SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 1(b)
CS&B AGENDA
APRIL 10, 1997
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: March 27, 199
Dept. File No. PAK971
C.C. File No. 2501-1
TO: Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets
FROM: Service Improvement Manager and Rezoning, Permitting &
Inspections Team
SUBJECT: Development and Building Regulation Review
Rezoning, Permitting & Inspections Redesign
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT Council approve funding to develop and implement a
prototype for the first phase (1997) of a new rezoning,
permitting and inspections process at a cost of $750,000 with
a loan from the Service Improvement Reserve, repayable to the
satisfaction of the Director of Finance. (The total cost to
fully implement a successful prototype is currently estimated
to be $6.5 million and will be brought forward to Council for
approval at the conclusion of each phase of implementation.)
Repayments will be generated through a future one time
estimated 10% increase in permitting fees.
B. THAT Council approve a two year extension to the existing
contract for the Service Improvement Manager to oversee the
implementation of the Review and other service improvement
initiatives in the Community Services Group. Funding in the
amount of $40,000 is required for 1997 from the Strategic
Initiative Fund.
C. THAT Council accept and allocate to the Development & Building
Regulation Review, a $10,000 ACT grant from Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation to improve the efficiency of the
inspection process.
D. THAT Council authorize the Development & Building Regulation
Review (DBRR) Team to identify requirements for systems that
will support the new process and begin the search for new
technology. Funding required for the search is included in
Recommendation A.
E. THAT the General Manager of Community Services report back to
Council at the conclusion of the first phase of prototype,
estimated to be in early 1998, with measurements of expected
outcomes and an updated implementation schedule.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services is anxious to see a newly
implemented Rezoning, Permitting & Inspection process and RECOMMENDS the
foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
Council has approved a number of resolutions authorizing the Better City
Government Program.
All changes in level of service are to be reported to Council.
SUMMARY
The Rezoning, Permitting and Inspections Redesign, part of the Better
City Government Development and Building Regulation review process, is
ready to proceed to implementation. This report describes the core
principles of the newly designed process, a program for developing and
refining a prototype of the new process and a process to move from the
prototype to full implementation with supporting technology. The intent
is to preserve what works well in our existing processes, (e.g.,
single-family outright, trades and other over-the-counter permits,
inspections and some aspects of complex projects). The changes will
facilitate the processing of more complex projects, including medium
density developments and small home owner renovations. The new process
is based on teaming and early involvement of all participants in the
process, including the applicant, the community and staff. Strategies
for improving community involvement and obtaining a better linkage
between permitting and policy development are integral to the new
process.
The DBRR team anticipates a 25% reduction in processing time for complex
projects and a 10% reduction for simpler projects. In complex projects,
better initial understanding of the needs of the community, development
industry and City will create time savings at each stage of processing.
All projects will have reductions in processing time gained from
technology. The new process and systems will be implemented over the
next three years. The prototype will initially operate on the existing
computer system and some new technology will be added in Phase 2.
Additional technology will be added as implementation progresses and
systems migration will be complete at full implementation.
Council will receive reports which assess each phase of implementation
and request authorization to proceed to the next phase. The total cost
to develop the prototype and fully implement the new process, including
workspace renovation and information technology, is estimated at $6.5
million. Costs will be recovered through a one time future increase in
fees (currently estimated to be 10%) and will be reported to Council
when benefits from the new process can be realized, estimated late 1998.
BACKGROUND
In May, 1995, Council approved a work program for Better City
Government. The program consists of fifteen process reviews which, on
completion of implementation, are expected to bring significant
improvements in service and effectiveness. The Development and Building
Regulation process was identified as the top priority. It impacts the
community, home owners and industry alike. The scope of Development and
Building Regulation ranges from developing by-laws to issuing occupancy
permits and involves over 300 staff.
Because of the size and complexity of the Development and Building
Regulation process, an initial review was undertaken in early 1996 to
comprehensively assess the existing situation and recommend an approach
for redesign. The review team received input from focus groups held
with the community, industry and staff. During the review it became
apparent that no one person knew the entire process from beginning to
end and that the applicant was responsible for taking a project through
the maze of approvals. At the conclusion of the review, the following
sub-processes were identified for redesign:
rezoning and permitting,
inspections,
enforcement,
the process of developing policy/regulations and code, and
the content of regulations and code.
After much debate, the team recommended beginning redesign with rezoning
and permitting (including subdivision, strata title and appeals). This
was chosen because it would benefit all process participants and it
would most quickly reduce the overall processing time of applications,
making available the time required to review policy, regulation and
code. Further, the team wanted to integrate the regulation and code
process work with the Public Involvement review as it would facilitate
the regulation and code content review.
