Audit of the Development Services Center Plan Approval Process · Audit of the Development Services Center Plan Approval Process Report Date: December 15, 2015 ... Audit of the Development

Office of the City Auditor

Audit of the Development Services Center Plan Approval Process

Report Date: December 15, 2015

Office of the City Auditor 2401 Courthouse Drive, Room 344

Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 757.385.5870

“Promoting Accountability and Integrity in City Operations”

Office of the City Auditor Contact Information

Office of the City Auditor “Promoting Accountability and Integrity in City Operations”

www.vbgov.com/cityauditor


2401 Courthouse Drive, Room 344 Virginia Beach, VA 23456

Telephone: 757.385.5870 Fax: 757.385.5875

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline 757.468.3330

Lyndon Remias, CPA, CIA, CRMA, CGAP City Auditor

Chris Ford, CPA Deputy City Auditor

Office of the City Auditor Transmittal Letter

i

The Office of the City Auditor is an independent audit function reporting directly to the Virginia Beach City Council.

Date: December 15, 2015 To: James K. Spore, City Manager Subject: Audit of the Development Services Center Plan Approval Process I am pleased to present the report of our audit of the Development Services Center (DSC) Plan Approval Process. The objectives of our audit were to identify and verify the validity of the Development Plan Approval Process issues cited by the Virginia Beach Process Improvement Steering Committee; to document the DSC and City Management’s efforts to date to address those issues and to offer recommendations going forward. Findings considered to be of insignificant risk have been discussed with management. We completed fieldwork on September 25, 2015. The Office of the City Auditor reports to City Council through the City’s Audit Committee and is organizationally independent of all other City Departments. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Audit Committee, City Council, Department of Planning and the Development Services Center, and appropriate management. It is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. We would like to thank the Development Services Center for their courteous and prompt assistance during our audit. The staff was receptive and excellent to work with. If you have any questions about this report, or any audit-related issue, I can be reached at 385.5872 or via email at [email protected]. Respectfully submitted,

Lyndon S. Remias, CPA, CIA City Auditor c: City Council Members Audit Committee Members Barry Frankenfield, Interim Director, Planning and Community Development

mailto:[email protected]


Table of Contents

ii The Office of the City Auditor is an independent audit function reporting directly to the Virginia Beach City Council.

Transmittal Letter ............................................................................................................................. i Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope & Objective ........................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 1 Standards ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Background .................................................................................................................................... 4 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 18 Management’s Response ............................................................................................ Attachment A Process Improvement Steering Committee’s report on Planning Department Process Facilitation by Planning & Permits Subcommittee (8/3/2012) .......................... Appendix I City’s Process Improvement Committee’s specific recommendations to improve the development review process by resolving the following three conflicts (internal conflict, external conflict and new stormwater regulations) .......................... Appendix II City Manager’s memo response to those three recommendations (6/11/2014) .................................................................................................................... Appendix III Management Services analytics/metrics report on plan approval timeliness (7/31/2014) .................................................................................................................... Appendix IV Issues emphasized from our interviews with consultants and DSC notes from 11/3/2014 DSC workgroup meeting with consultants ................................................... Appendix V

Office of the City Auditor Audit of the DSC Plan Approval Process

Audit of the DSC Plan Approval Process Page 1 of 18

Purpose To evaluate the Development Service Center plan approval process to determine if there are opportunities to enhance the process. Further, to determine whether any corrective action has been taken to address any prior issues identified. Scope & Objectives The scope of the audit covered the Development Services Center’s plan approval process issues as identified by the Virginia Beach Process Improvement Steering Committee and the efforts made by the DSC and City Management to address those issues. The objectives of our audit were to document fully the Steering Committee’s and consultants’ plan approval issues from 2012 forward; to verify the validity of the issues; to document the efforts to date by the DSC and City Management to address the issues and to offer recommendations going forward. Methodology To accomplish our objectives, we performed the following: 1. Reviewed in detail the following documents and identified and documented development

plan review issues from these documents: • Process Improvement Steering Committee’s report on Planning Department Process

Facilitation by Planning & Permits Subcommittee dated 8/3/2012. See Appendix I. • City’s Process Improvement Committee‘s specific recommendations to improve the

development review process by resolving the following three conflicts: internal conflict, external conflict and new stormwater regulations. See Appendix II.

• City Manager’s memo response to those three recommendations dated 6/11/2014. See Appendix III.

• Management Services analytics/metrics report on plan approval timeliness dated 7/31/2014. See Appendix IV.

• Consultant’s various documents and interviews. • DSC Coordinator’s March 9, 2015 update on overall progress. • DSC discussion topic agenda and subsequent notes from meeting with

developers/consultants; we grouped their comments into similar categories; agenda discussion and notes concerning City Reviewers meetings and future agenda.

2. Through our review, inquiry and extensive interviews, verify the legitimacy and accuracy of these plan review issues.

3. Interviewed select local consultants and developers for their input on the current process. 4. Grouped the consultant/developer comments from DSC notes of workshop meetings, along

with other developer/consultant comments into similar content themes. See Appendix V.



