ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: July 11, 2000
Author/Local: Rick Scobie/Christine Warren/7399/6033
RTS No. 01609
CC File No. 1365

CS&B: July 27, 2000

TO:	Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets
FROM:	Director of Development Services in Consultation with the Chief Building Official and the Director of Current Planning
SUBJECT:	Development Services Permit Processing - Resource Requirements

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. THAT Council approve the staff positions as outlined in Figure 1 of this report.

B. THAT Council approve $79,000 in salaries and benefits for the period of September 1 to December 31, 2000, and one time computer and ancillary costs of $56,000. Source of funds is increased Development and Building permit revenue in the year 2000.

C. THAT Council approve an estimated $523,200 in salaries and benefits in the year 2001 Budget. The source of funds to be increased Development and Building permit revenue.

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services recommends RECOMMENDATIONS A, B and C noting that the recommended positions reflect a resource need based on a careful analysis of the existing process and the proposed process improvements. Previous staff reductions (in some cases), and increased regulatory complexity and public involvement without commensurate staff increases as well as the new process requirements for improved service require additional resources if shorter processing time are to be achieved. The process efficiency and time reductions will be measured and monitored.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The Development and Building Regulation Review (DBR) project has been comprehensive and has extended over a number of years. There has been consideration of an all new permitting system which was tested through a pilot process for many months.

In April 1999, a review was undertaken which confirmed the DBR principles. This review also looked at how to implement changes in the organization. The decision was to implement changes incrementally while continuing to provide daily customer service.

Many changes have already been implemented, while others have been tested, and still others must wait until space renovations and additional staff resources are operational.

The funding for the new positions is to be from permit revenue increases. This is appropriate in order to avoid a general fee increase at this time. There will be a review of fee structures and alternative fee opportunities to ensure all costs associated with the permit process are recovered, including staff and information technology resources. This will be the subject of a separate report to Council.

Staff will look also on a continual basis for future opportunities to improve the permitting process, as well as identify regulation changes for review by Council as necessary.

The City Manager is satisfied that the appropriate changes are being made and the increased staff resources are necessary to provide better customer service and RECOMMENDS approval of A, B and C.

COUNCIL POLICY

Council has approved a number of resolutions supporting the Better City Government Program. The Development and Building Review was a priority Better Government initiative. All changes in level of service are to be reported to Council.

SUMMARY

Numerous improvements to the Development and Building application review and approval process have been made or are underway. However, in order to fully implement the new permitting process, staff have concluded that more staff are required if significantly shorter processing times are to be achieved. There has been a significant increase in development activity and even existing processing times are suffering. In some areas, there have been positions cut and in others no new positions have been added in many years. Staff have

analyzed the situation and have identified the minimum number of positions required to effectively meet existing workloads and implement the new process. Staff are well aware that impacts must be measurable - both for Council and for the development industry. To that end, staff have developed targets in certain areas which will be regularly monitored and reported. These are:

Building Permits Wait times reduced from 7-9 weeks to 4-5 weeks
Development Permit Board Processing time reduced from 14-16 weeks to 10-12 weeks
Development Permits (DoP) Processing time reduced from 8-12 weeks to 8-10 weeks
Call Abandonment rates Reduced from 50% to 10-15%
Call wait times Reduced from 15 minutes to less than 5 minutes
Tenant Improvement Permits Turnaround time reduced from 1 week to 1-2 days

Targets will be also be established for reduction in other processing times (including approvals of 1 and 2 family dwellings) and will be measured and reported.

Staff are recommending the creation of 5 staff positions in the Processing Centre - Building (Building Permits); 1 temporary (to be evaluated) Supervisor of Project Coordinator I’s; 2 positions in the Urban Design and Development Planning Centre (Development Permits); 2.3 positions in the Enquiry Centre (Phone Centre and TIPS processing); and 3 positions in Development Services for Project Facilitation and Subdivision and Strata. The total ongoing cost of these positions will be approximately $501,000. A total of $136,000 in offsets has been identified to reach this amount. Figure 1 on page 16 summarizes positions and costs.

Staff are also recommending a phasing of these positions, with some being funded in the last quarter of this year for a total of $79,033 and the remainder being funded beginning in 2001. It is also being recommended that the increase in revenue over budget for Development and Building permits be used as the source of funds.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to outline for Council the staff resources required to enable implementation of the new development and building review and approval process. These staff resources are required in both Development Services and in the Current Planning Division of the Planning Department.

BACKGROUND

This report is a companion to one entitled “Development and Building Review -Implementation Progress and Next Steps”. It is also accompanied by a submission from the Community Industry Advisory Committee. This Committee has been consulted regarding the recommendations herein, as has a group of representatives from the Urban Development Institute and Greater Vancouver Homebuilders Association.

Previous reports to Council - in 1997 and 1998 - on the subject of the Development and Building Review suggested that there would be no net increase of staff in the Community Services Group. It was believed that, while there would be significant stress on the organization for the start-up phases of the new process, ultimately efficiencies gained would provide both the necessary financial and staff resources to operate efficiently and without undue stress on staff. In a substantially changed environment, this is no longer believed to be possible.

The suggestions regarding no increases in staff were made during a period of “visioning” the new process rather than implementing it and with limited analysis of the existing process. Moreover, they were made during a period of reduced development activity. This period of slower activity now appears to have ended and development is on the rise again with the increase in activity beginning to be felt throughout permit processing.

The following discussion provides information regarding all the positions being requested along with costs. Specific impacts of all requested resources are provided in Appendix A.
DISCUSSION

1. The Processing Centre - Building (BCRB)

A. Function
The former Building Code Review Branch (now part of the new Processing Centre) has been responsible for the processing of all major building permit applications and now also includes the processing of one and two family dwelling applications. The primary function of the building process is to review applications for their compliance to the Vancouver Building By-law for safety, health and accessibility.

B. Workload
Over the last number of years, the annual average number of permits issued by the Building Code Review Branch and the Inspection Department was 3027. A total of 3097 permits were issued in 1999. For the year 2000, the trend indicates that there will be an increase in both applications and permit value.

At the same time, regulations, codes, by-laws, legal issues, responsibilities and projects have become more complicated, more numerous and more time consuming. Close to twenty major regulation/responsibilities have been added over the last decade. In order to meet these new requirements, the scope and mandate of the BCRB has evolved to accommodate the new requirements with a resultant increase in wait time for our customers. Unfortunately, staff resources have not kept pace with the additional workload requirements. Even with a number of efficiencies recently introduced, there is currently a seven to nine week wait between the time applications are received in the BCRB and the time when staff are able to proceed with a full plan review. And, when staff are absent from the branch - on vacation for example - the wait time increases. While the group does the best job possible, some customers would not call the existing level of service adequate.

In addition to the existing workload, the new process creates some additional “up front” work for staff. Some of the new tasks which will improve customer service include: review of proposals at the pre-development and development stages for Planning; joint building and inspection reviews, facilitation of applications throughout the building/inspection process and working with both Planning and Inspections regarding formal hand-offs. The benefits of this work will be to provide a single point of contact for the customer, reduction of “late hits” and continuity of advice and decision-making.

C. Existing and required staff resources
During the past decade, the total number of staff in the BCRB has remained virtually constant with a net increase of one clerical position. Of the staff, only eight are involved in actual permit processing. One manager and three technical specialists act as “review groups” for the process or review stand- alone mechanical and sprinkler applications. Further, only two of the original staff members from 1990 remain and over the last seven months there has been a staff turnover of no fewer than three engineers and two technologists - all of whom do permit processing. These events have left the group with an obvious gap in the continuity of knowledge and a significant and on-going training requirement.

To assist in bringing the BCRB out of its constant state of crisis management and more adequately handle the existing workload, the manager has begun to implement a teaming and “streaming” organizational structure. The basics of this structure are to place staff in five streams which generally reflect different types of applications and/or review activities. Each of these streams would have an engineer leading a team of from one to three technical staff. This concept is meant to address some important issues such as: continuity of knowledge, more efficient and logical work assignments, training and cross-training, back-up for absent staff and a modest reduction in wait times for application processing.

To implement this organizational structure, which would reduce application wait time, two Project Coordinator positions are required:

… a Project Coordinator II, assigned to the “Certified Professional”(CP) process stream of applications (currently numbering approximately 80 active projects and being processed by only one staff person). This FTE would have an annual cost of $50,900, including salary and benefits.
… a Project Coordinator I which would be a conversion of an existing temporary clerical position to a permanent technical position. .

To fully implement the new process and reduce the wait times before comprehensive reviews begin, three more FTEs will be required:
… a Project Coordinator II, in the “Part 3" stream at an annual cost of $50,900 (applications falling under the section of the Building By-Law which primarily deals with major structures).
… a Project Coordinator III, in the “Part 9" stream, at an annual cost of $57,700. (applications for less complex buildings)
… a Clerk II at an annual cost of $33,900. Currently, there are only two support staff for thirteen engineering and technical staff.

The total cost of the five requested staff for the former BCRB is $240,300. The most significant impact of not increasing staff resources will be customer wait times holding at the existing level of eight to nine weeks. Once building activity increases further, as it is now beginning to do, wait times will increase accordingly.

2. The Urban Design and Development Planning Centre (UDDPC)

A. Function
Most of the work of the Urban Design and Development Planning Centre (80-90%) is devoted to the processing of development applications. The Centre is an integral and critical component of the new permitting process.

UDDPC reviews and negotiates the design of development applications under discretionary zoning. This includes Director of Planning applications, constituting the majority of projects in the various zones of the city, and major applications in the Central Area and elsewhere in the City considered by the Development Permit Board. The Centre also reviews and negotiates the urban design/form of development of rezoning applications in conjunction with rezoning staff. This includes involvement in projects ranging from the neighbourhood scale to the mega-projects. UDDPC staff are also called upon to provide urban design input into a variety of special projects involving the public realm. Current examples of this are the Georgia St./Stanley Park entrance and VGH options.

B. Workload
The current workload of the Centre is approximately 650 development applications per year, twenty-five of which are major developments that are considered by the Development Permit Board. Each major application destined for the Board takes ten to fifteen working days for review and staff/applicant consultation and negotiation. Since a significant number of proposals are reviewed at the enquiry stage which do not ever reach actual application status (and are therefore not counted in the statistics), experience has shown that major applications require the full time of two senior Development Planners.

Rezoning applications number approximately 35-60 per year and UDDPC staff provide input into most of these. UDDPC involvement is also required in policy development issues.

Over the past several years, as the range of components to be reviewed has changed, (e.g. trees, bicycles, building envelope, artist studios) so has complexity. As densification increases, so does the need for greater scrutiny of development. In addition to and contributing to complexity, there are greater expectations regarding the level and amount of public involvement and there are a greater number of controversial projects which necessitate more staff involvement and negotiation. Development planning staff are now handling RS-5 applications and will be handling the forthcoming RS-X applications which are a further

category of discretionary application. A little over one FTE is devoted to RS-5 applications alone.

Comparative statistics from the first quarter in 1999 and the same period this year, show a 28% increase in Development and Minor Amendment applications. The turnaround time for major development applications from intake to Development Permit Board has been increasing over the past 6 years from 8-10 weeks to the current 14-16 weeks and development activity, as noted by the BCRB, is on the rise. With new staff, it is anticipated that the processing time will be reduced to 10-12 weeks.

Additional work will include the requirement for Development Planners to take on the responsibility of part-time facilitation of projects during the development application stage (just as BCRB staff will facilitate projects during the building application stage). This activity will improve project management of applications and provide a single point of contact for applicants. Development planners will also be required to engage in integration of the development and building application processes, for the purpose of reducing late hits.

C. Existing and required staff resources
UDDPC currently has 5 professional planning positions, including the Manager. One of the other positions is job-shared. There is one clerical support position. This staffing level reflects a decrease of 1.5 positions since 1997.

The task of each planner handling between 100 to 150 applications per year has been made marginally possible because of the assistance of the Facilitators in the Development Information and Application Centre (DIAC) which is now part of the Enquiry Centre. These staff have been devoting approximately 75% (1.5 FTE) of their time to processing development applications. However, it was originally intended that the DIAC Facilitators would spend about 25% (instead of 75%) of their time assisting UDDPC. The remainder of their time was to have been devoted to providing: comprehensive pre-application advice services for all zones; expert assistance for immediate over-the-counter approvals; answers to general enquiries relating to all processing disciplines and policy and procedural information to assist staff and the public in interpreting ambiguous regulations. Most importantly of all, the DIAC Facilitators were to intercede on behalf of applicants to expedite processing where proposals encountered procedural or regulatory difficulties.

The impact of the DIAC Facilitators doing UDDPC processing work for most of their time is that this other work is not being done. Applicants, often unsophisticated regarding Cityprocesses, are left to “troubleshoot” their own applications which become stuck in the system.

Now that the Enquiry Centre is poised for implementation in full, the DIAC Facilitators must return to their originally intended role, thus leaving UDDPC with an obvious staff shortage. The net effect, with previous reductions, is the loss of 2.5 FTEs.

Staff required to enable the Urban Design Centre to fulfill both its existing obligations and to take on the additional tasks of the new process are:
… a Planner I at an annual cost of $62,600, and
… a Planner II at an annual cost of $68,200.

If only five design staff (as opposed to fifteen in Toronto prior to amalgamation) are left to process several hundred applications, clearly the impact will be major increases in wait times for reviews to even begin. At the same time, development planning staff would be virtually unable to participate in a strong facilitation role or improved Development and Building review integration, thus eliminating two of the most critical components of the new process.

The total cost of the two requested staff in UDDPC is $130,000.

3. The Processing Centre - 1 and 2 Family Dwellings

A. Function
There are presently 15 Project Coordinator (PC) I staff, coming together from both Building (P&L) and Development (Planning) who currently process about 150 conditional and 800 outright 1 and 2 family dwellings and 200-300 additions or alterations to these dwellings.

B. Staff Requirements
These staff require supervisory support to integrate both development and building aspects of their work so that all 15 staff are eventually able to assess smaller projects for both zoning and building by-law compliance. The impact of this integration will be decreased processing times.

Specifically, the PC I supervisor will: develop scheduling of staff for Sign and over-the-counter permits; organize training required for staff; and provide direction to staff regarding working toward both increased quantity and quality of 1 and 2 Family Dwelling applications/permits.

The Processing Centre Co-Managers will evaluate if there is an ongoing need for this supervisory position. In the meantime, the position is being requested on a temporary basis, for one year.

Subject to classification and if filled for one year, the temporary supervisor position is expected to cost $57,700.

4. The Enquiry Centre - Phone Centre

A. Function
The development of a Phone Centre responds to a fundamental deficiency in our ability to provide adequate service to phone-in customers. An average day’s call abandonment rate (people who just give up and hang up) is approximately 50% and average wait times are 15 minutes. This is unacceptable. However, the reason for the inadequate service is that the staff expected to respond to phone calls are the same staff expected to respond to walk-in customers. Not surprisingly, priority is given to the latter and there are inadequate resources to serve both.

Data collected from a two week “mock” phone centre strongly suggests that a phone centre will reduce call abandonment to 10-15% and wait times to less than 5 minutes. The phone centre will not only dramatically reduce wait times but will also provide more comprehensive and helpful information as phone centre staff will be able to devote more focused energy to the caller.

The initial Phone Centre operation, which will be evaluated, will consist of four staff with differing areas of knowledge and expertise. They will work in the centre on a rotating basis and be drawn from 18 staff providing customer services elsewhere in the Enquiry Centre.

B. Staff Requirements
The Phone Centre requires a supervisor who will: schedule the rotation; institute and monitor quality control; monitor call volumes and wait times; develop innovations to further improve

service; evaluate and meet training needs and evaluate the overall operation with a view to making recommendations on the staffing complement. Space planning constraints have resulted in the Phone Centre being located on a different floor from the main Enquiry Centre; therefore, the need for a supervisor is even stronger.

A member of staff seconded to the DBR project is to fulfill the role of Phone Centre supervisor for the first few months of start-up, training and operation, before returning to other duties in the Planning Department. However, a regular full time position of PhoneCentre supervisor will be required, commencing May 2001, to assume these responsibilities. Subject to classification, it is estimated that this position will cost approximately $50,000 on an annual basis.

In addition, one clerical position needed for the Enquiry Centre is 71% of a regular full-time position. This position needs to be increased to a regular full time position. This will incur an additional annual cost of $10,800.

The total cost for the Phone Centre is $60,800.

5. The Enquiry Centre - TIPS

A. Function
When relocating or expanding, most businesses require a building permit (or Tenant Improvement Permit) for improvements they wish to undertake to the ‘new’ premises. While these permits are distinct, they have traditionally been processed by staff also dealing with one- and two-family dwellings. This has posed unnecessary delays for tenant improvement applicants who could be served much more quickly if separated from applications requiring more time and a higher level of technical skills for processing.

B. Staff requirements
Currently, about 800-1000 TIPS applications are processed per year, with an average turnaround time of one week. Staff estimate that by instituting an independent process for TIPS, processing time will decrease to one to two days. To improve service in this manner, two new positions are required, although one will be funded through an existing vacancy. At any one time, one position would be devoted exclusively to processing TIPS applications and one would be rotating through the Phone Centre. While at the Phone Centre, the staff person in the other position will continue processing TIPS applications when not busy. This

is possible as TIPS applications can be processed electronically. The staff in these positions would provide back-up to one another for each of these functions. A preliminary review suggests the TIPS position will be classified as a Clerk IV.

The total cost of resourcing TIPS is $39,800. The total cost of 2.3 requested positions for the Enquiry Centre is $100,600.

6. Subdivision and Strata

A. Function
The Subdivision and Strata Group processes all subdivision and strata title applications to the City. In the case of Subdivision, these are comprised of lane dedications through to the most complex air space and mega-project applications. In the case of Strata Title, these are comprised of conversions of previously occupied buildings as well as bare land and phased strata applications. The group also processes applications to amend the Subdivision By-Law and handles public enquiries on project viability.

B. Staff Requirements
The Subdivision & Strata Group deficiency is a consequence of the Subdivision & Strata Coordinator having been a successful candidate for one of the Project Facilitator positions, thereby eliminating the original Coordinator position to create and pay for the Facilitator position. The same thing was done for the other PF positions in order to have no net increase in staff as per the original intent of DBR. Unfortunately, the Subdivision & Strata Coordinator position was the most senior of only three staff positions in this specialized area. This small work group simply cannot function with the loss of one-third of its resources, particularly the most senior position which also had supervisory, monitoring, coaching and quality control responsibilities for the group.

In order to maintain an adequate level of service to subdivision and strata conversion customers, the replacement of the position of Subdivision & Strata Coordinator is recommended. This position has an annual cost of $57,700.

7. Project Facilitator and Project Assistant

A. Function

Project Facilitators manage the most complex development and building proposals. They are the primary contact for the customer, the community and City review groups and have overall responsibility for managing these projects, ensuring that all required approvals are coordinated.

The Project Assistant assists the Project Facilitators.

B. Staff Requirements
There were numerous candidates for the four Project Facilitator positions posted in March but only three were appointed. The former positions of the three successful candidates were subsequently re-classified to Project Facilitators. The fourth Project Facilitator will be recruited shortly, however staff recommend that this position be created in the normal manner, rather than post a “position” that is dependent on re-classification of the successfulcandidate’s existing position. This approach avoids abuse of the re-classification mechanism and provides the flexibility of eliminating a successful candidate’s former position as an off-set.

The Project Facilitator would cost $68,200 on an annual basis.

From the early days of the “Pilot” prototype, Project Facilitators have been assisted by a seconded Clerk who arranges and minutes Project Team meetings and public meetings. As the Facilitators have taken on more projects and more public involvement, this position has become increasingly critical to the efficiency of the PFs.

Subject to final classification, it is anticipated that this position will cost $39,800.

The total cost of the two requested positions is $108,000.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The total annual cost (without offset) of all the permanent positions requested is $637,400. With offset, the ongoing cost will be $501,400. In addition, at this time the position of supervisor of PC 1s is temporary and is being requested for a period of twelve months spanning 2000-2001, at a cost of $57,700. The need for this position on an ongoing basis will be evaluated during the first half of next year and if it is deemed to be required on a permanent basis, staff will report back to Council after the evaluation period.

It is recommended that Council approve all the requested positions at this time. However, staff are aware that the total cost is significant and are also recommending a phased approach to funding the positions, with two thirds of the positions funded this year and the remaining positions beginning next year. The total resource needs requested, along with suggested phasing, are shown in the table on the following page.

Funding

A. The year 2000
If Council were to approve the positions recommended, the cost of nine of these for a period of four months this year (September to the end of the year) would be approximately $79,000. One time costs of $56,000 would also be required for computers, software, licenses, phones/voice mail and initial office supplies. Staff are proposing that these costs be funded through the use of a portion of the increased revenue (over budgeted increase) from Development and Building permits. In 1999, revenues from these permits were $1 million over target. As aresult, staff increased the budget by $600,000 for the year 2000. This year, if the trend indicated by January-June figures continues, we will be $475,000 over the increased budget.

In 1998, Council approved a 10% increase in permit fees to cover Information Technology and renovation costs. This fee increase has not been implemented. A lesser increase will be proposed in a forthcoming report on Information Technology.

B. Ongoing Funding
It is anticipated that the trend to increased volume in development and building activity will continue. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports that total housing starts displayed an increase of 83% in April, 2000 compared to the same month last year. For January to May, our own Building Permit statistics indicate an increase of 33% in total project value over the same time period last year. Information from people in the industry suggest that this increase in activity will remain for some time.

Staff recommend that the permit revenue increase continue to be applied to the increased staff cost on an on-going basis. Staff expect that the staff increase costs will be cost-recovered through increased fee revenue (over budget). However, a fall back strategy is to use a combination of revenue over budget, fee increases to Development and Building permits (a 1% increase in fees for these permits equals approximately $70,000) and new fees. Staff will be reporting by the end of the year on potential new fees to be applied to project scoping, project facilitation and perhaps some types of community involvement costs.

While an increase in fees is not proposed at this time for this purpose, staff have heard from the development industry many times that even a significant permit fee increase is not an issue, as long as processing time is reduced. Holding costs for even a short delay far outweigh permit fees. Staff strongly believe that processing times will be reduced, as outlined in Appendix A, with the addition of staff. Further, success in achieving these specific processing times targets will be monitored and regularly reported.

Figure 1
Summary of Requested Positions and Associated Costs

Location	Position	Annual Cost	2000 Cost	2001 Cost	2002 Cost (ongoing)
Processing Centre - Bldg.	PC 3	$ 57,700		$ 57,700	$ 57,700
Processing Centre - Bldg.	PC 2	$ 50,900	$ 16,967	$ 50,900	$ 50,900
Processing Centre - Bldg.	PC 2	$ 50,900		$ 50,900	$ 50,900
Processing Centre - Bldg.	PC 1	$ 46,900	$ 15,634	$ 46,900	$ 46,900
Processing Centre - Bldg.	Clerk 2	$ 33,900		$ 33,900	$ 33,900
Total -Proc. Cntr. - Bldg	5	$240,300	$32,601	$240,300	$240,300
Processing Centre - PC Is	PC 1 Sup.	$ 57,700	$ 19,234	$ 38,466	$ 0
Total - PC 1s	1 (temp)	$ 57,700	$ 19,234	$ 38,466	$ 0
UDDPC	Planner 1	$ 62,600		$ 62,600	$ 62,600
UDDPC	Planner 2	$ 68,200	$ 22,734	$ 68,200	$ 68,200
Total - UDDPC	2	$ 130,800	$ 22,734	$130,800	$130,800
Enquiry Centre	Phone Centre Sup.	$ 50,000		$ 33,334 May 1 start	$ 50,000
Enquiry Centre	TIPS clerk	$ 39,800	$ 13,267	$ 39,800	$ 39,800
Enquiry Centre	Clerk 2 - P/T to F/T	$ 10,800	$ 3,600	$10,800	$10,800
Total - Enquiry Centre	2.3	$100,600	$ 16,867	$ 83,934	$100,600
Development Services	Sub& Strata Coord.	$ 57,700	$ 19,234	$ 57,700	$ 57,700
Development Services	Proj. Facilitator	$ 68,200		$ 68,200	$ 68,200
Development Services	Proj. Asst.	$ 39,800	$ 13,267	$ 39,800	$ 39,800
Total - Dev. Serv., General	3	$165,700	$ 32,501	$165,700	$165,700
TOTAL (Gross)		$695,100	$123,933	$659,200	$637,400
Total Offsets			$ 44,900	$136,000	$136,000
TOTAL (Net)			$ 79,033	$523,200	$501,400

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

Numerous Development and Building permit approval process improvements have now been implemented or are underway. These are outlined in the companion report “Development and Building Review - Implementation Progress and Next Steps”. Staff have concluded that to fully implement the new permitting process, to reduce various processing times and to achieve the envisioned improvement in customer service, additional staff are required. These additional staff are, in some cases, required to handle both the existing workload and additional “up front” tasks required by the new process.

Staff are recommending approval of positions in the Processing Centre (both Building and the Project Coordinator 1 stream); the Urban Design and Development Planning Centre; the Enquiry Centre; Subdivision and Strata and Project Facilitation. The ongoing costs will approximate $501,000, to be phased over this year and next, with funding from the existing and anticipated increased revenue from Development and Building Permit fees.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A - ANTICIPATED IMPACT OF REQUESTED STAFF RESOURCES