. Lewis County - application sat for a week because a form was missing. 1: staff said they would add the form. 2: review staff did not tell office the application was on hold. Office staff just found the file sitting around. Centralized permit center for County seems like a good idea but the reality is a little confusing. FOR EXAMPLE: to get a Health Dept. permit, first take the permit sign-off sheet to permit center. Wait 1-2 weeks for sign-offs from various departments (with or without actual Health Dept application? Not clear.) Then get a call to "come pick it up" and hand carry to Health Dept. and hand them sign off sheet and check so they can begin their permit review...And of course they are in different buildings in Chehalis. Really?! These things can't happen in parallel? Have to physically play courier to convey paper from one department to another? Time to re-engineer the process! October 2016
39
40 Wasn’t clear who was in charge [of the pre-sub meeting]. Who was the highest person in the room? With ten people I don’t know, an overview would be helpful. Recommendation 16: County provide an org chart at the pre-sub meeting so customers know who they’re working with. Recommendation 17: County remind staff that customers aren’t always clear on roles within the County system. Train staff to provide warm handoffs and continue to clarify roles with customers. Keep organizational charts on hand to show customers.
County Criterion 2: Timeliness of the Process As discussed earlier, the timeliness of a process is a critical component for supporting new development.
County Timeliness 60%
Predictable Time
17% 74%
Reasonable Time
15% 0%
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County
20% % Agree
40%
60%
80%
% Disagree
County Time to Permit Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Less than 2 weeks
2-4 weeks
5-12 weeks 90 - 120 days More than 120 days
Over the course of the three phases, the County has shown steady improvement in timeliness. From Phase One to Phase Three, agreement that the process is predictable has gone from 40% to 60%. And, in Phase One, 55% of customers agreed that the timeline was reasonable. This time, 74% agreed. The County is to be commended for their work in improving these areas. For the majority of permits, the actual time to get a permit is under 12 weeks. Some permits fall into the longer time range, however, these could be processes that require more time.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Even with these positive results, there are a few places of improvement for the County. Staff Availability – Meeting Gridlock Multiple times and with several different types of customers, people mentioned Told we have to wait six weeks for a meeting. the challenge of getting answers and Nobody has a six week backlog. getting projects moved forward due to staff unavailability. They were told staff were in meetings, and/or a key meeting couldn’t happen for a long period of time due to staff availability. Trying to have plans revised and every time I try to submit new plans the person I need to talk to is in a meeting. I fail to see how any work gets done when he is always in a meeting! And I am told he will call but we don't hear back. A different customer described requesting a pre-sub meeting, having to wait 6 weeks, and then learning information at that meeting that caused further delays: Feel like it is slow. Pre-Sub Meeting – I got on the list to attend the meeting almost six weeks before. I waited a long time for that meeting. We wanted to build in October before the rain started and before concrete gets more expensive (Nov. 1). I wanted to submit an app as early as possible. I knew if I submitted an incomplete app it would stall the process. When we went to get on the schedule for the pre-sub meeting, I was dismayed that I had to wait so long because I knew this meeting would give me the info I needed to submit a complete app. This issue relates to the previous comments under General Findings about government not relating to the business context. Private sector working on a project experiences every delay as an unnecessary cost. Delays of six weeks can compound costs in multiple ways. Staffing Levels Customers are concerned about the staffing levels and the potential for turn-over. There were two identified reasons:
Staffing levels were cut during the recession and not adequately restored The lack of staffing redundancy leads to delays when staff are out on vacation or at training
Some comments included: I think Lewis County Community Development is doing pretty well. I think they’re understaffed dramatically. If I were to grade Lewis County, I’d give them a solid 7. We could bump that up 1-2 points if they had more people. County has definitely gotten to a point where we’re seeing it slow down. The mud is thickening. October 2016
41
42 Funding for inspection staff seemed to be a problem. In addition, customers talked about the increase in local work. Many professionals during the focus groups talked about business picking up, and higher volumes of work. They are feeling the pressure and see that staff are crunched too. There was a definite sense of compassion for the workload staff experience. Two areas specifically mentioned were septic inspection and planning. One customer asked if monument preservation funds could be used to fund additional staff. Recommendation 18: County develop a staffing allocation model based on permit volume to be used for forecasting needed staffing levels in the next budget cycle. This needs to be done proactively so the County isn’t caught short with higher volume. Recommendation 19: County mitigate the lack of redundancy by cross-training or developing an inter-local agreement to support key roles when staff members are out of office. County Criterion 3: Staff-Customer Interaction
County Staff-Customer Interactions COULD MAKE DECISIONS
8%
INTERACTIONS WITH BUILDING POSITIVE
8%
INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC WORKS POSITIVE
9%
INTERACTIONS WITH PLANNING POSITIVE
82% 71% 67%
14%
INTERACTIONS WITH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL…
63%
15%
FIND ALTERNATIVES THAT WORK
9%
PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION
5%
OVERALL KNOWLEDGABLE AND PROFESSIONAL
6% 0%
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County
73%
% Agree
67% 78% 67%
10%
20% 30%
40%
50% 60%
70%
80%
90%
% Disagree
The customer survey response to interactions with County staff is overall positive. Consistently, 2 out of every 3 people indicate a positive experience with the county. These results are consistent with Phase Two. In some cases slightly better, in some slightly worse, but overall holding steady. The Building Department, however, has made noticeable improvement, up to 82% satisfied from 69% in Phase Two. The majority of customer comments were positive, reflecting the quantitative results. There were only a few comments that reflected angry, extremely dissatisfied customers. Again, this is a marked improvement from previous phases. Phase One customers were angrier. Currently, there are still varied experiences with customers, but it would be unrealistic to expect 100%
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
43
satisfaction. The County has worked to improve their interactions with customers and should continue. A few examples of comments about the overall experience include: Don't be rude or treat people like they are an inconvenience for you. Not all of us are contractors.
Lewis County staff was phenomenal.
Lewis County office staff gets A+. If I had questions, the people in the Lewis County permit office were VERY helpful. Site plan too close to slope. Suggested geo test for feasibility or move house plan back and file new site plan showing changes. Very helpful. Extremely slow, they act as if I am a burden when I come in to get a permit, they consistently have terrible and unfriendly attitudes which in turn puts me in a bad mood. Everybody was very helpful. We were rebuilding after a house fire and could not have had nicer people to deal with. Thank you! The people in the office have been very helpful both on the phone and in person. Lewis County Staff was exceptional when I obtained my building permit, septic design, etc. Lewis County personnel worked to make building a good experience. Lewis County Staff are helpful, knowledgeable and easy to work with. Inspectors were knowledgeable and friendly. The Lewis County permit office was great - one of the few aspects of building that WASN'T an issue! Excellent experience. Everyone was knowledgeable, courteous and helpful. Counter people were sincere about trying to help you get thru the application and permit process. At the end of the day that is what is most important. Being there to help. Permit Center The interactions with permit techs at the counter came up several times in the process. Overall, most people expressed satisfaction. There were several comments, however, from people that they felt they were treated as an inconvenience, minimal effort was put in to helping, and at times people were rude. There were enough descriptions of this type of experience from several different people and groups to warrant mentioning it. It would appear as if the experience of the customer at the counter could be more consistently positive.
October 2016
44 As noted above, many comments were positive. A few that point to concerns include: They need to be more friendly and they usually act like they are doing you a favor or you are an inconvenience. [If I was] A customer going into the County, I would walk out. Maybe it isn’t their job to be warm and fuzzy, but shoot, just a help would be nice. I took a customer in and I was so embarrassed by how they were treated. One person was told, “We really hate it when you ___ [type of professional] come in here. Recommendation 20: Improve consistency of customer experience at the counter. We did ask if anyone exceeded expectations, and several people were mentioned:
Mike Watilo - professional and helpful
TARA MOOON - Permits! She is very professional and an asset to your company!
Kurt and Fred were very helpful.
Nancy Kaiser in Health Dept. - procured faxed signature missing from permit sign-off sheet. Very helpful.
Bob Deacon. Field inspector. He is very knowledgeable of construction.
Pat Winters was very helpful in Lewis County Electrical Dept.
Doyle Sanford, easy to work with, knowledgeable, level headed, great attitude
Bev Granger
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
45
County Criterion 4: Overall Environment
The County has improved in making their process more business-friendly. In fact, 71% in Phase Three agree that it is, while only 50% did in Phase Two. The responses to incurring costs due to delays are very consistent with Phase Two: about 1 in 4 customers felt they did.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF COUNTY'S SYSTEM 24%
Regularly Incur Costs Due to Delays Land Use/Development System Designed Well Building Permit System Designed Well
56%
9%
74%
8%
Business-Friendly
71%
10% 0%
Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County
42%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
% Agree
% Disagree
Land Use and Development Process The Land Use and Development process appears that it could benefit from continued efforts to improve it. Several people said they were concerned because there hasn’t been a lot of development in the past and wondered if the process will be streamlined and ready for developers when they do come. Some people also indicated that the complexity and uniqueness of each project, I believe our core will get developed by outside combined with the lower number of these money and they’re going to want to be dirt types of projects, can make it difficult for staff ready in six months. to have experience with the variety of decisions they must make related to code interpretation. For large, complex projects, it may be helpful for the County to proactively identify a process that will expedite those sticking points by utilizing outside expertise or providing an internal project manager. The County has an opportunity to work closely with the development community to set policies and design processes that will make the land use and development system more effective. This includes work on realistic timelines and proactive handling of complex projects. Recommendation 21: County set a strategic priority related to development. Engage the local development community in designing processes that will be attractive to outside investors. Specific Issues A few specific concerns were mentioned by customers. They included:
October 2016
46
Trouble with road approach requirements being unreasonable. Applying a standard that makes sense in one situation, but is excessive in another. Multiple CARL reviews, with each one having an additional cost. Is there a way to proactively help the customer identify everything that will require a review at the start of the process? Setbacks in the east county excessive for the property.
Benefits of Lewis County Many people indicated that they work in several geographic areas, and prefer Lewis County. They find the staff helpful and accessible, and are able to build positive working relationships. We thought the process went very smoothly. This was the 3rd house we built. Everyone was excellent to work with. Hats off to Lewis County!! Lewis County has less governmental negative issues than other counties in which we have built. Procedures worked for us and we are thankful for the good people who handle these challenging issues. Contrary, Lewis County seems to have a clear direction that they are there to serve the public and help land owners do what they're wanting to do with their project, without extremely costly regulations and road blocks. Having worked with both Pierce and King counties in the past, Lewis County actually tried to help rather than hinder the process.
LEADERSHIP DIRECTION
Hire someone in permitting or county executive role that their goal is to make Lewis County a better place to live and develop good paying jobs. That person would have the ability to install that ideology in his or her staff.
I'm very glad I live in Lewis County and not Thurston. Please do not let your staff get the mentality that developers are bad guys trying anything to get around the rules. Most land developers and builders just want to know what needs done one time and that what there told is what is expected. Do not let this happen in Lewis
County because it can happen and is hard to reverse. Leadership Structure The County is structured with three independently elected Commissioners leading multiple county departments. County department heads report to all three commissioners. This creates a dynamic situation for department heads, as they must constantly be meeting the expectations of three different people. When the Commissioners aren’t aligned, as they weren’t for this project, department heads have to sort out the best path forward and thread the needle between differing expectations.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
In many situations, because of this structure, a single point of accountability or a person with full decision-making authority is not identified. This creates delays and frustration for everyone. People in the community actively want to build on the positive aspects of permitting in Lewis County. There is almost universal agreement that this area has a strong competitive advantage, and wants to build on it. They also feel there needs to be strong leadership who will set a clear vision for growing jobs in Lewis County and working collaboratively with other local partners. Along with the vision, they want leaders who will set expectations for county employees, so employees know clearly that they can and should work effectively with customers to generate growth for the area. Our local community faces significant hurdles with low income and generational poverty. Ensuring that businesses can invest here and bring new jobs is a critical part of the solution. County Denison Results
As mentioned under methodology, the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) is a tool to assess organizational culture. Responses have been scientifically linked to higher organizational performance on a variety of performance measures. 17 employees took the DOCS. The results are shown to the left. Generally speaking, more color on the chart indicates stronger organizational culture. Results are shown as percentiles against a normative benchmark. For Lewis County, there is some slippage between the Phase Two results and the Phase Three results. The top half of the Denison shows an external focus – connecting to customers. These are also both low for the County. Strategic Direction and Intent, along with Creating Change, are the two lowest areas. Both of these connect to the discussion above on leadership structure and land use/development processes. There has been some growth in scores for consistency, and notably, organizational learning has improved significantly. Again, the County Commissioners would be well-served to set clear strategic direction and intent for employees. Combined with increased change capability would lead to improved results regarding growth for our community.
October 2016
47
48
Building on Phase One and Two Phase One and Two of this report used similar methodology and reviewed similar aspects of the process. Here is a brief overview of the status of various criteri and recommendations between Phase Two and Three. Customer Survey Criteria Results between Phase Two and Three All percentages reflect % agree from each survey. Differences of 5 points either way are shaded. Centralia
Chehalis
County
2
3
2
3
2
3
Written Information
57%
67%
87%
78%
55%
71%
Verbal Information
64%
57%
79%
84%
61%
77%
Accurate Information
80%
88%
94%
88%
66%
78%
Staff Interactions
79%
77%
94%
77%
64%
67%
Time Reasonable
64%
64%
95%
85%
65%
74%
Costs Due to Delays
27%
22%
0%
27%
23%
24%
Time Predictable
64%
54%
81%
74%
45%
60%
Business-Friendly
57%
67%
83%
67%
50%
71%
Phase Two Recommendation
Status
1
Leverage the slowdown in permitting to make meaningful improvements to the process.
In progress. Clear that the system in all three jurisdictions is improving.
2
County Commissioners and City Managers act quickly to understand customer requirements and set clear expectations for employee performance for senior management.
Based on Denison, not done.
3
If the software system is essential for tracking progress, the County should make it a priority to resolve the conflicts with the permitting software so that it can go live in the near future.
On-line permit status not available. Some performance data may be available, but repeatedly told that it was difficult to ge information.
4
All three jurisdictions should immediately identify key performance measures for their process, with a
Unclear. When asked for information on the process,
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Phase Two Recommendation
Status
particular emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency measures.
was not provided any performance measures.
5
All three jurisdictions should set targets for performance related to the key performance measures and use those to help answer the question, “Is the process getting better, worse or staying the same?”
Not implemented.
6
Given that the County’s primary customer base are infrequent users of the permitting system, the County should continue to develop a process that serves individuals with little to no previous experience with permitting.
Customer sat has improved. No new tools to help first time users have been implemented.
7
Both the City of Centralia and Lewis County should review the recommendations from Phase One and provide a report to their chain of command and the Task Force regarding what recommendations have been implemented and why.
Nothing shared with the Task Force.
8
All three jurisdictions should review and implement the recommendations from the Denison Organizational Cultural Survey.
Denison results were lower, so unlikely this took place.
9
All three jurisdictions should develop “big-picture” informational items and make available at the counter and on-line.
Some have been added.
10
Centralia and Lewis County should continue to refine and improve their checklists for customers. This is less needed with Chehalis, due to its unique approach to intake.
Checklists have been merged with the application. Customers have varying opinions on their effectiveness.
11
The County Commissioners should immediately address the challenges in communication and collaboration between Environmental Health and Community Development. An expert, external facilitator would be very helpful in facilitating this dialogue.
Seems to have improved.
October 2016
49
50
Phase Two Recommendation
Status
12
All three jurisdictions continue to make more information on-line. Fillable forms should be the first priority.
Not completed.
13
Lewis County Commissioners should set performance expectations for customer satisfaction and periodically measure satisfaction to determine if departments are reaching these targets.
Either not done, or not publicly available.
14
Centralia should explore why customers were less satisfied.
Customer satisfaction has improved.
15
Lewis County should set targets for the time it takes to complete the process and let customers know what the target is. In addition, the permitting software, when implemented, will provide the data for to know if those targets are met.
Not completed.
16
All three jurisdictions should continue to make improving communication with the customer a priority. This will likely make a significant difference in reducing project delays.
Communication appears to have improved.
17
The County Commissioners should require that Community Development, Environmental Health and Public Works work together to refine the flow chart of the current permitting process.
Some internal process improvement efforts have taken place.
18
Centralia should explore potential reasons for the lower satisfaction levels regarding the process being business friendly.
Improved in this area.
19
The Lewis County Community Development Director should make an effort to improve consistency in the department, especially among inspectors.
Appears to have improved.
20
All three jurisdictions should develop an e-mail notification line, allowing individuals to sign up for code change notification.
Not implemented.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Closing Remarks There has been a great deal of anxiety expressed on the part of government regarding this project and the intentions behind it. We hope the report speaks for itself as a reflection of the intent of the sponsoring organizations to put their “money where their mouth is� and make an investment in supporting the on-going improvement of the permitting process as a way to strengthen the local economy. The project found that the permitting processes are doing well overall. The last ten years have seen a great deal of improvement, and the jurisdictions should be commended. We also have an opportunity going forward to support economic growth and development, and this report highlights some areas that could be strengthened. The more that government can partner with their external stakeholder groups, the more successful the entire community will be. Compilation of Recommendations All of the recommendations throughout the report are compiled here. Recommendation 1: All jurisdictions: Elected officials and appointed leaders demonstrate in words and actions their interest in and support for customer input. Increase responsiveness to requests from stakeholder groups. Recommendation 2: All jurisdictions: Provide employees with a visual depiction of how development provides their funding source to help with line of sight between their daily work and funding. Recommendation 3: Both Cities publish expected timelines for routine processes. Recommendation 4: All jurisdictions: Employees who mainly work in the office make a conscious effort to ask about the individual’s business and express support and appreciation for their willingness to invest in Lewis County. When obstacles are identified, take the time to ask the applicant about the impact and express a desire to help them stay successful and profitable. Recommendation 5: All jurisdictions: Bring together a joint planning group that works to harmonize the UGA codes. Recommendation 6: City of Centralia and Lewis County update their inter-local agreement for the UGA to have one document that includes all the current info in one place. Recommendation 7: City of Chehalis and Lewis County create a new inter-local agreement for permitting within the UGA. Recommendation 8: All jurisdictions: Fund technology improvements to provide capability for submitting permit applications and paying fees. Recommendations 9: All jurisdictions: Use website to establish a business-friendly presence and welcome new investments in the community.
October 2016
51
52 Recommendation 10: All jurisdictions: Until permits can be submitted and paid online, provide an after hours drop box so applicants don’t have to wait for business hours to get things submitted. Recommendation 11: Centralia City Leadership and Management clarify strategic direction for the City and provide clear goals for City employees to align to. Include in this effort clear statements about the City’s goals related to supporting business and economic development in the local community. Recommendation 12: City of Chehalis: As new staff come on board, ensure that they are fully trained and informed regarding the vision and expectation the City has for a strong permitting process. Recommendation 13: County provide a flow chart or written step-by-step process for land and building permitting. Make available on-line and hard copy. Recommendation 14: All three jurisdictions should develop a notification process that allows professionals to sign up for code change notifications. Recommendation 15: County create a process map for legal lot determinations. Share broadly with professionals who support clients through the process. Recommendation 16: County provide an org chart at the pre-sub meeting so customers know who they’re working with. Recommendation 17: County remind staff that customers aren’t always clear on roles within the County system. Train staff to provide warm handoffs and continue to clarify roles with customers. Keep organizational charts on hand to show customers. Recommendation 18: County develop a staffing allocation model based on permit volume to be used for forecasting needed staffing levels in the next budget cycle. This needs to be done proactively so the County isn’t caught short with higher volume. Recommendation 19: County mitigate the lack of redundancy by cross-training or developing an inter-local agreement to support key roles when staff members are out of office. Recommendation 20: County improve consistency of customer experience at the counter. Recommendation 21: County set a strategic priority related to development. Engage the local development community in designing processes that will be attractive to outside investors.