5. Interviewed responsible management to gain further detail on the issues. 6. Determined and verified which issues have been addressed, which ones have not and

reasons why, and the progress of those actions so far. 7. Interviewed select DSC project managers and engineers to obtain their input. 8. Interviewed appropriate Planning personnel and the assigned ComIT person concerning the

Acella software and documented whether the monitoring items Management Services recommended be addressed in its’ report have been addressed.

9. Developed suggestions /recommendations per this report.



Standards We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained during this audit provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The Office of the City Auditor reports to City Council through the Audit Committee and is organizationally independent of all City Departments. This report will be distributed to the City’s Audit Committee, City Council, the DSC, and appropriate management. This report will also be made available to the public.



Background On August 2, 2012 the City of Virginia Beach Process Improvement Steering Committee via the Planning & Permits Subcommittee issued a report, “Planning Department Process Facilitation.“ The purpose of the report was to “assist Virginia Beach in developing the most efficient plan review and permitting process in the region” which would ultimately benefit the City in increased economic development, property values, and other advantages. The report assessed the current development plan approval process weaknesses, noting the perception of local developers and consultants and provided insight and recommendations to improve the process. Following that report the committee issued three more very specific recommendations; the City Manager responded to the recommendations with a memo; Management Services provided analytics and a report regarding timeliness of plan approvals under the current process; the DSC issued a number of updates and documents on their efforts so far to improve the process. DSC History

Originally, there was no Development Services Center (DSC). Plans were submitted into the Planning Department to a particular intake-receiving person who routed them to the applicable departments. The plans were returned with their review comments; the comments were consolidated and the comment

letters sent out. During the 1980’s the development community had a growing concern about the length of time required for plan approval and the responsiveness of staff. The Assistant City Manager at the time took an interest in the plan review process, several models were researched, and in 1990, the DSC was formed with thirteen City staff members and set up as a separate department. The DSC coordinator set up a Virginia Beach Quality Service System (VBQSS) team – the Development Review Process Improvement Team that oversaw the study and flowcharting of the development process. The development related processes were constantly reviewed from a continuous improvement perspective to reflect more efficient processes, new laws/directives, changing duties, responsibilities, regulations, technologies, and agencies. Provided below is a brief chronology of events. • Late 1980s – Concerns from the development community lead to the development of the

Deputy City Manager (DCM) position. The Deputy City Manager assembled a small team to study the current development processes being used by other localities. Alternative staffing and organization structures were presented to the DCM.

• 1990 – Development Services Center (DSC) was created as a department to assist the

development community through the development process by coordinating the site



plan/plat review and approval processes, issuing moving and hauling permits, erosion and sediment control permits, right-of-way permits, and administering all sureties associated with private development.

• 1991 – The DSC organized and coordinated the Development Review Process Improvement

Team to study the entire development process including the developer/owner planning stage, public hearings, plan review and approval, permit issuance, inspections, surety release, and certificate of completion.

The entire process was flowcharted to show all of the sub processes and how they are interconnected.

The process was also formatted into a step-by-step “subway model” design showing a different approach to representing the process.

• 1992 – DSC and Department of Permits and Inspections (P&I) were reorganized into the

Planning Department as divisions. Civil Inspections staff and responsibilities (Public Works), and moving and hauling permits for oversized vehicles and DSC staff were transferred to P&I. Hauling permits for material and borrow pit excavation permits remained in the DSC.

• 1993-1994 – Review engineers from Public Works and Public Utilities were transferred to

DSC along with their associated duties • 1994 – Single family site plan review and approval for drainage was transferred to the DSC

from Public Works and review and approval support for projects located within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA) was provided by DSC staff. Note: the CBPA program was unfunded but required by State law. This support-included assistance to citizens, the CBPA Board and staff, as well as the coordination, review and approval of all plans and subdivisions located within the CBPA boundaries.

• Continued organization evolution -

o Created in house plan for tracking and financial data bases; o Constantly establishing, refining and strengthening relationships with other city

agencies and departments, state and federal agencies and the development community;

o Provides Erosion and Sedimentation Control Administration and Plan Review for private development and responded to state audit;

o Provides Stormwater Management Program administration for private development with new state and federal laws;

o Heavy involvement in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain program and audits; and

o Heavy involvement in the CBPA program and state audit.



• Current/Recent Changes - o The long standing DSC coordinator retired and a new one hired; o The Planning Director retired and an interim Director has been appointed; o Several experienced DSC Project Members have retired; o A new Deputy City Manager has been hired and taken an interest in evaluating the

entire Department of Planning along with both the DSC and plan review; o The Process Improvement Steering Committee, the DSC itself, and the Department

of Planning via the Deputy City Manager have been and are currently reviewing DSC processes.



Results DSC Plan Approval Issues Cited by the Steering Committee Listed below are: a) the issues/recommendations cited by the Steering Committee and other sources in regards to the DSC development plan approval process, b) the response/progress to date to the issue by DSC/ City Management to address the issues and c) any recommendations by the City Auditor to address those issues. It should be noted that our review confirmed the validity of the issues noted in the Steering Committee’s report and subsequent documents. Other issues are mentioned which our review revealed as well. Source: The specific recommendations made by the Process Improvement Committee to resolve the “three conflicts” (internal, external, state) of the DSC Process. See Appendix II. 1) “A greater use of face-to face communications to resolve critical issues will be much more efficient. Meaningful pre-submittal processes and mid-process conferences will do more quicker than the current process.”

DSC/City Management response/progress to date: The DSC, beginning in July 2015 began regular Thursday face-to-face meetings. The DSC meets internally in the morning with other involved City personnel, then with the consultant/developers who schedule a meeting on a first come first serve basis. We noted from both our interviews with consultants and our review of the DSC notes from their consultant work group that the sentiment for more face-to-face meetings was prevalent and they view this as a positive change. Recommendation #1 We recommend that DSC consider requiring a face-to- face meeting after the initial submission but before the first resubmittal.

2) “It is expected that adherence to these regulations (new stormwater regulations) in their current form will make a difficult process even more difficult. The City should approach its General Assembly delegation to seek to have these regulations applied with a degree of flexibility so that their purpose can be fulfilled without localities bearing the burden of their shortcomings.”

DSC/City Management response/progress to date: We spoke with the City’s state government liaison and he assured us this was in fact done. Our delegation worked with Delegate Bill DeSteph and City personnel to have the regulations adjusted for flexibility as much as possible though they certainly can still be onerous. The regulations have been in effect since July of 2014.



Source: City of Virginia Beach Process Improvement Steering Committee report on Planning Department Process Facilitation by Planning & Permits Subcommittee dated August 3, 2012. See Appendix I. 3) “There is a detailed and cumbersome system of coordinating the review efforts among City departments “

DSC/City Management response/progress to date: The DSC sent out a review questionnaire/discussion points to the 100 or so staff members that review plans and met on April 21, 2015 “to discuss why they review, what they review, and whether they should continue to review plans and plats”. The City Auditor has reviewed both the detailed questionnaire/topics for discussion and the DSC notes of the workshop meeting of the City reviewers. At the workshop meeting, an agenda was set going forward for the next meeting to:

1. meet with each agency to determine specific needs, 2. re-evaluate the routing (of plans for approval) matrix, 3. create lists of specific agency review responsibilities, and 4. post the lists on the Website.

From our review of the notes on the DSC meeting with the consultants on the process and our own interviews with consultants there is a perception that there are too many unnecessary reviewers.

4) “There is a widely –held belief that, while workloads have dropped significantly over the past several years due to a reduction in the number and size of development projects, the plan review process has gotten more difficult and is time consuming. “

Note: This was written in 2012, the workload has increased significantly since then, nonetheless the perception of the process being more difficult, and time consuming is still pervasive as noted by our interviews and DSC notes of the consultants’ workshop comments.

DSC/City Management response/progress to date: The DSC has responded in a number of ways to address this issue:

o DSC is in the process of reviewing all of the internal City plan review steps as to why they are reviewing, should they be reviewing to include review of the plan routing matrix and their checklists to post on the website and plan further meetings.

o They have begun to review and update all of the plan review checklists and post online. o Management Services (MS) performed requested analytics on the timeliness of plan

reviews and issued a report of 7/31/2014. See Appendix IV.



o In the MS report, they included some specific recommendations on important data requirements to be used in the implementation to allow for the overall monitoring/tracking of plan reviews.

o The Deputy City Manager, as part of an overall assessment of the entire Planning Department’s internal components including strategy, structure, systems, shared values, style, staff and skills, is including a review of the Development Services Process, collaborating with the DSC and development community.

o A Subdivision As-Built work group was formed and met in January and February of 2015 with attendees from Planning, Public Works, Public Utilities, Landscape Management, ComIT, and City Attorney’s Office. The As-Built process was one of the areas that the consultants and developers had the most complaints. DSC staff is working with PW on the update to Subdivision As-Built requirements as well as writing specific Stormwater As-Built requirements. A final draft is not ready at this time.

o There is also a single-family DSC review team that included the DSC and other agencies that put together a draft policy, which is in its second iteration. The DSC Coordinator estimates that the draft will be completed sometime near the end of October and the next step would be to review the policy with City departments/agencies. The DSC Coordinator gave a presentation recently to a small group of realtors/ builders. Additionally, the new publication of single- family requirements will include formal training for consultants and builders.

o Currently, in progress, are a new DSC Development and Subdivision Handbook (DASH), which will eventually be vetted by internal and external stakeholders and approved by City Council. The handbook will include checklists and requirements, standard comments with references to code or policy, clear submittal requirements, design standards, and examples of good plans. This project is long-term in the making and will take many more months to complete. There has been discussion currently concerning the possibility of obtaining resources to hire a temporary person or consultant to write the manual.

o Public Works is working on a revised Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual that will clarify standards for public improvements.

o Accela Implementation - Most of the DSC work time now that is not related directly to plan approval is being spent on the Accela implementation. Accela went live on October 19, 2015 allowing for electronic submittal and fee payments of plans and applications to the DSC. There will be various bugs to work out, other components to implement, and training and familiarity issues for both City staff and the consultants. This will demand



both time and patience going forward and is another good reason for the recommendation below.

Recommendation #2 To assure completion of these initiatives and inform stakeholders of the progress, we recommend listing each one in a spreadsheet /matrix format and periodically report the progress on each of these specific efforts.

Perception That the DSC/Project Managers Have Lost Authority to Manage Review Process

A series of recommendations and assessments of the current situation in the DSC taken from the before mentioned documents are closely related and were expressed in the comments below. This particular perception – for whatever reasons – that the DSC, and project managers in particular, have lost the authority to control/ expedite/manage the plan review process is certainly prevalent and is seen by the consultants as a major concern /problem resulting in many of the other cited problems - extended times, redundant and

conflicting comments, being forced to go to the City departments themselves, failing communications and a less friendly customer service environment. This sentiment was confirmed by the DSC notes taken of their own workshop with consultants and City Auditor’s interviews with various consultants, developers, and internal employees as noted below: 5) “A series of adjustments that give the DSC more authority over the process it is in charge of is in order. Giving the DSC more authority over the commenting process, or moving some of the commenting entities into or under the authority of the DSC would help achieve this, but the exact method is best left to the City Manager.” 6) ”It appears that personnel , originally intended to facilitate the review process , lack the authority to make executive decisions or even to expedite resolution of conflicting issues among the various other review departments.” 7) “Administratively managing the review process appears to have replaced the empowerment and judgment that the DSC staff have exercised during the plan review in the past...”

8) “There is an unfortunately pervasive perception of an “us versus them” attitude when dealing with City departments in some development situations”



DSC/City Management response/progress to date: DSC/City Management response/progress to date: Formally, there has not been a DSC/City Management direct response to this specific issue/perception yet (do DSC and Project Managers have the authority they need to manage the process). The City Manager wrote in his June 11, 2014 memo (See Appendix III) to the Steering Committee on this topic, “There are several paths suggested by your first recommendation (involving the DSC’s perceived lack of authority), one is to clearly articulate to the review process participants the importance of this work and the need to support the development community, making it a higher priority within all departments. A second path is to provide the DSC with critical expertise by moving staff from other agencies within the DSC. A third path would be to give the DSC authority to arbitrate the final decisions. Obviously, there may be more options suggested by the data. I will keep you apprised of our findings and suggested solutions. It is clearly not our expectation that the customer should have to reconcile conflicting city comments about a development proposal.” From our interviews with consultants, developers and employees, DSC notes from their consultant workshop and from the Steering Committee’s report and recommendations it is clearly the perception of the consultants and developers that the DSC and Project Managers have lost authority over the plan approval process and this has caused delays and other issues. The degree to which that is perception or reality and possible causes needs to be carefully considered by the DSC and the Deputy City Manager’s review efforts. Whether retirements of experienced Project Managers, less top down support of changing leadership, a subtle decreasing emphasis on the TQM/VBQSS principles of process improvement and customer service over time, changing personalities throughout the process or other reasons, much of the solution may be related to soft skills such as customer service, managerial style, attitude etc. The DSC has a difficult task in achieving the proper balance between its important regulatory roles and promoting timely, customer-oriented plan review. As noted in this report, the DSC has taken a number of positive steps in examining the process. As it is probably human nature in all of us to let the “soft” areas of customer service slide over time, these areas can be the most important when our mission is directly involved in serving a customer base; especially when at times you must inform the customer that a particular requirement or conflict cannot be negotiated or waived by staff. It should be pointed out that the Deputy City Manager is now in the process of reviewing the entire Department of Planning including and with special emphasis on the DSC plan review process. Recommendation #3 We recommend that the DSC regularly include emphasis on expectations of excellent customer service both in staff meetings and future training settings considering its importance in achieving the DSC’s mission.



9) In performing our review and reading, several recent DSC comment letters we became aware of a few letter design/format areas that could be changed to be more customer friendly specifically and in tone.

Recommendation #4 We recommend to review the design of the DSC comment letters for changes, which may make them more customer friendly. For instance, include the City contact person’s email address along with the telephone number. In addition, we noticed in the comment letter when referencing a downloadable spreadsheet to calculate dissolved sulfide they merely gave the website reference of www.vbgov.com - the specific reference would be much more useful. Finally, where practical address the additional concerns related to review comments noted in Appendix V.

10) Much of the future of the Plan approval process will depend on the successful implementation of Acella and that implementation is ongoing at the date of this memo. When MS performed their analysis of plan approval metrics (mostly analyzing the time it takes for plan approval) in the current Access database, they gave some very specific requirements that should be addressed in the implementation of Acella to ensure there is a proper monitoring/tracking system in place to manage the plan approval process.

DSC/City Management response/progress to date: It is evident from talking with the ComIT applications support employee working with the Acella implementation that this has not been formally addressed so far in the implementation process. We had this ComIT applications support employee review the standard reports, the data fields (along with the Management Services recommendation) and she confirmed that for the most part the data is in the system to create an effective monitoring/tracking system of all plans in house and their status. Furthermore, this employee indicated to us that at this time there is no standard report that gives an all-encompassing status that is inclusive of all plans in house. Each staff member can run a report that gives some information for individual Project Managers plans in cue; however, the data fields are present to develop a report similar to what Management Services recommended. The below requirements from Management Services’ analysis are a good starting point to develop that tool which is critical to managing the process.

o Overall time it takes to review a plan, by plan type from initial submission to completed review, for a specified time period (fiscal year).

o Calculation of the average it takes to review a plan, by type, for a specified period. o The time it takes for each step in the review process by plan type. For each review step,

this would involve logging in and logging out and would apply to those steps occurring within the DSC and those done by other departments. Enough detail should be

http://www.vbgov.com/



provided to determine exactly where any obstacles are occurring and what steps need either to be improved or eliminated. If reviews are routed within other departments, that information should be captured; also there could be issues occurring within the other departments. To easily capture this information using a bar coding system in connection with the system should be evaluated.

o A calculation of the number of days the review was completed before or after the standard time (28/21/14/7 days) by plan type. This would provide data to determine what percent of plans were actually received on time.

o A calculation of the number of resubmissions per initial submissions by plan type, distinguishing between plan submittals (initial and resubmittals) before the actual development project is underway and field changes made (changes requested while the project is under development) if that distinction is necessary.

Recommendation #5 We recommend that the appropriate personnel in the DSC that will use and be accountable for the tracking and monitoring of development plans meet with ComIT applications support person to ensure that the proper monitoring/tracking /reporting system is properly built into Acella and working as intended. Source: Steering Committee – In its original report the Steering Committee gave a number of other recommendations: 11) “With the City’s Manager’s direction, a small Task Force should be created to review, and perhaps eventually facilitate, the permitting and approval experience. This group should conduct a top-down review with the intent on creating a new process based on the primary tenet of “what plan review processes and protections are necessary “instead of “how do we change the current program”

DSC/City Management response/progress to date: The DSC and we agree, did not choose to scrap their entire process and create a new one from scratch. They have chosen to keep the positive aspects of their processes but assess where they can change and alter the process for the better and to do so by putting together the necessary personnel for the particular process/issue as they continue to do business. Also, a specifically appointed small task force was not created, as understandably different personnel are needed for the myriad of issues they are addressing. The DSC coordinator has thus assembled the necessary people for the task at hand, which is understandable. Recommendation #6 We recommend that the DSC consider assembling a specific small task force with the overall responsibility and accountability of addressing all of the issues (can use sub-committees to work on the specific tasks).



12) “The awareness of other Cities’ procedures is critical to ensure that others’ best practices are imitated and (maybe more importantly) worst practices are identified and avoided.” DSC/City Management response/progress to date: The DSC has selectively considered other Cities’ processes in certain areas such as adding more face-to-face meetings and in the single-family plan approval process, but not in the overall process. Recommendation #7 We recommend, as the Steering Committee did, that consideration be given to having an experienced DSC staff member obtain other local City’s documented processes and review them for any ideas that may help as we go through the review of our own. Specific Issues Identified by Local Consultants and Developers 13) We interviewed a number of consultants/developers/engineers who submit plans regularly to the DSC for approval to both confirm and identify what the Steering Committee and what we had heard were some of the issues with the plan approval process. The consultants by and large were helpful, open and balanced in sharing their perspective. Their concerns did in fact echo and verify those communicated by the steering committee and others. Most of the comment themes were repeated multiple times by various consultants. We grouped their comments, along with the consultant comments made at the DSC workshop into common subject themes. See Appendix V.

Management Services’ DSC Plan Approval Review Analysis

At the City Manager’s request in July of 2014, Management Services performed some data analysis of the DSC’s current Access database (it will be replaced shortly by Accela) of plan review data for the seven major types of plan submittals that make up the bulk of the DSC’s plan review work. Management Services issued a results memo on July 31, 2014 of their analysis. The analysis concentrates on four major measurements:

1. time taken to review plans, 2. percent of plans reviewed on time (within DSC’s target dates), 3. number of times plans were delayed by actions within the DSC and in other

departments; and 4. the average number of resubmittals.

