ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: July 9, 2001
Author/Local: CWarren/6033

RTS No. 02157

CC File No. 1365

Council: July 24, 2001

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of Development Services
SUBJECT:	Development Services Permit Processing - Update

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council approve the temporary Project Coordinator1 Supervisory position as a permanent full-time position at an annual cost of $57,700. Source of funds is increased Development and Building Permit revenue.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.

COUNCIL POLICY

All changes in level of service must be reported to Council.

SUMMARY

Improvements to Development and Building application review processes are proceeding well, with substantial reductions in some processing times as a result of staff positions approved by Council in July of 2000, even with the increase in permit application volumes since last year.

Development Services has experienced a significant rate of staff movement in terms of recruitment for new positions and promotions with almost 50% of DS staff doing work that is new to them since the summer of last year. One of the highest turnover rates has been experienced in the work group which processes 1- and 2-family dwelling applications. Last year, the position of Supervisor of this group was recommended as a temporary position for one year with a report back on whether it would be required as a permanent position. It is now recommended that this position become permanent full-time.

While processing time reductions are important to our customers, so is good service. Development Services continues to identify and implement changes which will improve that service.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the status of permit processing and the progress of the systemic changes approved through the DBR process. It also recommends that Council approve the change of a temporary supervisory position to full time.

BACKGROUND

Council has received numerous reports on the Development and Building Review - one of the key projects of the Better City Government initiative. Most recently, Council received a report last summer outlining the need for the staff necessary to improve customer service and processing times. In March a brief update was provided. The following is a fuller discussion of improvements to permit processing systems and an accounting of staff progress toward the goal of reduction in permit processing times.

DISCUSSION

1. Processing Times: In the July, 2000 report to Council, it was indicated that with an increase in Development Services and Planning Department staff, staff would be in a much better position to decrease permit processing times. It was also indicated that a tracking system would be put in place which would regularize the measurement of processing times. The tracking system will officially be implemented in mid-July. However, data extraction from "test runs" are helpful in giving us a good sense of current status. Overall, the data indicates improvement. While there are still some areas of concern, these are largely due to some staffing issues which will be described later in this report. Following is a summary of changes to processing times and other statistics which may be of interest to Council.

Permit Type	Anticipated Processing Time Change	Actual Processing Time Change
Development Permit "majors" which go to the Development Permit Board for Decision	from 14-16 weeks to 10-12 weeks (intake to DPB decision)	10-13 weeks
Development Permit "minors" -decision by the Director of Planning authority (including 1 & 2 Family dwellings - conditional use)	from 8-12 weeks to 8-10 weeks	20% better than target 49% within target 31% not meeting target
Building Permits	wait time (until staff begin a comprehensive review of the application) from 7-9 weeks to 4-5 weeks	wait time is 4-5 weeks
1&2 Family dwellings (outright use)	no target was indicated in the July, 2000 Council report	1.5-3 weeks for "easy" houses 5 weeks for "difficult" houses
TIPS (Tenant Improvement Permits)	1-2 days to 1 week	1-2 days

Phone Centre: Last year's report also indicated an anticipated improvement in customer service over the telephone through the implementation of the Development Services "Phone Centre". It was indicated that staff hoped to decrease the wait times that callers experienced before speaking to a staff person. We have measured call volumes, wait times and abandonment rates. Following are the statistics (a monthly average) from comparable time periods in 2000 and 2001.

2000 % calls abandoned = 52% Longest call wait = 35 minutes
2001 % calls abandoned = 10% Longest call wait = 4.3 minutes

Application volume: Staff indicate that Building Permit applications for January -May have increased by almost 10% over the same period in 2000, Development applications by 16% and Minor Amendments by 30%.

2. Staffing: Last year Council approved a number of new positions for permit processing. Filling these positions has taken some time for the following reasons: job action and the hiring process; new vacancies being created as a result of internal hiring; not being able to immediately let staff go to new positions due to work pressure in their previous positions; and the intensive training required for new staff. It has been calculated that close to 50% of all Development Services staff are in a position new to them since the summer of last year.

Along with the increasing volume in development and building activity noted in 1. above the staffing issues outlined above are the main reason for us not having reached some of the targets as quickly as anticipated.

We predict, with some caution, that the worst is over in terms of turnover, that the workforce will now begin to stabilize and there will be a reduction in processing times which have not yet met the targets established last year.

3. PC1 Supervisor: The PC1s are Project Coordinators who process plans for one and two family dwellings - both "conditional" and "outright". There are fourteen positions which do this work in the Processing Centre. Of these, eleven are held by people new since the end of last summer. And of these eleven, eight are brand new to the City.