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Appendix A: Project Timeline Note: Per a request from the Lewis County Commissioners, the Steering Committee revised its original timeline and extended it by 5 weeks so the County could have more time to respond to requests. MAY M
JUNE T
W
T
F
S
S
M
1 4
W
S
S
2
3
4
5
6 Public Kick-Off 7 – Chamber 8 9Forum10
11
12
13
14
15
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
19
20
21
22
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
26
27
28
29
27
28
29
30
9
10
11
12
16
17
18
23
24
25
30
31
5
6
Steering Committee Forms
JULY
AUGUST T
4
5
11
W
T
F
S
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
S
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9 16
10
8
9
10
11 18
12
13
14
17
15
19
20
21
25
26
27
28
T
F
S
S
1
2
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
23
27
28
29
30
6
7
8
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
29
30
31
T
W
Focus Groups and Interviews
SEPTEMBER
5
F
8
3
M
T
7
2
M
T
1 Govt. Agencies Informed
16 17 Customer Survey
OCTOBER T
W
T
F
S
S
1
2 9
3
4
6 7 Survey, 8 cont. Customer
12
Survey 14 13
19
Survey 21 20
26
Survey 27Employee 28 Survey 29 30 Survey
15
17
11
3
18
10
East 22 County Focus 24 Group 25
17
Survey
16 23
10
M
24
Report 4 Finalized 5 Survey 11 12 Report Published Survey 18 19 Survey
25 Survey
26
6
31
October 2016
53
54
Appendix B: Example of a Simple Flow Chart for Customers From Jefferson County, Washington
External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three
Appendix C: Customer Satisfaction Survey The Survey was administered through SurveyMonkey. The survey questions are included here: 1. With which agencies have you obtained a permit since January 2012? Check all that apply. 2. What is your field of work? (Check private landowner if you do not work in a field that requires you to use the permitting system.) 3. How many years of experience do you have with the permitting process? 4. How many permit applications do you submit a year? 5. On what type of project were you working that required permitting? (Check as many as apply.) 6. Have you applied for any of the following permits in the past 4.5 years? 7. I currently have permit applications being reviewed in: 8. I received helpful and clear written information that showed me how to maneuver through the permitting process. 9. I received helpful and clear verbal information that showed me how to maneuver through the permitting process. 10. The process for submitting my permit application was understandable. 11. I received a checklist that gave me step-by-step information regarding what I needed to do to complete the permitting process. 12. If I received a checklist, I thought the checklist was: 13. I would like to be able to do the following on-line: 14. Are there any comments you would like to make regarding the information (verbal, written, other) you received during your permitting process? 15. I was provided a timeline for receiving my permit: 16. I found the time between submitting my application and receiving the permit was reasonable based on the complexity of my project. 17. The length of time between submitting my application and receiving the permit was: 18. The following reviews were required as part of my permitting process: 19. When I apply for a permit, I know about how long I can expect to wait before the permit is issued. The length of time between application and issuance is predictable. 20. It would be helpful to receive regular updates on my permit applications. 21. I had one on-site inspector for each specific area of permitting. For example, the same building inspector inspected each time an inspection was required. 22. One consistent on-site inspector would be/is helpful to me. 23. To get my permit, I had to work with: 24. The permitting process makes this jurisdiction a good place in which to do business they are business-friendly.
October 2016
55
56 25. The overall building permitting system is designed in a way that I can be successful. 26. The overall land use/development permitting process is designed in a way that I can be successful. 27. I regularly incur delays in my projects due to issues in the following areas (check as many as apply): 28. I regularly incur costs due to delays in the permitting process. 29. When given a checklist, I submit the information or correct the problems cited. I then receive a new list with new issues and must go through the same process: 30. I have seen other jurisdictions do the following, which I would like to see adopted here: 31. Staff members consistently provide me with accurate information regarding the permitting process. 32. When my original plan cannot move forward, staff work with me to find an alternative that will work. 33. My interactions with government employees in relation to the permitting process are positive. 34. The people I worked with could make decisions when needed. If they had to get approval from someone else, it seemed reasonable. 35. I had a problem during my application process. 36. If yes, how was the issue handled? Please note which jurisdiction. 37. Overall, the staff I dealt with were: 38. Did anyone exceed your expectations? Please describe: 39. Are there any comments you would like to make regarding your interactions with staff? Please note which jurisdiction(s). 40. Anything else you would like us to know?