The analysis goes back three years, 2011 to 2014. Because the DSC is about to implement the Accela system, the Management Services’ analysis is relatively current, there are existing



problems in the current Access database obtaining reliable data (based on dates), and because Management Services’ analysis appears thorough, we opted not to repeat the analysis. We reviewed Management Services results memo and included the below excerpts from their memo. We have attached the full memo; see Appendix IV, for a complete understanding of some of the limitations and interpretations of the analysis. Using the data provided by the database, the following graph shows the overall average number of days needed to complete each review (initial submittal and resubmittal) for the periods May 2011 – April 2012, May 2012 – April 2013, and May 2013 – April 2014.

The graph shows that the number of days needed to review Site Plans is increasing, while the number of days needed for Final Subdivision Plats has remained relatively stable and the number needed for Single-Family Site Plans has gone down slightly. The last two 12-month periods show improvement in the number of days needed for Multi-Lot Residential Site Plans, Single-Family Site Plans in the RPA and, to a lesser degree, Subdivision Construction Plans. For the three twelve-month periods, reviews for Final Subdivision Plats, Site Plans, and Subdivision Construction Plans appear for the most part to be within the target review time periods.

19.4

9.9

15.5

18.9

19.1

18.2

16.717

.7

10.1

18.8 18

.9

20.7

21.0

24.4

19.9

10.3

17.8

17.9

17.6

22.0 24

.1

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Duplex Site Plan FinalSubdivision Plat

Multi-LotResidential Site

Plan

Single FamilySite Plan

Single FamilySite Plan-RPA

Site Plan SubdivisionConstruction

Plan

Average Days to Review Plans

May 2011-Apr 2012 May 2012-Apr 2013 May 2013-Apr 2014



Percent of Plans Reviewed On Time This data is derived from comparing the dates of submittal (the initial and each resubmittal) to the respective target (self- set) review times. “On Time” in this context means that the review was completed no later than the target date. The graph below shows the percent of plans reviewed on time for each plan type for the three 12-month periods.

While the percent of plans reviewed on time for Final Subdivision Plats is very high, the percent for Duplex Site Plans, Single-Family Site Plans, and Single Family Site Plans in the RPA is relatively low. Both Site Plans and Subdivision Construction Plans show a downward trend in the percent reviewed on time, highlighting specific areas that need improvement.

37.5

0%

95.1

7%

80.5

6%

29.1

3%

31.2

3%

72.1

6%

76.3

6%

47.2

2%

94.2

0%

75.0

0%

31.4

6%

23.0

0%

59.5

8%

54.6

9%

21.7

4%

95.1

5%

76.5

6%

38.5

1%

33.7

3%

58.9

4%

47.0

6%

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

Duplex SitePlan

FinalSubdivision

Plat


Plan




Plan

Percent of Plans Reviewed On Time




The Average Number of Resubmittals The average number of resubmittals per initial submittal varies widely among the seven types of plans included in this analysis. The graph below shows the average number of resubmittals for each plan type for each of the three 12-month periods.

Data on this graph show that fewer resubmittals have been needed for Final Subdivision Plats than any other plan type, and the number has been decreasing over the three periods. This could indicate that that type of plan is generally in better form when first submitted for review. On the other hand, the number needed for Subdivision Construction Plans has been increasing to almost two resubmittals per initial submittal. The DSC has explained that this is primarily the result of project complexity and the level of regulated items on these types of plans. Conclusion The DSC has a very difficult mission/balance to maintain. As the Steering Committee, so aptly wrote “… the consequences of failure (plan design) are severe. Remedy is costly and reflects poorly on the city and the developer. The burden of poor design is often borne by new residents or businesses, or by adjacent or nearby properties. So it is fortunate that such emphasis is placed on problem avoidance. As a result, the private sector sees the process as being slow,

1.67

0.83

1.12

1.37

0.95

1.23

1.04

1.57

0.72

2.25

1.67

1.13

1.38

1.78

1.71

0.67

1.13

1.38

0.72

1.26

1.96

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Duplex Site Plan FinalSubdivision Plat


Plan




Plan

Average Number of Resubmittals




unresponsive, and cumbersome. It is not seen as being designed to help them in their cause of sure, effective, and speedy resolution of their issues. Thus, the challenge of process improvement is to preserve the good qualities of the process while rectifying the shortcomings. These two objectives compete with one another, but not to the point that they are mutually exclusive.” The process is really a combination of detailed “hard” procedures/processes associated with compliance mixed with a heavy dose of “soft” personnel skills – personalities, management style, judgment and experience, customer service skills and attitudes. Both are important and perhaps the soft “people” skills that are not easily quantifiable, may be the more important part of the process, which is what our interviews indicated. Based upon our review, we have determined that management is taking the necessary action to address the issues identified at the DSC. We are confident that the short term and long tern corrective action will greatly improve the DSC and ultimately will benefit all internal and external customers who interact with the DSC. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the DSC and the local development consultants for their assistance during our review. All were open in sharing their honest opinions and accommodating to our questions and requests. The DSC was also prompt with our information requests and willing to address all of our inquiries.

JDClark

Typewritten Text

Attachment A

PISC Planning & Permits Subcommittee page 1

City of Virginia Beach

Process Improvement Steering Committee

report on

Planning Department

Process Facilitation

by

Planning & Permits Subcommittee

August 3, 2012

jdclark

Typewritten Text

Appendix I


Process Improvement Steering Committee

Planning & Permits Department Subcommittee

Purpose: The intent of the Planning & Permits Department Subcommittee

was to view the City Departments as a vendor, and the citizens of Virginia Beach and elsewhere as consumers of the service called “getting development underway”. Consumers

(developers, homeowners, and consultants) in the Tidewater area have the luxury of being able to choose from among at

least 7 vendors (Cities) within a 40-mile trade area. The City of Virginia Beach will be well-served by creating a competitive advantage over the other Cities by having optimally-

streamlined permitting and approval processes. The entire City will benefit from the economic development, increased

property values, and other advantages of creating the most efficient Planning Department in the region.

We hope to assist Virginia Beach in developing the most

efficient plan review and permitting process in the region. Further, we believe that improving the process will

enhance the real estate tax base of the City, closing the gap between revenues and funding requirements for City operations.

Thirdly, efficient permitting and approvals will boost employment in the construction industry and other industries in Tidewater.

Background: Our subcommittee members met with several professional engineers in private consulting practices, several local builders

currently engaged in construction projects throughout Tidewater, trade organizations including the Tidewater Builders Association, development review staff in other Tidewater cities,

as well as City Staff in the Planning Department and the Development Services Center on multiple occasions. It should

be noted that all private-sector participants with the exception of TBA requested, and were assured, anonymity.

Additionally, we acknowledge the prior work on this topic

completed by Virginia Beach Vision in 2007 and the proposals put forth by the Economic Development Authority in the same

year. Attached in Appendix A of this report are two such memos from previous studies in 2007 which identified issues similar to the ones the subcommittee discovered.

We have found that, overall, the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department and, specifically, the Permits and DSC Divisions, do

many things better than most other cities in Tidewater.


Although there are some specific instances of erroneous direction, inaccurate procedures, or difficult timelines, the City

Staff we interviewed and others we are aware of are quality professionals with a desire to provide quality service to

the citizens of Virginia Beach and the private consultants who work on projects in the City.

Perceptions: We heard many comments from both the private and the City

participants predicting the ease with which some will criticize the City Staff and processes. We realize that not many

stakeholders have a first-hand knowledge of the complex, overall mission of the Development Services Center or the specific, intricate details of the Permitting approvals process.

Conversely, it seems apparent that City Staff sometimes have little awareness of the negative impact that their policies and

procedures have on the efficient operation of private development projects.

In addition, there is a frustration among both professional

consultants as well as individual citizens that a procedure which is well-documented and should be mostly predictable is

sometimes arbitrary and capricious based on some unique and individual characteristics of the review process or, worse, an

incorrect application or interpretation of the regulations.

In short, we offer the following appraisals for the consideration of the City Manager and City Council:

A. There is a well-defined hierarchical Organizational Chart in the Planning Department and particularly in the Development

Services Center. Even so, it appears that personnel, originally intended to facilitate the review process, lack the authority to make executive decisions or even to expedite

resolution of conflicting issues among the various other review departments. The Development Services Center staff

could be much better utilized in a role of ombudsmen (with the authority to resolve conflicting review issues) between the consultants and the major City review participants.

B. There is a detailed and cumbersome system of coordinating the review efforts among the City departments

(see the DSC’s routing spreadsheet in Appendix B). Administratively managing the review process appears to have replaced the empowerment and judgment that the DSC

staff exercised during plan review in the past.

C. There is an unfortunately pervasive perception of an “us versus them” attitude when dealing with City departments in some development situations.


D. There is a widely-held belief that, while workloads have dropped significantly over the past several years due to a

reduction in the number and size of development projects, the plan review process has gotten more difficult and

time-consuming.

Recommendations

Short term: In the short term, and for virtually no cost, the City could

implement a “Building Plan Review” meeting process. The City staff would conduct both general / generic sessions as well

as project-specific review meetings including the design professionals and the relevant review staff members to address conflicts among review sections and code sections. After an

acceptable meeting resolution, the plans could be forwarded for approval through a truly expedited review process. There are

components of such a process in the Preliminary Plan Review procedure, within the Strategic Growth Area Department, as well as currently or previously in other cities in Tidewater.

Long Term: With the City Manager’s direction, a small Task Force should be created to review, and perhaps eventually facilitate, the

permitting and approval experience. This group should conduct a top-down review with the intent of creating a new process

based on the primary tenet of “what plan review processes and protections are necessary” instead of “how do we change the current program”. This process could begin with an analysis of

the changing times and changing technologies, and a realization of what could be a “new normal” of review processes and

personnel based on significantly changed workloads when compared against development volumes of a few years ago. We suggest a Task Force of external stakeholders because, based

on how the Planning Department operates, it will be difficult for Staff to objectively evaluate the difficulties of the review process

from within the process itself.

The idea of an ombudsman, or intermediary, to act not only on behalf of the applicants, but also as an agent of the City, to

explain to these “customers” the reasoning behind what are sometimes illogical requirements, was a very popular one

among the entire Process Improvement Steering Committee. This role could either be filled by the right City Staff members or, perhaps, it is a job for an outside, private consultant very

familiar with both Virginia Beach’s development review processes in addition to those practices - good and bad -

implemented in other Cities in the region. The Development Services Center was originally created to fill this role, but there is no longer the necessary empowerment afforded to that office.


The awareness of other Cities’ procedures is critical to ensure that others’ best practices are imitated and (maybe more

importantly) worst practices are identified and avoided.

Several components of the review process are entirely

dependent on a single individual. We suggest that this be corrected; every executive decision-making level position should have one or more designated backups with the power and

judgment to administratively approve appropriate variances.

We feel strongly that a monitoring system should be put in

place so that the actions of non-participating employees can be monitored. The City Manager, and the Department Head, as well as interested City Council members should receive regular

reports, additionally establishing expectations and milestones regarding the new direction for review and permitting.

Opportunities: There is a possibility that the Planning Department will suffer some critical personnel retirements in the near future. Key retirements, and the loss of decades of institutional

experience, could have a devastating effect on the review process, but it can also be an opportunity to make a significant

change of direction for the department. Some immediate consideration should be given to a management-level

succession plan, or even a consideration to empowering an outside consultant (if the newly-created Task Force identifies value in this) to analyze areas for change and participate in the

development review and permitting process in a new and meaningful way.

Closing: We strongly believe that the City employs talented and knowledgeable staff in the Planning and Permits Departments. We are confident that, with the City Manager’s

active participation in a refreshed process analysis, significant positive improvements can be realized to enhance the

construction employment situation in Virginia Beach, increase property values in the City, and grow property tax revenues to the City coffers.

Members of the Process Improvement Steering Committee would be privileged to serve on the Task Force suggested above

if one is created, or to assist City Council and the City Manager in any way possible.

Appendix A

Memos from a 2007 Analysis by the Virginia Beach Development

Authority

Appendix B

Existing Development Services Center Routing / Review

Spreadsheet

(reduced in size from 11” x 17” and 8.5” x 14” originals)

jdclark

Typewritten Text

Appendix II

jdclark

Typewritten Text

Appendix III

jdclark

Typewritten Text

Appendix IV

Issues emphasized from our interviews with consultants and DSC notes from 11/3/14 DSC workgroup meeting with consultants:

Review comments are:

• Not tied to a specific code/ordinance requirement • Based on opinion • Repeated at times, consolidate them • Merely suggestions • Too many • Changed by inspectors • Team member changes causes problems when comments change • Boilerplate comments that don’t apply • Minor issues of unimportance not effecting the whole • After approved plans inspectors force a change – costly • Don’t send out incomplete comments • Less reviewers • Review times too long • New comments on resubmittals • When Down to just a few comments don’t go back through the review • Splitting plan sets per reviewers/keep plan sets whole

Project Coordinators

• Project Managers should sort out comments or resolve comments • New Project Managers not able to do it – not enough clout/confidence perhaps • Many of the issues not being properly filtered by the Project Coordinators whose job is to

quarterback the review process • Project Managers not resolving the issues.

o Do they have authority? • Lack authority, confidence ability

Communication

• Pre-submittal meetings o Want a resubmittal meeting before doing resubmittal o Need more meetings – not just phone calls or emails after first letter

• VB consultant has to sort out between departments o They have to go to each reviewer

• Virtual meetings would help o Use technology

• Have more effective internal communication

jdclark

Typewritten Text

Appendix V

• Staff needs to return calls and emails in a timely manner • Talk about comments before resubmitting • Different teams meeting on different days • Pushing reconciling issues on the consultant to set up meeting • Develop a “Go By” formats for set of plans, calculations, as built formats • Resubmittal meeting before resubmitted plans

As-Built

• Very onerous • Many complaints … “no purpose”, “do not require as-built” - the inspector watched it being

built • Causes delays • “arbitrary”, “not clear what should be on as-built” • Deny as-builts, upsets all • “do away with as-builts”, “what’s it for?, “what’s required?” • Want good as-built example

Acella concerns

• “Afraid Acella will make it worse!” • Does not like” ACA of Acella the P&I has” • Voiced Acella concerns “about all different comments” • Acella – “won’t cull comments at all”

Other Cities

• Chesapeake – need building plan approval before site plan approval – some feel this works better

• Newport News – have a meeting after 1st letter before resubmittal – usually approved on 2nd submittal

• Chesapeake – sends a draft letter - meet and discuss then sends out letter • Richmond – separate some of the complex portions – topo, E&S, boundaries • Newport News and Hampton - have required meetings

Documents

Audit of the Development Services Center Plan Approval Process · Audit of the Development Services Center Plan Approval Process Report Date: December 15, 2015 ... