City of Atlanta Building Permitting Project

1
City of Atlanta BuildingPermitting Project

• Permitting Improvement Action Plan
• March 23, 2005
• Completed as part of Bain pro bono assistance to
  the City of Atlanta

2
Agenda

• Background and project overview
• Dashboard development
• Improvement initiatives
• Next steps
• Appendix

3
Mayors Office requested Bains assistance to
address a key City of Atlanta issue

• Anecdotes indicate that the City of Atlantas
  building permitting process has had a negative
  impact on development
• Permitting process has been under constant
  scrutiny and multiple improvement efforts have
  had varying degrees of success
• Mayors office requested Bains assistance to
  synthesize permitting process improvements in an
  actionable plan

How can the City of Atlanta improve the
permitting process?
4
Current performance statistics indicate process
still needs improvement
I can get a permit in Charlotte in 45 days, in
Dallas it takes 10 working days, and in Tampa it
takes 30 days even with a Hurricane blowing
through. Why cant Atlanta do it in under four
months? -Developer
Our IT system developer hasnt done training
for us in a few years and we wouldnt have had
the time if they wanted to. -Bureau of Planning
management
I will never build in Atlanta again because of
their permitting process. -Residential builder
I couldnt tell you what the start or finish of
any permitting process step was. I didnt
realize there were steps. -Atlanta Public
Schools permit expeditor
Source KIVA Jan-Jul 2004 dashboard reports
5
ELPM provides one example of the permitting
processs negative impact on development

• Background
• Early Learning Property Management (ELPM) focuses
  on expanding educational opportunities by using
  philanthropic funds to renovate or construct new
  strategically located preschool facilities in low
  income areas
• Situation
• ELPM is currently developing three properties
  outside of the City of Atlanta in the City
  of Decatur, Paulding County, and Gwinnett County
  versus renovating three abandoned schools within
  the City of Atlanta
• Project locations were chosen because of the
  comparatively long duration of Atlantas
  permitting process
• City of Atlanta 30-40 weeks, Gwinnett County
  16-24 weeks, Paulding County 6-8 weeks, City of
  Decatur 4-6 weeks
• Atlantas seven to ten month process represents
  one school year of lost services

One-time Atlanta construction losses
Ongoing Atlanta losses

• 15M in architectural and construction costs
• Sales taxes on materials
• Permitting and impact fees

• Affordable preschool services
• Property tax revenues
• 4.5-6M annual operating budget (120 jobs)
• Atlanta Public Schools retain un-leased
  properties and Atlanta Police maintain increased
  patrols of the vacant facilities

Source ELPM management
6
In the past year, several permitting improvements
have been made
Process improvements
Consumer education and input
Staffing

• Extended permitting hours on Tuesdays
• Courier being used to transfer plans between CoA
  departments
• New tracking procedures being implemented

• Feedback surveys provided to applicants
• Permit process manual and checklists created
• Meetings held with developers and applicants to
  identify problems

• 2005 budget includes 13 new positions
• Assistant Director for Permitting
• Architectural engineer
• Residential plan reviewers
• Inspectors

Source City of Atlanta Department of Planning
Community Development
7
Some previously recommended improvements have not
been fully implemented
Progress as of December, 2004
2003 Improvement project recommendations

• Online permit tracking implementation
• KIVA Net installation
• Permit application software implementation

• Initial project strategy kickoff meeting held
  December, 2004 under DIT project management

• Establish one day a week meeting for projects of
  gt1M with developers and key agencies at the
  start to identify and address issues early in the
  process

• Director dedicates one day to pre-meetings
  However, formalized program not in place and
  outside agencies typically not involved

• Relocate Fire review staff to City Hall from City
  Hall East

• Staff temporarily relocated but attempt failed

• Develop turnaround time service level agreements
  between Bureau of Buildings and outside agencies

• Cannot be instituted appropriately until data
  tracking produces accurate turn-around
  expectations

• Consolidate fee payment

• Not started

Viable improvement opportunities remain on the
table for implementation
Source City of Atlanta Department of Planning
Community Development
8
In August 2004, a new Permitting Improvement
Project was initiated
Project objectives
Reduce real or perceived complexity of Atlantas
building permitting process to

• Reduce time to execute current processes
• Improve technology facilitation of the process
• Improve customer perception of the process
• Improve performance relative to surrounding
  municipalities
• Improve investor confidence in real estate
  development in the City of Atlanta
• Drive greater growth in the City of Atlanta

9
The Permitting Improvement Project incorporated
existing and new activities
Review business processes
Update IT infrastructure
Improve consumer relations
Atlanta Stats
Synthesize go forward plan

Status
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
New
Goals

• Improve permitting related business processes

• Improve permitting related IT infrastructure

• Improve permitting related customer service

• Implement permitting process tracking dashboard

• Develop overall permit process improvement plan

Owner

• Brian Wirsig-DIT Business Process Consultant,
  City of Atlanta

• Brian Wirsig-DIT Business Process Consultant,
  City of Atlanta

• Sharon Jones-Customer Relationships Officer, City
  of Atlanta

• Bronaugh Bridges-DPCD Budget Manager, City of
  Atlanta
• David Edwards-Project Management Officer, City of
  Atlanta

• All
• Bain Company pro-bono support

Activities

• Map city processes related to permitting
• Work with staff to identify and implement quick
  win business process changes

• Upgrade KIVA systems to allow for implementation
  of online permit tracking application
• Implement undetermined level of online permitting

• Develop customer satisfaction monitoring
  mechanisms
• Provide customer service training and improvement
  measures

• Develop public dashboard performance output and
  internal management metrics tracking methods

• Assist development of new data tracking
  requirements and mechanisms
• Synthesize historical recommendations, current
  activity initiatives, and Bain diagnosis to
  develop prioritized list of improvement
  initiatives

Project support - Bain
10
Permitting Improvement Project team structure
Project sponsor Lynnette Young-COO, City of
Atlanta
Permitting Improvement Team Chair James
Shelby-Acting Commissioner of the Department
of Planning Community Development, City of
Atlanta
Team members John Ahmann-Executive Director,
Atlanta Committee for Progress David
Edwards-Project Management Officer, City of
Atlanta Sharon Jones-Customer Relationships
Officer, City of Atlanta Peggy
McCormick-Director of Economic Development,
Atlanta Dev. Authority Brian Wirsig-DIT
Business Process Consultant, City of
Atlanta Norm Koplon-Bureau of Buildings
Director, City of Atlanta
Review business processes
Update IT infrastructure
Improve consumer relations
Atlanta Stats
Synthesize go forward plan
Project support
11
Permitting Improvement Project timing
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Project team meetings
Permitting Improvement Project coordination and
communication
Ongoing management of improvement process
Project support
Improvement implementation teams
Diagnose issues
Develop new data tracking process output
Synthesize go forward plan
Build consensus develop final recommendations
Develop potential solutions
Prioritize validate solutions
Map business processes and implement quick wins
Review business processes
Consumer satisfaction monitoring-Phase II
Customer satisfaction diagnosis
Implement consumer satisfaction monitoring-Phase I
Improve consumer relations
IT-KIVA 7.1 upgrade
Online permit implementation
Update IT infrastructure
Revised management dashboard
Development of new dashboard
Atlanta Stats
12
Permitting Improvement Project results

• 32 improvement initiatives will be implemented
  during 2005 and 2006, targeting two broad
  problems
• Consumer understanding of, and satisfaction with,
  the process
• Permitting process execution
• A critical enabler to improvements is a new,
  comprehensive dashboard that will go live in Q1
  2005
• Recommendations for ordinance changes were
  deferred until a more complete set of data is
  built to drive consensus for change
• This will be a focus for 2006 and 2007

13
Agenda

• Background and project overview
• Dashboard development
• Improvement initiatives
• Next steps
• Appendix

14
Permit applicants complain about many issues, but
are most concerned about process duration

• I can get a permit in Charlotte in 45 days, in
  Dallas it takes 10 working days, and in Tampa it
  takes 30 days even with a Hurricane blowing
  through. Why cant Atlanta do it in under four
  months?
• Developer
• The Bureau of Buildings has lost my plans on
  several occasions and last time I helped them dig
  them out of a pile of papers stacked six feet
  high in the middle of their hallway.
• Commercial developer
• I couldnt begin to say how many visits we made
  or how long plans were with our architect.
  This project took us four years to get through
  the Bureau of Planning.
• Commercial owners rep
• The people are so rude I cant deal with them
  anymore and so Ive hired a full time plan
  runner.
• Owners rep

Source Sample permit recipient interviews, N14
15
Permits requiring plan review drive consumer
duration complaints
Permit duration data
Note () Technical permit values bases on 2003
approximations, other values based on permits
with KIVA completion dates from Jan 03-Jul 04
16
Plan review permit process is complex
KIVA duration tracked
Pre-permitting
Permit intake
Permitting approvals
Permit issuance
Inspection/TCO/CO
Zoning approvals

Description

• Approvals required for buildable site or
  structure- Special use, SAP, rezoning, NPU
  approval, etc.

• Application intake, address/ district location/
  sewer signoff

• Approvals from various city, county, state, and
  federal agencies

• Review of approvals, plan check, and permit
  pickup/ payment

• Inspections during construction and final
  occupancy inspection

• Variance, special exception, and plan amendment
  approvals zoning (NPU) signoff

• Bureau of Planning

• Bureau of Buildings

• Bureau of Buildings

• Bureau of Buildings

• Bureau of Buildings and all approval agencies

Primary process owner

• Bureau of Planning

Potential parties involved
6
3
18
7
3
6
Typical process issues

• Relies on periodic meetings

• Customer service lack of education lead to
  delays downstream

• Varying levels of agency efficiency changes may
  affect other approvals

• Loss or misplacement of drawings or approvals
  leads to plan check delay

• Inspectors are overburdened incidences of poor
  customer service

• Relies on periodic meetings and
  inter-departmental coordination

Typical time to process

• 2-12 months

• 1 day

• 0-3 months (Project type dependent)

• 7 days

• Project construction dependent

• 2 months

Note () Includes applicant () Based on
initial internal interviews () BOB maintains
responsibility but does not own processes Source
City of Atlanta Department of Planning
Community Development
17
But there is limited data to identify the process
bottlenecks
KIVA system is underutilized

• The KIVA system does not track all steps in the
  process
• Tracking fields that are available
• Are often left blank by process step owners
• Are often filled out incorrectly by process step
  owners

Data input but may be inaccurate
Updated tracking mechanism is needed
Note KIVA is the Citys IT system used to
conduct permitting () Total number of finish
fields tracked for sample permits. Does not
include process steps pairs that should be
tracked but currently are not Source 60
randomly sampled permits from projects five
focus permit types, KIVA Jan03-Jul04 aging reports
18
Effective data tracking should answer all of the
following questions

• Overall permit duration has been reduced X in Y
  months.
• Consumers make up X of the average permit
  process time
• Work time on permit type ___ has been reduced X
  in Y months.
• Department _____ makes up X of the process time
  for permit type ____ and should be reviewed by an
  improvement team.
• X of permits require ____ departments signoff
  and take X additional days to issue.
• ____ ordinance has caused a X increase in
  duration for permit type _____.

How should the dashboard look?
19
Miami Dade County Building Department extensively
tracks permit process cycle time

• Metrics include
• Number of permits, total processing time, time at
  each step, and time with consumer
• Secondary Miami Dade County metrics include
• Customer experience, employee attrition, and
  building code violations

Source MiamiDade.gov
20
The St. Louis Building Division focuses on
tracking process efficiency

• Metrics focus on
• Employee hours and costs
• Efficiency man hours/permit issued, cost/permit
• Building permit outputs
• Requested, issued, in process/active
• Number of days to issue
• Service quality
• of over the counter permits issued same day
• Gross permit cost as percent of new construction
  cost

Source St. Louis Building Division
21
City of Atlanta will track permitting performance
across three broad categories

Consumer Satisfaction
Financial Performance
Process Performance
Rationale

• Improve ability to meet consumer needs and
  expectations

• Improve budget process and ongoing budget
  management

• Improve permitting process

Data sources

• Use surveys to measure consumer satisfaction

• Track variance between budget and actuals

• Leverage KIVA tracking metrics
• Currently implementing new tracking methods

22
Dashboard (1 of 2)
Consumer Satisfaction
Summary indicators
Overall experience
Quality of service
Overall objectives

• Easy to understand
• Helpfulness of information
• Experience with multiple offices

• Courteous
• Knowledgeable
• Timeliness

Actionable drivers
KIVA generated metrics
See appendix for details
Survey generated data
23
Dashboard (2 of 2)
Process Performance
Summary indicator
Permits processed
Time to completion
Process complexity
Quality
Benchmark results
Data Integrity
Overall objectives

• Applications received
• Permits in process
• Permits denied

• Number of agencies involved
• Time per agency

• Error rate
• -Implement audit process
• Plan loss rate

• Time with permitting
• Time out of flow for revisions
• Number of revisions

• Process times for local municipalities
• Process times for comparable municipalities

• Data entry accuracy in KIVA

Actionable drivers
KIVA generated metrics
See appendix for details
Research generated data
24
A new KIVA process was designed to track plans,
step duration, and consumer revision duration
X1 (delivered)
X2(returned)
APPR
Consumer duration
NEW DATA Time recorded by BOB courier when the
process step ends and the BOB is again
responsible for the plans
IMPROVE TRACKING CONSISTENCY Time recorded by
BOB courier when plans begin a process step
Step duration
IMPROVE TRACKING CONSISTENCY Date input by
process owner and required to match the drawing
stamp approval for legal purposes
NEW DATA Time recorded by process step owner
when the consumer owns the plans for revision
KIVA Input Error Rate Report to be developed to
ensure accuracy consistency of data tracking
Note APPR is the KIVA entry for process step
Approval () This input made available to all
KIVA users. Will be used to illustrate their
responsibilities within the process to consumers.
To be recorded by the BOB but not a required
input for outside agencies.
25
New tracking methods will provide an improved
data derived picture of entire permitting process
Permit process duration
Permit application
Permit issuance
APPR
APPR
APPR
APPR
APPR
APPR
APPR
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 6
Step 7
Parallel process steps 5 a,b,c
Dashboards process performance report can
illuminate most inconsistent, lengthy, and
consumer driven process steps
26
New process step tracking and dashboard output
should be owned by the Bureau of Buildings
Current Process lacks clear owner or information
source
BOB Function 2
Outside Department 2
Outside Department 3
Revised BOB will be responsible for process
tracking, data recording, and dashboard
BOB Tracking Dashboard
BOB Function 3
Outside Department 1
BOB Function 1
Outside Department 4
DPCD Internal Function
27
Steps required to implement dashboard

• Develop dashboard team
• Create final dashboard template
• Identify data sources and develop tracking
  implementation plans
• Institute all data tracking
• For KIVA data, institute plan process tracking
• Track X1, consumer duration, APPR and X2 of all
  process steps
• Produce KIVA Input Error Rate Report to ensure
  accuracy
• Create automated recurring queries for required
  dashboard input
• Hold refresher training for all KIVA users
• Find funding to hire KIVA or other training agent
• Develop capability to produce one-off reporting
  (e.g. consumer duration for a specific permit
  type over a limited time period)
• For consumer surveys, redesign surveys to
  optimize effectiveness and response rates
• Produce dashboard with live data

BOB Assistant Director of Permitting will oversee
dashboard implementation
28
Agenda

• Background and project overview
• Dashboard development
• Improvement initiatives
• Next steps
• Appendix

29
Improvement initiative identification process
Diagnose issues
Gather potential solutions
Prioritize validate solutions
Develop consensus recommendation
Implement solutions

• Review previous project findings
• Interview
• Team members
• Process participants
• Process consumers
• Benchmark cities
• Review available data map current process

• Gather solutions elevated during diagnosis
• Gather best practices of other permit departments
• Utilize Permit Team experience

• Compare options based on ease of implementation,
  development impact, consumer satisfaction, and
  quality improvement
• Utilize expert opinions
• Corroborate with other permit offices
  experiences

• Gather permit process owner input on potential
  initiatives
• Develop recommendation package

• Develop implementation teams
• Execute changes
• Communicate changes

To be completed by DPCD in 2005 2006
Develop high value, prioritized improvement
solutions
30
A wide range of potential improvement levers were
considered
Duration built into regulation enforcement
Staff/ consumer interaction
Process downtime
Staff skill level
Process execution by agencies outside of the City
of Atlanta
Consumer knowledge of process
Consumer perception
Process step queuing
Individualized consumer education
Process improvement
Budget influences
Consumer complaint interface
Regulation effectiveness
Order of process steps
Mechanism to address consumer satisfaction issues
IT effectiveness
Consumer satisfaction monitoring
City of Atlanta departments (non-BOB) process
execution
BOB process step execution
Management experience
Interviews and analysis revealed that focusing on
a subset of these could drive significant
improvement
31
Today, relatively little information is provided
to consumers online
Benchmark cities typically provide extensive
online information
City of Atlanta online information

• Permit information
• Descriptions fee information
• Application forms
• Permit records
• Online permit services
• Inspections
• Application
• Status inquiries
• Fee payment
• Reference documents
• Ordinances summary
• Brochures reports
• Performance statistics
• Process organizational description
• Schedules hours of operation, government
  meetings, training programs
• Contact information
• Hotline numbers
• Management contact information
• Links to agencies outside city government

Source atlantaga.gov, benchmark city websites
32
In addition, consumers generally lack knowledge
about the permitting process
The Bureau of Planning has no procedures and
rejected the process checklist that the Bureau
of Buildings gave me. Id say I spent three
days running between the two not knowing who had
the rest of my drawings or what to do
next. -Home owner
Site development is bigger black box than the
Bureau of Buildings if you can
imagine. -Commercial developer expeditor
I couldnt tell you what the start or finish of
any permitting process step was. I didnt
realize there were steps. -Expeditor for
Atlanta Public Schools
Applicants could get their permit faster if
they would revise the things we mark up for them.
But instead they come back with the same issues
four and five times. -Bureau of Buildings plan
reviewer
Consumers lack understanding of the process,
including what instructions mean and what are
their responsibilities
Source Consumer interviews
33
DPCD IT capabilities need improvement

• Observations
• Vendor payment disputes result in limited
  external support from KIVA
• Online permit feature implementation delayed more
  than one year
• Inaccurate data in the permitting property
  database (KIVA land file) needs to be corrected
  and a clear owner needs to be identified to make
  updates to the data consistently
• DPCD requires additional IT expertise to perform
  day-to-day functions going forward
• Report development implementation
• Basic programming updates and changes
• Monitoring IT system input efficiency
• Training staff beyond rudimentary requirements
• Collaboration efforts between DIT DPCD have had
  limited success due to poor communication and
  unclear project direction

DPCD Commissioner's office has begun to address
issues and needs clear IT improvement plan
Source City of Atlanta departmental interviews
34
BOB organization could be better aligned with
consumer needs functions
How the City of Atlanta Bureau of Buildings
appears to operate
Director
Business functions
Assistant director
Arborist
Building inspection
Plumbing inspection
Electrical inspection
Information specialists
Zoning
HVAC inspection
Flat structure not organized around consumer
groups
Fees
Plan review
Elevator inspection
Intake
Issuance
Plan library
Divided between applicant permit holder
services (consumer focused)
An alternative example from Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Code Enforcement

• Organizational advantages
• Assistant Director level roles allow Director to
  focus on bureau management
• Fewer direct reports enable senior staff to
  effectively manage
• Divisions promote focus on relevant consumer
  group needs

Director
Inspections
Permitting
Permits
Commercial Plan Review
Documents
Fire Marshall
Building inspection
Plumbing/ Mechanical inspection
Electrical inspection
Residential Technical Services
Source Bureau of Buildings management
interviews, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Code
Enforcement website
35
BOB plan review appears understaffed
Shortfall of 11 FTEs from average
Note Plan review positions based on permit
department interviews regarding 2004 staffing
including trade plan reviewers, engineering plan
reviewers, plan reviewers conducting intake, and
building plan reviewers Atlanta consists of 8
building plan reviewers, 5 trade reviewers, and
two directors performing reviews Construction
value includes total value of all projects
permitted Source Benchmark permit department
interviews
36
Not enough time and money are dedicated to
training given its importance
Today, no time or budget dollars are dedicated to
training
CoA staff believe training investment is
essential and could increase efficiency
but
KIVA could be utilized much, much more if we had
more people in the bureau that were trained on
the program. -BOP management
Everyone is working on something more important
so we dont have anyone that can even do KIVA
training. -DWM management
If you could train people in other departments
to input KIVA right, wed track plans using the
system and save at least a full day a week
searching for them. -BOB management
There was money to have training and attend
conferences but that got cut around 2000 and
theres no managerial motivation to have it put
back in because it takes time away from
work. -DPW staff member
Training should hopefully occur periodically and
anytime new staff comes on board or updates are
made. -DIT staff member
KIVA hasnt done a training for us in a few
years and we wouldnt have had the time if they
wanted to. -BOP management
Customer service training gets done as problems
arise. The BOB customer service manager
actually focuses on payroll, expenses, and
personnel issues. -BOB staff member
Minimal customer service training could
drastically alter the treatment of consumers and
their positive response could improve BOB moral
tremendously. -Mayors office staff
Theres not time to train. To keep up with the
workload, plan reviewers cant spare a single
moment to review plans. -BOB management
If we could help the plan reviewers skill
levels we could potentially double the output of
a few of them. -BOB management
Source City of Atlanta departmental interviews
37
More than one hundred potential improvements were
identified in three main areas
Sources
Benchmarking City of Atlanta process participant
interviews Interviews with process participants
outside the City of Atlanta Consumer
interviews Bain experience
Execution
Regulations
Consumer
Major topic

• Improve consumer education
• Monitor and address consumer satisfaction
• Change consumer perception

• Better utilize information technology
• Change internal policies
• Optimize the organization
• Improve product quality
• Improve the process
• Upgrade staff skills

• Reduce regulation complexity and imposed duration
• Make ordinances development friendly

Sub-topic
Requires more data, deeper evaluation of citizen
desires, and broader constituency consensus to
implement improvements(out of scope)
Note () Consumers include all permit applicants
38
Potential initiatives were prioritized across
four factors
Prioritization factor
Relative importance
Key measures

• Quality

30

• Process consistency requirements, time, etc.
• Quality of applications
• Compliance with ordinances

• Consumer satisfaction

30

• Reduction in permit duration
• Reduction in visits to attain permit
• Reduction in complexity of the process
• Reduction in wait times
• Improvement in consumer perception of process

• Development factors

25

• Number of permit applications impacted
• Value of the permit applications impacted
• Number of applicants affected
• Influence on projects significant to economic
  development

• Ease of implementation

15

• People and skills available in city government
• Cost of change
• Time to implement

39
Experts and process owners assessed feasibility
and identified pitfalls of potential initiatives
City of Atlanta
Stakeholders
Benchmark cities

• Mayors Office
• DPCD representatives
• Department of Watershed Management
• Department of Public Works
• Fire Department
• Department of Information Technology

• DeKalb County Health Department
• Fulton County Health Department
• Atlanta Development Authority
• Atlanta Committee for Progress

• Seattle Applicant Services Center
• Cleveland Department of Building Housing
• Denver Building Department
• Charlotte-Mecklenburg Code Enforcement
• Miami Dade County Building Department
• St Louis Building Division

Multiple parties validated prioritized list of
potential improvement initiatives
40
25 new prioritized and agreed upon initiatives
focus on consumers and process execution
Consumer initiatives
Execution initiatives
Improve the organization
Improve staff skill
Improve the process
Improve policy quality
Improve IT utilization
Improve consumer satisfaction
Improve consumer education

• Redesign BoB space

• Send staff to external training programs

• Update and maintain permit databases

• Pre-approve standard plan types

• Limit director level review of plans

• Conduct consumer outreach meetings

• Distribute education materials

• Add BoB IT skills

• Add intake triage role

• Improve revision sourcing

• Create three part BoB organization structure

• Develop internal training programs

• Develop Consumer Bill of Rights

• Formalize pre-meetings

• Have plan reviewers intake OTC plans

• Conduct plan review audits

• Add residential plan reviewers

• Create a staff reward program

• Move BoB customer service

• Provide detailed revision notes

• Red-flag excessive re-submittals

• Conduct applicant focus groups

• Establish temporary greeter

• Conduct plan intake by appointment

• Establish ongoing stakeholder advisory group

Potential initiatives reduced to 25 feasible and
high value improvements to be phased in over two
year time horizon
41
Descriptions of consumer related initiatives
Satisfaction
Education

• Provide consumers with educational materials
  through multiple channels

• Conduct consumer outreach with professional
  associations consumer groups

• Conduct formalized application pre-meetings upon
  request

• Develop a Consistency policy or Consumer bill
  of rights

• Provide applicants with detailed and personalized
  instructions revision notes

• Move BOB customer service position to DPCD to
  allay fears of retribution and improve
  effectiveness

• Utilize temporary greeter to educate consumers
  on process and requirements

• Conduct focus groups with applicants to discuss
  current issues improvement initiatives

• Develop a permitting process consumer stakeholder
  group

42
Consumer education Distribute education materials
Watch outs Materials need to be clear and
professional
Permit improvement implementation
Educate consumers on current policies and
procedures
Proactively communicate process changes and
improvements to consumers
Communication methods
Make available online
Make available via distribution list (mail/
email/ newsletter)
Make available in developer and builder seminars
Make available in print at the City (pamphlets/
signage)
requirement Minimal
Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities Charlotte, Miami, San Diego,
Seattle
Goal Increase consumer citizen understanding
of the permit process confidence in process
Measurable objective Primer online and first
message to new distribution list sent by end of
Q1 2005 Written material available in permit
office by end of Q2 2005 First developer seminar
held in Q4 2005
Recommended owner Assistant Director of
Permitting
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
43
Consumer education Formalize pre-meetings
Watch outs Meetings will be time
consuming Currently have minimal capability to
schedule appointments Interdepartmental
relationships are currently strained
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Formalize pre-meeting review process
• Conducted upon request of applicant
• Scheduled with and coordinated by BOB plan intake
  staff
• Include all parties involved in approval of
  permit application
• Requires extensive interdepartmental coordination
  by BOB intake staff
• Limit service to well defined applicant subset of
  high value or highly complex projects
• Criteria must be clear, rigid, and made public
  knowledge
• Invest in electronic scheduling capabilities

• Situation
• Major projects often pre-reviewed with BOB staff
  to highlight potential architectural plan issues
• Applicants with extensive experience with the BOB
  may informally request architectural pre-review
• Bureau of Planning often conducts pre-meetings
  but not universally
• Results
• Inequity of services
• Pre-review not available to all applicants
• Longer process duration for applicants not
  receiving pre-review

requirement No
Timing Mid-term
Benchmark cities Alpharetta, Charlotte, Cobb
County, Seattle, St Louis
Goal Increase applicant understanding of
process and improve quality of incoming
applications
Recommended owner BOB Director, Assistant
Director of Permitting
Measurable objective Define thresholds and
develop process in Q4 2005 Hold first
pre-meetings Q1 2006 100 of pre-meetings held
within one week of request by end of Q2 2006
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
44
Consumer education Provide detailed revision
notes
Watch outs Time consuming Mechanism to track
and catalog notes is not currently in place
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Develop note templates for each process step
• Provide detailed written instructions and notes
  for applicants
• Develop protocol to determine when detailed notes
  should be provided
• Keep copies of these notes and instructions for
  future reference
• Develop system for maintaining and cataloging
  notes
• Ensure all prior notes addressed before
  applications re-accepted for review

• Situation
• Applicant and process staff discussions conducted
  mostly in person
• Notes and instructions are sometimes written
  provided to the applicant, but BOB rarely
  maintains or refers to record of requested
  changes
• Result
• Multiple applicant visits and longer process
  duration
• Repeat reviews often performed because notes in
  KIVA do not detail requested changes
• Applicants often forget instructions and return
  unrevised plans

requirement No
Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities
Goal Increase applicant knowledge, improve
quality of revised plan submissions, increase
consumer accountability, increase customer service
Recommended owner Assistant Director of
Permitting
Measurable objective Note templates (revision
instructions, comments, or checklists) developed
for every process step by end of Q2 2005
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
45
Consumer education Establish temporary greeter
Watch outs Position should act as a resource
to explain the process and permit requirements
but should not provide actual permit services
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Designate a knowledgeable and consumer friendly
  BOB employee or citizen volunteer to carry out
  concierge services
• A person to answer questions while consumers
  wait, offer suggestions, and address concerns
  that can reduce wait times and stress and
  potentially reduce the visits required to gain a
  permit
• Part-time schedule allocation (potentially new
  intake triage role)
• No authority over BOB processes
• Dissolve position after process improvement
  initiatives have been completedtemporary
  stop-gap measure should become obsolete

• Situation
• Consumers wait for services over extended periods
  without interacting with knowledgeable BOB staff
  people
• Waits are sometimes unnecessary
• Result
• Long wait times result in high dissatisfaction
  with the process

requirement No
Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities San Diego (in development)
Goal Improve consumer education satisfaction
with reductions in wait times and number of
visits required to get a permit
Recommended owner Assistant Director of
Permitting
Measurable objective New process concierge
position in place in Q2 2005 Responsibilities
should be dramatically reduced by improvement
initiatives until dissolved in 2007
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
46
Consumer satisfaction Conduct consumer outreach
Watch outs Early meetings will be emotional,
volatile, and potentially less productive
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Attend meetings of Atlanta consumer groups
  periodically to better understand their
  perspective
• AIA, Atlanta Builders Association, etc.
• Hold periodic meetings with most frequent permit
  applicants applicant groups

• Situation
• Permitting management has limited communication
  with community groups, professional associations,
  and public interest groups
• Result
• Community association groups develop taskforces
  to indirectly address permit process issues but
  are dissatisfied that they cannot impact the
  process
• Groups do not have up-to-date process picture or
  understand current initiatives and constraints
• Sometimes provide funding to elevate initiatives
  without internal buy-in resulting in failed or
  delayed improvement attempts

requirement No
Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities Denver
Goal Improve consumer satisfaction
confidence, identify process issues sooner rather
than later, involve community in improvement
process
Recommended owner BOB Director
Measurable objective Key consumer groups
identified and prioritized in Q1 2005 Schedule
developed and attend first professional
organization meetings in Q2 2005 Conduct first
annual Frequent Permitters meeting in Q3 2005
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
47
Consumer satisfaction Develop consumer policy
statement
Watch outs
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Develop a code of conduct and process execution
  policy specific to permitting
• Make policy statement available to the public
• Hold staff accountable for following the new
  policy
• Develop cross-functional team to write the
  Consistency policy or Consumer bill of rights
• Review policy and its execution periodically

• Situation
• No standardized policy for BOB behavior exists
• Consumers complain about interactions with the
  permitting staff that they believe are
  unacceptable or inappropriate
• Result
• Consumers are dissatisfied and suggest that
  treatment varies on case to case basis
• Special exceptions and expediting is believed to
  be given to some
• Limited assistance is provided and processing
  appears purposefully delayed to others

requirement No
Timing Mid-term
Benchmark cities Charlotte, San Diego
Goal Improve consumer satisfaction
confidence, provide permitting staff operations
guidelines
Recommended owner BOB Director, Customer Service
Manager
Measurable objective Cross-functional policy
development team created Q3 2005 Policy
statement made public in Q1 2006
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
48
Consumer satisfaction Move BOB Customer Service
Watch outs Transition to DPCD will leave a BOB
HR staffing gap
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Move BOB Customer Service Manager position to the
  DPCD commissioner's office to oversee customer
  service in all DPCD departments. Responsible
  for
• Developing customer service programs
• Updating consumer policy
• Receiving consumer complaints
• Investigating consumer complaints
• Producing/managing/compiling consumer surveys
• Determine if current non-customer service
  workload can be transitioned to other BOB staff
  or if new staff is required to backfill HR gap