The redesign of rezoning and permitting began in June, 1996. A common
concern was that everyone wanted more involvement in the redesign
process. The design team held a conference in September, 1996, and
invited 250 participants from the community, industry and staff to help
identify some fundamental principles for a new process. The team worked
with the ideas generated from the conference to develop a vision, which
is the basis of the conceptual model that is presented in this report.
The inspections redesign started in October, 1996. Both teams
benchmarked activities in other cities to identify best practices for
consideration in the new Vancouver design. They also issued a joint
Request For Information for new technology and identified some human
resource requirements for the new process. The teams are now ready to
develop a prototype.
DISCUSSION
A Process for Change
The Community Services Group is involved in many change projects.
Development and Building Regulation, Regulation of Business and Property
Use and Public Involvement are three review projects in the Better City
Government program. In addition, CityPlan is in implementation; DOMINO,
the new document management system, is now doing backfile conversion;
QUICKFIND, an intranet information system is in development; and support
service functions are being consolidated for all Community Services
departments. We are also encouraging staff to introduce smaller scale
improvements that will help immediately while the larger reviews are in
progress. These activities are taking place concurrently and create
tension between the day-to-day workload and service improvement. This
amount of change creates stress and uncertainty for staff. It is
important to keep the pace of change at a sustainable level,
particularly with increasing budget pressures. Because the scope of the
Development and Building Regulation Review and the number of other
projects are extensive, work will be phased.
This incremental approach to change is deliberate and requires an
ongoing commitment from everyone involved. Other departments, including
Engineering, Fire and Law, will continue to play roles in the process.
Changes will be introduced after testing to ensure the links between
different process parts and participants are not lost and that we bring
forward solutions that do not create new problems. The existing process
was developed over a number of decades, each piece for good reason, and
it will take time to implement the new process in its entirety. There
will be changes in process, technology and the way we do our work. Each
of these areas will require planning and training for over 300 staff in
Community Services and approximately 100 staff in other departments who
interact regularly with the Development and Building process. We need
to manage the changes with sensitivity and be respectful of staff,
industry and the community as we proceed.
Current State
Some parts of the existing process work well, but it can take as long as
four years for a development to go through the entire rezoning,
permitting and inspections process. Typical cycle times are:
Rezonings range from four to twenty-six months,
Subdivision and strata title conversions range from five to eight
months,
Major Development Permits range from six to ten months,
Building Permits range from two days for single-family outright to
as much as a year for larger projects,
Trade Permits not requiring plan check are issued over the counter
and
Inspections are normally completed within twenty-four hours of
request.
Times vary for a number of reasons. Sometimes the applicant needs to
adjust timing on a project, sometimes internal processing is
inefficient, sometimes public process takes additional time and often
the volumes create backlogs. In 1996 staff processed 40 privately
initiated rezonings, 1,200 Development Permits, 4,100 Building Permits,
22,000 Trade Permits and completed 112,000 inspections.
The existing process can be overwhelming, confusing and cumbersome to
applicants, the community and staff. Regulations and codes are
increasingly complex and contradictory which makes consistent
interpretation and application difficult throughout the process. There
is little concurrent processing and the work done by different
departments on different sets of plans is difficult to coordinate. The
existing computer systems, with the exception of DOMINO, are slow and
outdated. An inordinate amount of time is spent on data entry and even
more on data retrieval. In addition to complaints about processing
times and regulation, customers and staff find it difficult to obtain
required information in a timely manner.
With these constraints, staff are under heavy pressure to do quality
work. The expanded scope of permissions combined with high volumes of
applications has not afforded staff or their supervisors/managers an
opportunity to participate in training. As a result, there is no
consistent level of knowledge across the process which requires
increased managerial involvement at a detailed level.
Some parts of the existing process are dysfunctional. Applicants submit
incomplete plans just to gain a spot in the queue. Staff stop processing
in order to respond to queue inquiries and have to continually restart
projects. Staff review project plans that may have been superceded. The
applicant may have to redo plans many times. Some applicants survey
staff to get an easier solution. Late involvement by the community or
lack of knowledge of site specific policy considerations also can
protract processing schedules. This situation is frustrating and
unacceptable to everyone.
A New Vision for Rezoning, Permitting and Inspections
The redesign team combined the information obtained from the assessment
phase and the benchmarking exercises with the output of the September
conference and developed a conceptual model. The new process attempts
to recognize and balance the needs of the community, industry and the
City in the processing of any project. The initial focus is to gain a
shared understanding of the specific needs of each participant group,
identify opportunities and options, and reach a conceptual decision
about the feasibility of a project. Once approved at the concept level,
the focus shifts to facilitate the application quickly through necessary
approvals.
The model has six components and is presented graphically in Schedule A:
education,
enquiry,
simple stream (up to 10 day projects),
complex stream (longer than 10 day projects),
inspections and
feedback.
The Education process is intended for both staff and the public. In
order for the entire process to work, staff need to have a good overall
understanding of the process, the regulations and changes that occur.
There is also a need to provide similar information, in an easy to
understand form, to industry, the home owner and the community.
Applicants enter the process at Enquiry. Enquiry staff will make an
initial assessment and direct the applicant to the "Help Centre" for
assistance or to either the Simple or Complex stream to begin
processing. The "Help Centre", through self help and/or trained staff,
will assist inexperienced applicants to understand requirements specific
to their project and will provide general information about the process
and regulations to the community. It will also provide updated
technical material for experienced applicants.
Once in either the Simple or Complex stream, a project facilitator will
be assigned responsibility for the project until completion. This
ensures that the applicant has a primary contact throughout the project
and that processing of all required approvals is coordinated. The
facilitator will assemble a project team to identify issues and seek
timely resolution. The aim is to gradually move as many projects as
possible into the Simple stream.
When a project proceeds to Inspections, the inspector will be able to
ensure compliance with the overall project goals because of earlier
participation in the project team. The vision anticipates most
inspection work in the field, including data entry and ultimately
inspection reports will be issued on site. Less office time is
anticipated.
Once a project is completed, a Feedback evaluation will assess the
performance of the overall process. This will identify needed
improvements such as refinements to the process, regulations or codes,
or staff and customer training programs. It will also give us an
opportunity to recognize excellence, quality and innovation and inform
policy discussions.
Technology plays an integral part in all parts of the vision. Some
examples of possible uses of technology include:
assistance in initial streaming, staff scheduling, project
tracking/management and workflow,
confirmation of project requirements,
remote access to by-laws, bulletins and development activity,
calculation of technical measures,
analysis of feedback on key performance indicators, and
statistics on enquiries for input to the Education process.
The better we are able to integrate technology systems and process
applications concurrently, the more able we are to reduce cycle times.
The team has confidence that the new process will work and is excited to
address in detail concerns about the nature and extent of community
input, to define processing sectors, to develop efficient teaming and to
begin work on the prototype.
Expected Outcomes 2
Our goal is to radically improve the way we do business, emphasizing
service, quality and an efficient, equitable process. We intend to
maintain our quality and safety standards and also improve timeliness,
consistency and predictability in permitting and promote compliance in
inspections. The philosophy that processes be tailored, as much as
possible, to fit the applicant's project time line and that a
facilitated team manages the project throughout the process will assist
in attaining the goal. Early identification of significant issues,
coordination of processing and timely resolution of issues also work
towards the goal.
We project we can reduce cycle times by approximately 25% in the complex
stream and 10% in the simple stream. Through earlier resolution of
issues we will get better predictability for the remainder of the
process, reduce the amount of rework and consequently reduce cycle
times.
We want to build a strong link between policy and permitting to better
execute policy intention. Involving processing staff in the
neighbourhood visions and consultation process will better test policy
and strengthen the link. We also want to encourage compliance by better
communicating our requirements. We think this will ultimately reduce
disputes and plan review time.
The new process will identify appropriate ways to engage the community
to achieve a better understanding of local and city-wide factors that
are considered in permitting decisions. Staff will have a better
understanding of more localized community issues and will work to ensure
these are acknowledged in the process. A conflict resolution process
will be developed to help work out issues before they are elevated to
more formalized appeal bodies. This forces better accountability for
all participants.
Measurement
We need to measure these outcomes as we build the prototype in order to
assess and adjust the process and also to determine the appropriate
level of service for the new process and fluctuating volumes.
We will be very specific in measuring cycle times from intake through
permit issuance and occupancy. We will separate processing time from
time in the queue to determine precisely where the new process is having
impact when compared to the existing process. We will report results in
relation to the established 25% and 10% targets. We will specify where
and how resources are reallocated as the reductions in cycle times are
achieved.
We have a number of indicators which will measure consistency, fairness,
predictability and community involvement. They include the nature and
number of appeals, equivalencies, and complaints. We will also perform
post issuance and occupancy surveys, as part of the Feedback process.
We will report these results, initially as a trend, but will determine
specific targets in phase 1 prototyping.
We will measure compliance and the effects of the Education process in
terms of nature and number of inquiries, use of educational materials,
rejects and rework performed in plan review, inspection recalls and stop
work orders issued. These measurements will also be reported as trends
and targets will be established in phase 1 prototyping.
It will be more difficult to measure the linkage between policy and
permitting, quality development and safe building in the short term. In
the longer term we will be able to measure the turnaround time from
identifying a problem in permitting to making an adjustment in policy.
We will work to establish meaningful measures for quality and safety in
more detail when we begin to examine regulations and codes.
Prototyping
We are at a critical point in the overall redesign process. The volume
and range in complexity in projects coupled with our existing
regulations raises the need for careful implementation planning. The
prototype needs to test and measure the effectiveness of all of our
permissions against the current process and against the overall project
goals.
It is important for managers to assist with the development of the
prototype, transition and implementation, as they will be accountable
for the new process. The work program ahead will involve the
development of step by step procedures manuals and training programs for
the new process, development of systems requirements for technology,
development of community involvement strategies, development of the
Education and Feedback components, and development of work space
solutions.
Phase 1 of prototyping will involve preparation, testing and finally
processing actual permits through the new system starting in the fall,
1997. In preparation, a number of logistical issues including approach
and location will be decided. First we will establish "what, when and
where" to begin, then we will build and test the new process against
permits that have already been issued. Concurrently, we will identify
technology and space requirements for current and future phasing. It is
important to have an identifiable, dedicated workspace for the prototype
to help establish the new model and facilitate learning. The
application volumes will initially be low, but will increase as learning
takes place. We will measure the outcomes of this phase and report them
to Council in early 1998.
Phase 2 of prototyping will begin early in 1998 and will introduce
limited new technology to the process. Technology will enable the
process to be much better integrated and will provide the ability to
achieve full reductions in processing time. It is important to begin
the systems acquisition process now to enable an initial implementation
for 1998. Recommendations for new technology and support will be
reported separately to Council. By mid-1998 we aim to process 20% of all
permits in the new process and on new technology. The team will report
back to Council the actual results of prototyping with some technology
in mid-1998, prior to proceeding to full implementation.
Once the prototype runs successfully with the limited new technology, we
plan to expand participation in the new process. We aim to have 50% of
all permits in the new system by the end of 1998. When we have attained
50% participation, we will request Council's approval to introduce a fee
increase for those benefitting from the new process. At the same time
we will continue to introduce and integrate more computer technology.
We will also need to continue renovations to the workspace to
accommodate expanded participation in the new system.
We plan to have 100% participation, fully integrated technology and the
final stage of renovations completed by the end of 1999. The technology
component will, at full implementation, integrate systems including work
flow, project management, file management and remote access. It will
also interface with the many new corporate systems, including the
financial system and Geographic Information System. There are a number
of technology projects in progress and staff resources in Information
Technology are stretched. The cost to fully implement technology is
currently estimated at $4 million. Complete renovation costs are
estimated at $1 million.
This timing is aggressive in comparison to our past experience and
recent experiences in other cities. San Diego has been working on a
similar project for more than four years and implementation is not yet
complete. Thus it is important to focus our attention and move as
quickly as possible in implementation, maintaining momentum for the
project. This will achieve returns to industry and the community as
quickly as possible, minimize costs and maximize the useful life of
technology choices.
STAFFING IMPLICATIONS
This process presents a substantial shift in the way we do our work.
Staff will need training in teaming, decision making, coaching, project
management, negotiation, conflict resolution and change management.
They will also need technical training in the new process, new
technology and regulations/by-laws. Phasing the implementation of the
new process will give us the opportunity to help staff acquire the
training and become comfortable with the changes, before they are fully
immersed in the new process. Initially more staff will be required to
run and test the prototype in order to maintain existing service levels.
Once the new process is fully implemented, we anticipate that the staff
level will remain constant as the savings achieved from streamlining
will be used to enhance Enquiry, develop Education and Feedback
components and to ensure broad representation in early stages of
projects. Prototyping will determine actual resource requirements for
the process and future reports will provide updates on staffing
implications. After initial prototyping, we should experience some
economies of scale in full implementation.
We know that it will take staff some time to get up to speed in the new
process and expect we will initially need to backfill in certain areas.
There will be approximately twenty staff involved in prototyping in
1997. Eight staff and two managers will be needed to do the development
work (Spring/Summer 1997) and up to an additional twelve staff will be
added when the prototype goes live (Fall 1997 to Spring 1998).
Backfilling will be required for a portion of the managers work and for
the prototyping staff in order to maintain acceptable service levels in
the existing process. Even with backfilling the existing system will be
stressed.
As implementation progresses we will develop new job descriptions and
work closely with Human Resource Services to ensure the work is
accurately described and valued. We expect jobs will keep changing
during the phase in, so it will be important to re-assess once
implementation is substantially complete. We will advise Council of
staffing implications at the conclusion of prototyping and at regular
intervals as implementation proceeds.
We also anticipate that the organizational structure will need to change
in order to support the new process. Those changes will be the subject
of a separate report.
CUPE Local 15 and IBEW Local 213 have been provided with a copy of this
report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Costs associated with implementation will be incurred from 1997 to 1999.
This report seeks funding for 1997 only. Prototyping results will allow
for better estimating of funding requirements for 1998 and 1999.
Estimated 1997 costs for developing a prototype and implementation are
$800,000 as detailed below.
Partial backfilling for 13 $225,000
prototyping staff
Partial backfilling for 2 managerial 50,000
staff
Supplies and equipment 25,000
Workspace for prototyping 150,000
Computers, workstations & support 125,000
External consultant assistance 150,000
Contingency 35,000
Subtotal 760,000
Service improvement manager 40,000
Total 1997 expenditure $800,000
Costs for developing the workspace for prototyping have been estimated
assuming a location in the East Wing. Should this not be possible
additional funding for lease costs would be required. The costs
anticipated for 1998 & 1999 implementation relate to expanding new
process participation to 50% and then 100% ($0.7 million), renovating
space to accommodate increasing participation ($1 million) and adding
new technology to the process ($4 million). Total costs for this
project are currently estimated to be $6.5 million and are presented to
indicate the order of magnitude of full implementation. Each component
will be reported to Council with specific cost detail and anticipated
benefits. In addition we will also provide some context for each
component in the form a summary of costs incurred, benefits gained and
estimated costs to complete.
It is intended that the new process, once fully operational, be funded
by fees generated from permits. Some members of the industry have
stated that they are willing to pay for improved service while some have
indicated concern over any fee increase. Prototyping will test and
evaluate different approaches and help determine the most cost effective
alternative. Efficiencies achieved in the new process will be used to
develop and operate the Education and Feedback components and perform
the review of regulations and codes. Consequently a 10% increase in
fees is required to recover costs as currently estimated. Any increase
in fees must coincide with a substantial increase in service, which is
estimated to be late 1998, as shown in Schedule B.
COMMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
The Director of Finance notes that the proposed source of financing for
this project is the Service Improvement Reserve ( "SIR"). Council
established this $4.0 million revolving fund to finance service
improvement initiatives that were identified as part of the Better City
Government initiative.
The SIR has sufficient funds available to accommodate the requirements
of the prototyping phase of the DBR process, although at the peak of its
implementation process, the DBR project is expected to require more
funds than will be available in the Service Improvement Reserve. This
means that the size of Service Improvement Reserve will need to be
reviewed in conjunction with the systems financing plan approved by
Council of about $5.0 million annually, in order to provide the
appropriate funding for the major upgrades to computer systems and
communications infrastructure and the acquisition and implementation of
new core financial, Human Resource/Payroll and Fleet Management systems
that are now in the implementation consideration queue.
Staff are currently reviewing system implementation priorities and will
therefore report back on a comprehensive and integrated information
technology financing strategy at a later date.
CONCLUSION
There have been many attempts in the past to improve the development and
building regulation process, none of which were fully implemented. This
current review recognizes the complexities and linkages of different
parts of the process and provides a systematic approach to building the
improvements incrementally, but in substantial pieces. We have a great
opportunity to deliver on a long outstanding promise to make the system
work well for all participants; the community, industry and staff. Each
component of the new process helps build a strong mutual understanding
of the differing needs of the participants. Education is fundamental to
form a solid core knowledge base of process and regulation. Enquiry
from multiple access points encourages compliance and reduces the
complexity in our processing. Streaming projects according to level of
complexity helps us focus attention to where it is most needed.
Expanding the role of Inspections will help maintain the intent of a
project. Finally, Feedback will ensure that we continue to improve our
processing, our regulations and our level of service. The choice to
proceed with this project has large financial implications, but these
costs are recoverable at a relatively low overall cost to the applicant.
The benefits of predictability, consistency and reduced processing times
will better serve all participants in the process; the community,
industry and staff.
* * * * *