Not only do these people check plans, three people at any one time "rotate" into the Enquiry Centre to work on over-the-counter permits and two rotate into the Enquiry Centre to do Sign Permits (8 month rotation). In addition, the work on "conditional" houses is substantially different from "outright" houses and because we wish to develop a large pool of Project Coordinators who are able to process both outright and conditional applications, there is an internal rotation between these two components of processing. The PC1 position is the entry level technical position and as a result, this area typically experiences constant staff turnover as people move into more senior positions elsewhere in the organization.

In the report to Council last year, the position which supervises these staff was requested for one year on a temporary basis, the temporary status to be evaluated by the Processing Centre Co-Managers (one managing the development application processing and the other, building permit applications). The temporary nature of the PC1 Supervisor reflected a possibility that within one year the Co-Managers might assume direct responsibility for the PC1s. However, the Co-Managers are directly supervising 34 staff and are responsible for receiving and assigning all the non-over-the-counter Development and Building Permits entering the City. They handle, respectively, many of the decision-making responsibilities of the Director of Planning authority and the authority of the Chief Building Official. In short, it just would not be possible for the Co-Managers to do the work around recruitment, training, scheduling, liaison with the Enquiry Centre, liaison with customers and daily supervising which is the responsibility of the PC1 Supervisor.

Therefore, it is recommended that Council approve the PC1 Supervisor becoming a permanent full-time position. The annual cost of this position is $57,700 and will be funded - as it was in this past year - from increased revenue from Development and Building permits.

4. Process Improvements: While it is important to monitor and improve on permit processing times - time being very important to most of our customers - it is also importantto always look for ways to improve the service being provided. A brief listing is provided below of some of the process improvements underway, both large and small, and both suggested by the DBR process and identified by Development Services as it has progressed along the path of change implementation.

a) Project Facilitation: Project Facilitation is an area of continuous improvement where staff are constantly working together to shape the role of the Project Facilitator (PF) to best match the needs of applicants, the community and the process. For instance, a recent decision has the PFs more involved in public notification and in the coordination of reports to the Development Permit Board. There are many reports from customers letting us know that Project Facilitation is one of the main highlights of the new process. Even though PFs are not meant to "expedite" projects, they provide a single point of contact for the customer, broker the system, manage time lines and identify and resolve conflicts, all of which are valuable services. The four PFs are currently working with about 45 projects.

b) Project Scoping: The two Project Scopers have "scoped" 60 inquiries this year. The value of the scoping function and indeed, of the whole pre-application process, is becoming much more broadly understood. The fact is, that the more comprehensive the pre-application process, the more likely it is that deadlines will be met, the number of conditions of approval will be decreased, the less likely "late hits" will exist and the more smoothly the review process will run. It also reduces the likelihood of applicants pursuing projects that are just not viable.

c) Fast Tracking: There are fast track systems now in place for both minor Development Permits and Building Permits. For Development Permits, the intent is to take minor applications out of the mainstream and assign them to one person who will process them more quickly than they would have been otherwise. This has had significant success, with the average processing time of these applications being 6-8 weeks instead of 10-12 weeks. It is unfortunate that the staff person doing this work has now taken a promotion and moved to our Enquiry Centre, so this work will have to be distributed to other staff. However, the momentum will be regained when a new fast track specialist can be assigned and relieved of their current workload.

There are two types of fast tracking processes for existing buildings, both of which are restricted to less complicated Building Permit applications. One of these processes requires that the application be split into two separate Building Permit applications where Inspection staff and Building staff are assigned their respective component for the project and review the two permits concurrently. This process represents a joint relationship between Building and Building Inspections staff and results in speedier application review and decision-making.

The other process is for projects which are sufficiently complex to require a complete Building staff review, but do not require the involvement of many other review groups. In these cases, Building and Inspections staff will jointly review the project in the field and limit the office review to issues which cannot be handled in the field.

d) PC1 Teaming: As mentioned earlier in this report, it is the goal to have all the PC1s able to process both outright and conditional house applications. To this end, all staff are receiving training on the critical foundation of technical plan checking. Then as the rotational schedule allows, staff begin working together to develop an understanding of the "conditional" review process which involves public notification and other processes. This teaming will become easier to implement as the PC1 workforce stabilizes. A related goal, which can be realized as all staff develop skills in both areas, is to issue "combined" Development/Building permits (DB) with one review process instead of two permits reviewed sequentially. As this becomes a reality, those applicants requiring approval will receive permits in substantially less time.

e) DE/BU Integration: The integration of Development and Building reviews is proceeding well on a variety of levels: the PC1 teaming as identified above; integration at the Enquiry Centre which is described later; and at the level of reviewing more complex permit applications. At this level, Development staff review Building Permit applications, which have a related Development Permit, to ensure that the Building drawings are commensurate with what has been approved. Building staff review Development Permit applications to identify problems which might come up later in the process when an applicant applies for a Building Permit. The most striking issues are found in the latter process where Building staff, on several occasions, have identified critical problems which would have become significant "late hits" had they not been identified at the Development application stage. These up-front reviews are more extensive for major applications, but are now being done for most Development applications. Customers have generally been very appreciative of the information.

f) Information Regarding Processing Times: One of the first questions asked by most customers is "How long will it take?". To standardize information provided to staff and subsequently to customers, we have implemented a monthly listing of target processing times which will be provided to all staff at the beginning of each month. This will avoid circumstances where customers are told two or three different times at different stages of their application process. Most people can appreciate that things take time, but they don't like to be surprised by longer times than were originally indicated.

g) Highlights Checklists: One of the key reasons for the new permitting process was that the system and the staff within it did not acknowledge that every approval process is part of a larger whole which extends from enquiry to occupancy. There are many changes which are addressing the compartmentalization of staff and processes and one of these is the notion of improving the "hand-off" from one approval process to another. To help with these hand-offs, a list of highlights from both the Development to Building stages and then from the Building to the Inspection stage has been instituted. Each of these lists will identify those critical components of the project - other than those clearly identified on permits - which are necessary for the next group of staff incorporate into their review. In addition, Project Scopers have developed protocols with Rezoning staff to ensure that conditions of rezoning are borne in mind throughout the remaining stages of the project approval process.

h) Development Permit Board Review Process: While we are close to target regarding processing times for Development Permit "major" projects, the review process can be very difficult. Staff in Development Services and in Planning are in the process of reviewing this work and will be making substantial changes in a variety of areas including: the pre-application process; adherence to submission requirements; milestones within the overall time line; partnerships between staff and among review groups and use of the Development Permit Staff Committee. It is hoped that many of the changes implemented at this level will also be helpful to the review process for Development Permit "minor" projects.

i) Information Centre in the Enquiry Centre: Part of the original DBR plan was to include a self-help/information/library centre in the Enquiry Centre. At the beginning of this year, the Information Centre started collecting data regarding from whom, and by what means, information is being requested. Over the first five months of this year, over 400 information requests have come through the Information Centre. Of these, about 75% were from the public and of these, about 20% of the requests required measurable research. The brief queries generally have to do with demographic information (often local area-based) and the research requests tend to come from students and other cities wanting background information on a certain topic such as the Downtown Eastside, transit and the like.

j) Concierge in the Enquiry Centre: One of the positions envisaged by the Enquiry Centre design team was that of Concierge. On a rotational basis, one of the Enquiry Centre Officers meets applicants as they come into the Enquiry Centre. They address issues or questions which can be dealt with quickly or direct customers to the self-help area or other City staffs. If time allows, which it usually doesn't, they will process over-the-counter applications. The concierge function reduces the wait times for many customers and frees up the time of other Enquiry Centre Officers to do the full reviews necessary for many customers.

k) Training in the Enquiry Centre: Before Development Services amalgamated staff from Planning and Permits and Licenses (P&L), there were "Screeners" in P&L who answered Building enquiries and undertook reviews of simple building permit applications and there were Development Information Officers in Planning who offered Zoning advice and reviewed minor development applications. These groups are now integrated in the Enquiry Centre and the staff are referred to as Enquiry Centre Officers (ECO). The ultimate goal of this integration is for all of these staff to be able to provide a full range of both zoning and building advice and application review, including increasing the number of applications which can be issued over-the-counter. To this end, the ECOs are engaged in an accelerated group cross-training program. This is all facilitated by other elements such as the phone centre and the concierge position.

l) Expert Group Contact: The Enquiry Centre design team also identified the need for better coordination and protocols with expert advisory groups - the idea being that these groups would be reachable either by phone or in person while a customer was being served. As we implement this part of the process, we are able to identify elements of the system which require further work to improve service.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Council report last year indicated that the cost of new positions would be funded by increased revenue from Development and Building permits. We have identified this same source of funds for the continuation of the PC1 Supervisor position. As we predicted, revenues are in excess of budget and in fact, have been higher each month in 2001 than has been typical for these same months over the last few years.

CONCLUSION

Many of the changes to permit processing which were envisaged by the Development and Building Review are now well underway, as are many other improvements which have been identified by staff or through discussions with customers. Recruitment is now complete forall the new positions approved by Council last year and overall processing times have been reduced. Areas for further improvement have been identified and are priorities for Development Services management as the process of change implementation continues.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver