HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCD 2023-03-06 Item 1A - Update - 2022 Permit Review ProcessTO:
FROM:
BY:
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Planning and Community Development
Nora Gierloff, DCD Director
Rachelle Sagan, Permit Supervisor
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: March 6, 2023
SUBJECT: 2022 Permitting Status Update
ISSUE
The Permit Center is providing a summary of the status of permit review procedures, staffing,
timelines, and revenues in 2022.
BACKGROUND
Despite the ongoing impacts of the pandemic, the Permit Center served persons seeking
permits or having other development -related questions well in 2022. Many permit -related
processes have been streamlined and the vast majority of applicants continue to appreciate the
time -saving convenience of the virtual service. In 2022, the permit counter received an
estimated 520 walk-in customers. Without these virtual service improvements, an estimated
4,800 walk-in visits would have been required for the level of permit activity experienced.
The accessibility and capabilities of the website information were also improved, and we began
allowing the public to schedule telephone and virtual meetings with staff from the website. In
January 2020, before the pandemic, the DCD permitting page recorded 2,267 visitors. Site visits
have steadily increased each year since with January 2023 recording 5,336 visits to the
permitting page, a 235% increase over January 2020.
DISCUSSION
Process Improvements
In 2019 the City worked with the Seattle Southside Chamber of Commerce to conduct outreach
to evaluate customer satisfaction with the permitting process and seek ideas/input on potential
areas for improvement. After listening to our customers and staff we developed and
implemented a series of process improvements in 2022 that built on the findings and
recommendations in that report, see Attachment A.
• Automatic Permit Application Extensions
The building code automatically expired any building permit application that had not been
issued within 180 days of application. This meant that even if an applicant was responding
to corrections and actively working on a permit they would have to ask for an extension or
reapply. In 2022 we adopted a code change to automatically extend a permit application
for 180 days each time an applicant resubmits a revision or correction. This has resulted in
many fewer accidental expirations and less paperwork for staff and the applicant.
• Emailed Notice of Permit Expiration
Our previous process was to mail a hardcopy notice to the project contact at least 30 days
prior to the expiration of an open building permit. Unfortunately, sometimes this mail was
lost or the contractor had changed, leaving the owner without notice of an expiring permit
1
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
for an incomplete project. We changed to an email notice saving permit staff time and
reducing the chances that permits expire prematurely.
• Pre -Cons Prior to Issuance
Contractors are required to hold a pre -construction meeting with City inspectors prior to
starting construction to discuss traffic control, erosion control, tree protection, utility locates
etc. Unfortunately, many contractors were skipping this step leading to violations, stop
work orders, and damage to the environment. We changed to require that the pre -con be
held as the last step prior to permit issuance to make sure that contractors have all the
information they need to work safely in the City before breaking ground.
• Checklist for Protect Finals
Often developers have a specific "grand opening" date in mind for a project but do not
allow enough time for all of the various inspections to be completed or outstanding
submittals to be reviewed. About a month prior to the desired project "final" the Permit
Center provides the applicant via email with a list of outstanding inspections and open
permits to aid them in their scheduling. This helps avoid a last-minute rush of inspections
that we cannot accommodate without delaying other applicants. It also prevents requests
for temporary certificates of occupancy to allow them to open to the public before work is
complete.
• Virtual Intake Appointments
We began offering appointments with our permit techs to help applicants navigate the
online permit submittal process. This helps reduce frustration for new applicants and
increases the accuracy of their information. This has helped reduce the number of
incomplete applications submitted and allows us to inform applicants about next steps
after submittal, such as the need to go back into the system to pay for the permit after it
has been accepted. These appointments have saved staff time and improved permit
speeds.
• Rewrite of TMC 11.08 Right -of -Way Permits
Development review staff collaborated with the City Attorney on a complete rewrite of the
right of way permit section of the code, reducing the number of different permit types and
increasing usability. We have incorporated these changes into the permit tracking system
and have produced new informational bulletins for the public.
• Permit Center Website and Checklist Improvements
The Permit Center webpage was separated out into two separate subpages organized by
permit type: Construction and Land Use. Each page has been reorganized and populated
with information pertinent to a given permit type. Additional drop tabs were also created to
provide information more quickly to applicants. Additionally, new web pages were created
to provide information for residents and applicants:
o Property Research
o Low Density Residential (LDR) Development Standards
o Urban Forestry
o Design Review
o Critical Areas Regulations
o Shoreline Regulations
o Public Notice and Participation
2
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
The last page, Public Notice and Participation, provides a centralized webpage for
residents to learn about current and past public notices.
A QR code that takes users directly to this page will also be included on all mailed and
posted notices moving forward, significantly improving the experience for interested
parties.
Staffing
In the 2023-2024 budget 1.5 permit review FTEs were frozen, one was a full-time building plans
examiner position that we had had difficulty filling and the other a half time planner position. We
are maintaining Building review times by sending overflow projects to a consultant firm for
review. Because each jurisdiction's Zoning Code is unique, it is not cost effective to send
planning reviews to a consultant. Therefore, when permit volumes increase, planning review
times tend to increase as well. In the past, we have shifted staff between current and long-range
planning to follow the workload but with the Comp Plan update underway we cannot pull any
staff away from long range work. We had hoped to fill the budgeted Planning Intern position last
fall to assist with sign permits, tree permits, and the recycling grant but we cannot fill it while we
have a frozen union planning position.
Last year we converted an unfilled building inspector position to a second ROW/Infrastructure
inspector position, based on workload needs. This has helped significantly, and they were just
able to clear the last of the backlogged franchise permits. Now when we have high building
inspection levels or need to cover our single building inspector's vacations or sick leave, we use
consultants, as well as ask the City of SeaTac for backup, or pull the plans examiner away from
permit review and into the field. Overall, our staffing is very lean and "one deep" in key positions
which is an issue that was identified in the 2019 Southside permitting report, even before the
Pandemic's staffing impacts hit the City.
Review Timelines
Historically the target time to the first comment letter or issuance of a permit had been 4 to 6
weeks. During the transition to electronic permitting and due to the pandemic, timelines had
increased to 8 — 10 weeks for a first round comment letter or issuance. Currently the target is 7
weeks, with the intent of moving to 6 weeks at the start of Q2 in 2023. Over the past year the
permit backlog has been nearly eliminated and processing times have decreased even as
permit volumes have risen, and staffing has been reduced. Achieving this level of service has
been a significant accomplishment by staff that should be recognized.
First number includes overdue, as well.
Permit Volumes and Revenues
During 2022, permit numbers increased over the preceding years for Building, Fire, and Public
Works, and the value and revenues from construction also increased for Building and Fire.
Public Works and Land Use both saw slight decreases in project values and revenues
3
September 2021
February 2022
February 2023
Fire Reviews
28 — 0 Overdue
41 - 1 Overdue
48 — 0 Overdue
Building
Reviews
47 — 9 Overdue
11 - 4 Overdue
3 — 0 Overdue
Planning
Reviews
128 — 95 Overdue
31 - 8 Overdue
38 — 13 Overdue
Engineering
Reviews
178 — 78 Overdue
60 - 8 Overdue
61 — 8 Overdue
First number includes overdue, as well.
Permit Volumes and Revenues
During 2022, permit numbers increased over the preceding years for Building, Fire, and Public
Works, and the value and revenues from construction also increased for Building and Fire.
Public Works and Land Use both saw slight decreases in project values and revenues
3
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
generated. We generated almost twice as much permit revenue in 2022 as in 2021, though still
below our historical average, and had the second highest yearly permit valuation ever.
Permit Stats, 2022 vs. 2021
Building
• Permits — Increase of 2%
• Value — Increase of 130%
• Revenue — Increase of 80%
Fire
• Permits — Increase of 21%
• Value — Increase of 11%
• Revenue — Increase of 27%
Public Works
• Permits — Increase of 6%
• Value — Decrease of 69%
• Revenue — Decrease of 16%
Land Use
• Projects — Decrease of 14%
• Revenue — Decrease of 13%
Permit Trend
2017 - 2022
3250000,000
- — - - • 1534
3200000,000 51801324,255
1163186431
8 9150000.000
3121247,047
5100000.000
360600.000 381,,20
'
5135.909.:.11
.527234 987,964 194,983 -.339,611 - 7:3 399. 63,253
SO
2017 2018 2019 20'-0 202: 2022
ToolValuatioo 5122247,047 5153,135,631 1239.971,040 3135.925..-..-. 381,979,120 $108324255
meiTon1Reveaue 53.527134 33,907,964 36194.963 332311_ 31,153.999 32265153
Total Perm im 1750 1757 . -.-
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
600
600
400
200
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Permit revenues for 2022 covered about three quarters of the operating expenses of the
Department, a significant increase from 2021 when they covered only 44%.
RECOMMENDATION
Information Only.
ATTACHMENT
A. Executive Summary from 2019 Southside Permit Process Report
4
Aith
SOUTHSIDE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Tukwila Permit Process
Project Report
December 20, 2019
Seattle Southside Chamber of Commerce
A Voice for Business, A Leader in the Community
14220 Interurban Ave S #134, Tukwila, WA 98168
(206) 575-1633
www.SeattleSouthsideChamber.com
1 of 23
5
Executive Summary
1. Summary of the Evaluation Process
Mayor Ekberg and City Administrator Cline approached the Seattle Southside Chamber
of Commerce (SSCC) to assist with an evaluation of the City's current development
permitting and inspection services. The City has been implementing a series of
incremental changes in recent years while moving towards a one-stop permit system. A
variety of organizational and staffing changes has now provided an opportunity to
advance the evolution of the entire system forward at this time.
Contracted Services. SSCC was asked to conduct an outreach process to evaluate
customer satisfaction with the current system and to seek ideas/input on potential areas
for improvement. The SSCC is not a direct user of the City's system, though many of its
members interact with the City's system regularly. In this evaluation process, SSCC
served as a mirror while conducting a series of interviews and outreach methods;
asking focused questions, listening for trends, patterns, and key messages. The SSCC
utilized a two-pronged outreach approach by interviewing both customer/users of the
City's permitting and inspection system as well as separately interviewing involved City
staff in order to identify areas of success and potential improvement.
Customer Input Survey and Results Summary. The customer survey was deployed
through an email invitation to participate and a postcard invitation if we did not have
email contact information. The survey was also encouraged through social channels in
an effort to capture as much data as possible. Customers and contact information were
based on contacts provided by the City.
We wanted to assure those participating, many of which had active projects under
review or consideration, that their responses could be anonymous and confidential.
Doing so helped to ensure unfiltered feedback.
All information was captured as a way to help ensure the Chamber was collecting data
from a varied pool that included large projects and representatives, as well as small and
private projects. The information was also kept confidential, as requested by most of the
respondents. Additionally, responses were combined with those of many others and
then summarized in a report to further protect anonymity.
As you will see in the corresponding reports, anonymizing responses is an effective way
to ensure responses cannot be linked to any one project, individual, or customer before
incorporating it in the data.
Some customers participated in the survey only over the phone and with the greatest
care to preserve both anonymity and confidentiality. The confidential surveys collected
2 of 23
6
included no personally identifiable information. Those responses were also combined
with those of many others and summarized in the report to further protect anonymity.
The survey was deployed over email to 1005 people whose contact email was
available. For those without an email contact, SSCC sent a mailed postcard. A follow-up
reminder email was also sent. These methods were used to ensure the maximum
engagement and awareness of the survey and to encourage wide participation. More
than 200 individuals responded through the survey, focus groups, and interviews. Not
all respondents answered every question as some did not apply to their particular
situation or experience.
In addition, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted to dig deeper into
the survey questions and answers. Each was completed by the party or parties that
completed the initial survey. The focus groups and interviews provided more time to
understand the "why" of the results generated and to also get a sense of the emotional
foundation.
Staff Input and Results Summary. City staff members have key perspectives on the
delivery of services to the public. Not only do they provide direct services to the
customer, but they also are in the best position to determine the strengths and
weaknesses of the current development permitting and inspection system.
Two methods were utilized to gather the staff members' input: standard questions and
individual interviews. The forty-four staff members were each provided standard
questions and asked to provide written responses to the SSCC team. The individual
interviews were open format, providing each staff member an opportunity to ask
questions about the evaluation process, further expound upon their written answers,
and to provide any additional input not addressed in the standard questions. The
purpose of the interview methods was to identify trends, patterns, consistencies, and
inconsistencies through dialogue and open discussion.
The SSCC team presented the initial report information at a staff briefing to both reflect
the results of the question and interview process and to seek, through a group exercise
process, any additional/clarifying messages listed below.
3 of 23
7
2. Summary of Key Findings and Requests
The Customer Survey, Focus Groups, and Interviews resulted in the following findings
and requests:
• There is a clear trend of wants/desires from the customer perspective to:
o Streamline systems
o Clearly communicate processes,
o Have processes and systems available online
• There is a clear pattern with customers either being very satisfied with the
process or with being highly dissatisfied
o Customers indicated that setting out expectations and clearly communicating the
process would help increase customer satisfaction and experience
• Key messages that were commonly repeatedly were:
o Desire to streamline
o Desire for consistency
o Desire for more online tools
• Potential areas of improvement mentioned included:
o Providing online tools and systems for processing
o Greater consistency in communication and decision-making
o Providing clear expectations and communicating them to the customer
o FAQs and similar information online
The staff question, interview, and group feedback process resulted in the following key
findings:
• It "works" because of the staff
o High quality of services delivered to the public is due to the dedication and
professional qualities of the City staff, not because of the system
• Governance and operating procedures
o No common understanding (nor formal document) setting the make-up,
expectations, reporting lines, governance, and operation of the City's one-stop
system
• Cohesion and Communication
o Individual departments have implemented their view or understanding of the one-
stop concept, resulting in competing interests, budget and staffing imbalances,
and conflicting methodologies
• Experience and Knowledge
o Retirements and other departures of staff are resulting in loss of institutional
memory. Many of the departing staff have been "making it work" in the absence
of a clearly defined system
• One -deep staffing is crippling
o Positions providing direct service to the customers must be officially backed up.
Cross -training is essential and must be ongoing. There are currently one -deep
and zero -deep staffing scenarios
• Technology
o Underutilizing current technology. Need established user and technical support
base (super users and user groups). Many individual "workarounds" exist as a
result
4 of 23
8
• Written Procedures
o Written materials and procedures for staff to support their position and their work
duties are limited and inconsistent. Many had developed their own, especially as
"workarounds"
• Training
o Noted absence of organized training for new employees and ongoing refresher
training, especially in the technology areas
• Public education, access, and services
o Website could be a more dynamic source of development information and direct
services for the public (e.g., online permit applications, approval of routine
permits, etc.)
• Fees and revenues
o Concern that the City has not been pursuing available fees and other revenue
sources for development permitting and inspection services
3. Summary of Common Themes and Expectations
The Customer and Staff input processes approached the same broad issues from very
different perspectives. However, when combined they yielded the following common
themes and expectations:
• A clearly defined Permitting and Inspection system is needed
• The City should commit a higher priority to development -related processes
• The system should ensure predictability and timeliness
• The system should be the source of consistent and reliable information
• Staff and financial resources, adequate to meet the goals and performance
standards of the system, should be provided
4. Summary of Priorities and Opportunities for Improvement
The Key Findings and Common Themes from customers and staff provide the basis for
a series of improvements. All should be undertaken in a timely manner (one or two at a
time) and integrated into the ongoing operations of the City's permitting and inspection
system.
• Define the City's one-stop permitting and inspection system
o Identify and charter the team who must participate in this discussion and
decision. The outcome should be the definition, operational configuration,
governance, initial budget, and staff assignments (positions, not personnel) to
implement the system
• Establish/enact the sequence & timing of implementation
o Once an agreement is approved, establish/enact the sequence and timing of
implementation. Address obstacles and needed changes
• Fill vacant positions (current or as redefined) immediately
o Also, formalize and conduct training and cross -training on operating procedures
of all staff assigned to the one-stop system
• Designate super users and charter initial user group(s)
o Establish super users (2+) and initial user group(s) for the permitting system, and
the various software packages
5 of 23
9
• Conduct refresher training for all assigned/involved staff
o Training required for all assigned (and involved parent department staff) in the
current automated systems
• Identify/prioritize the operational processes and procedures that need to be
developed and/or updated
o Conduct process to identify and prioritize the operational processes and
procedures that need to be developed and/or updated to address the current
concerns and gaps
• Review and update the website, handout materials and other public information
o Establish a team to review the website, handout materials and other public
information. Develop new and/or update promptly
• Promptly address any additional issues that arise
o Encourage continuous staff engagement, and implement the continuous
improvements
5. Next Steps
The Final Report and Executive Summary have been submitted to the Mayor and
City Administrator. Following review, they will be able to determine the City's next
actions, sequence and timing. Once the direction is established, the City can
undertake the implementation of the decision(s).
Main Report
1. Evaluation Process
Mayor Ekberg and City Administrator Cline approached the Seattle Southside Chamber
of Commerce (SSCC) to assist with an evaluation of the City's current development
permitting and inspection services. The City has been implementing a series of
incremental changes in recent years while moving towards a one-stop permit system. A
variety of organizational and staffing changes has now provided an opportunity to
advance the evolution of the entire system forward at this time.
Contracted Services. SSCC was asked to conduct an outreach process to evaluate
customer satisfaction with the current system and to seek ideas/input on potential areas
for improvement. The SSCC is not a direct user of the City's system, though many of its
members interact with the City's system regularly. In this evaluation process, SSCC
served as a mirror while conducting a series of interviews and outreach methods;
asking focused questions, listening for trends, patterns, and key messages. Through
this report, SSCC presents the compiled input gathered in a meaningful and organized
manner. The SSCC utilized a two-pronged outreach approach, described in more
detailed below, by interviewing both customer/users of the City's permitting and
6 of 23
10