• Situation
• Consumers fear permitting staff retribution so
  they are hesitant to complain or provide
  improvement suggestions
• Current BOB Customer Service Manager position is
  focused on other activities
• Does not train service agents or monitor
  satisfaction
• Daily activities are HR focused
• Results
• Consumers unable to express their dissatisfaction
  with the permitting process or unable to provide
  input on potential process improvements

requirement No or Budget (if new staff
required)
Timing Mid-term
Benchmark cities
Goal Improve customer service, consumer
confidence, and consumer satisfaction monitoring
Recommended owner DPCD Commissioner
Measurable objective Position successfully
implemented by Q2 2006
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
49
Consumer satisfaction Conduct focus groups
Watch outs Internally organized focus groups
can create biased results
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Conduct consumer focus groups to help assess and
  address consumer concerns
• Outsource to professional facilitator with
  oversight by customer service manager
• Next step
• Estimate cost and build into budget

• Situation
• Consumers are dissatisfied, but there are few
  opportunities to gather statistically significant
  consumer input or to ask consumers open-ended
  process satisfaction questions to gauge their
  level and source of dissatisfaction
• Results
• Consumer issues may not be properly addressed
• Written surveys do not guarantee random sampling
  and questions are specific and limiting
• Future telephonic surveys will only ask brief and
  specific questions
• Consumers have limited ability to participate in
  process improvements

requirement Budget
Timing Mid-term
Benchmark cities Charlotte, Seattle, St Louis
Goal Improve consumer satisfaction
confidence, measure customer service improvement
Recommended owner Assistant Director of
Permitting, Customer Service Manager
Measurable objective Identify professional
focus group facilitators Q3 2005 Hold first
series of consumer focus groups in Q1 2006
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
50
Consumer satisfaction Establish stakeholder group
Watch outs Conduct member selection process
carefully and with Mayors office input to
mitigate political issues
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Create stakeholder group that will focus on the
  success of the permitting process
• Hold regular meetings to report on initiatives
  and promote progress
• Potential organizations to draw member
  representatives from
• Atlanta Development Authority, AIA, APA, Atlanta
  Builders Association, engineering associations,
  contractor associations, plumbing, HVAC,
  electrical associations, neighborhood planning
  units
• Agencies involved in permitting (e.g. DIT, DWM,
  AFD, DPW, Fulton DeKalb Health Departments)

• Situation
• No organized consumer group involved in the
  permitting process
• Results
• Consumers are dissatisfied with the permitting
  process and cannot participate in improvements
• Limited consumer input
• Limited consumer buy-in
• Limited consumer ownership
• Limited consumer improvement assistance

requirement Minimal
Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities Charlotte, St Louis, Fulton
(DAC)
Goal Improve customer service, consumer
confidence, and consumer satisfaction monitoring
Recommended owner BOB Director, Assistant
Director of Permitting
Measurable objective Stakeholder group goals,
tactics, ownership, and timing developed in Q2
2005 Group participant positions identified and
group developed Q3 2005 First monthly meeting
held in Q4 2005
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
51
Descriptions of execution related initiatives
Organization
Staff skill
Process
Policy quality
IT

• Redesign BOB space to fit new process
  organization

• Increase staff training and attendance at
  professional conferences

• Improve maintenance of permit related databases

• Develop pre-approved building types for recurring
  plans

• Limit plan review function to official plan
  review positions

• Improve BOB IT skills related to data tracking
  and dashboard reporting

• Add intake triage role to subdivide plan review
  from over the counter applicants

• Increase review quality by improving notes on
  authority source for plan revisions

• Subdivide BOB into inspection, application, and
  process focus areas

• Develop new-hire training, continuous learning,
  and experience sharing programs

• Use expert plan reviewers to intake and review
  over the counter plans

• Conduct quality assurance plan review audits

• Hire additional BOB residential plan review
  staff

• Provide employee rewards related to permitting
  goals

• Identify and highlight applications undergoing
  significant resubmissions or extended duration

• Conduct plan intake by appointment

52
Information technology Update and maintain
permit databases
Watch outs Staff time should be allocated to
allow for timely updates
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Correct erroneous data currently found in the
  permitting databases
• Clearly define database owners and
  responsibilities, and monitor database
  maintenance
• Updates should be made within 48 hrs
• Staff responsible for databases should meet
  periodically to collaborate on optimizing their
  processes

• Situation
• KIVA landfile database is currently not accurate
  or up-to-date
• KIVA database includes multiple property
  information fields that require regular updates
• No clear owner exists to update fields or
  maintain on an ongoing basis
• Result
• Databases not consistently or promptly updated
• Out of date data cause friction between
  permitting process agencies
• Permitting reviewers must refer to printed charts
  for info on changes that have not been updated

requirement No
Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities
Goal Improve permit process information and
process execution
Recommended owner DPCD Commissioner, BOB
Director, Assistant Director of Permitting
Measurable objective Correct existing errors in
KIVA databases by the end of Q1 2005 By the end
of Q4 2005 any required changes to KIVA databases
should be implemented in under 48 hours
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
53
Information technology Add BOB IT skills
Watch outs Highly skilled professional is
required full time to conduct these IT
functions DIT and BOB IT staff functions need to
be clearly delineated
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• DPCD Commissioner and BOB Director to meet with
  the CIO on a monthly basis until internal BOB
  skills are put in place
• Clearly define roles and responsibilities of DIT
  staff and new BOB IT staff position
• Hire highly skilled BOB IT staff to
• Communicate effectively with DIT and collaborate
  on programming revisions, system updates, and
  process improvements
• Maintain BOB/Permitting website as BOB Public
  Information Officer (PIO)
• Develop reports from internal data
• Implement recurring data queries to update
  dashboard information
• Monitor IT system input efficiency
• Train BOB and permitting related staff
• Attend relevant professional conferences
• Next step
• Estimate cost and build into budget

• Situation
• BOB currently does not have the means to conduct
  IT related business functions without making work
  requests to DIT
• Result
• DIT work orders often have long turnaround times
  and yield less than satisfactory results because
  of the difficulty of communicating requirements
• BOB IT effectiveness is impaired
• Rarely conduct system updates
• Rarely request data reports
• Rarely alter user settings
• Have not updated the data tracking process or
  implemented online tracking
• Have delayed implementation of online permit
  applications by more than a year

requirement Budget
Timing Mid-term
Benchmark cities Miami, San Diego, Seattle
Goal Improve permit process information
Recommended owner DPCD Commissioner, BOB
Director, Assistant Director of Permitting
Measurable objective Cross-functional DPCD/DIT
monthly team meetings to be held starting Q1
2005 New BOB IT staff role to be defined in Q4
2005 New staff in place Q2 2006 so that all
data requests, reports, and IT development can be
completed internally
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
54
Process Pre-approved standard plan types
Watch outs Identical building plans still need
to be reviewed for varying site issues
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Allow applicants to request a pre-approved plan
  review when submitting multiple plans, or
  submitting a plan for the second time
• Conduct the initial pre-approved review using
  multiple staff and keep a sample of the final
  product on file with a form of identification
• Conduct cursory reviews to compare all subsequent
  submittals of the pre-approved plan with the
  plan already on file

• Situation
• The BOB conducts architectural plan reviews on
  every building that enters the department
• If multiple submissions of the same plan occur
  with a long period from one to the next, the same
  plan reviewer may develop two different sets of
  revisions
• If the same plans are delivered on approximately
  the same date, they may be reviewed by two
  different plan reviewers that have two sets of
  revisions
• Result
• Process duration for all applicants is increased
  because identical plans are reviewed twice
• Applicants note inconsistency when provided two
  sets of revisions for the same document

requirement No
Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities Denver, Seattle
Goal Improve permit process duration
consistency
Recommended owner Assistant Director of
Permitting
Measurable objective A pre-approved plan system
will be developed in Q2 2005 and consumers will
be able to request a plan to be pre-approved in
Q3 2005
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
55
Process Add intake triage role
Current intake process
Proposed intake process
Watch outs Triage review will require IT and
map skills to identify zoning triggers for
long-term plan review (property located in
historic district, etc.)
Reception
Reception
Other application type
Other application type
Intake triage
Over the counter review
requirement Budget (included in 2005 budget)
Long-term plan review
Long-term plan review

• Result
• Extremely long wait times for Over the Counter
  applications that are waiting behind applicants
  with complex long-term plan review permits

• Solution
• Utilize new position identified in 2005 budget at
  the triage position or to free up experienced
  intake staff person to conduct triage

Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities
Goal Improve wait times by subdividing
processes and limiting responsibilities of
current plan intake staff
Recommended owner Assistant Director of
Permitting
Measurable objective New staff position in place
in Q2 2005
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
56
Process Reviewers intake OTC plans
Watch outs Rotate plan reviewers through OTC
intake role to maintain broad level of expertise
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improvement
• Perform over the counter plan intake and data
  tracking using plan reviewers that can log plans
  into the system and conduct OTC plan review
• Train review staff on tracking process
• Rotate intake responsibilities amongst plan
  reviewers day-to-day to reduce stress and
  maintain focus on review quality
• Requires additional plan review capacity to
  conduct residential and commercial OTC plan
  intake responsibility
• Existing intake staff to continue long-term
  intake and will begin to manage pre-meetings and
  intake appointments
• New reviewer intake capacity will be additive to
  the current intake roles and will not eliminate
  the existing positions
• Next step
• Estimate cost and build into budget

• Situation
• New triage position will route many applicants
  around the intake staff and directly into the
  over the counter plan review process where
  intake data is not currently collected
• Result
• New triage position will require over the
  counter process positions to take on intake data
  tracking responsibilities

requirement Budget (included in 2005 budget)
Timing Short-term
Benchmark cities Seattle
Goal Improve permit process duration, number of
consumer visits required to receive a permit,
wait times, and employee skills
Recommended owner Assistant Director of
Permitting
Measurable objective One (1) new residential
and one (1) new commercial plan review staff
members to be added in Q2 2005 Entire plan
review staff trained on plan intake protocol in
Q2 2005 Plan reviewers to conduct OTC plan
intake by end of Q2 2005
Source Internal COA interviews, external
stakeholder interviews benchmark city research
and interviews
57
Process Red-flag plan issues
Watch outs
Current
Proposed Solution

• Improveme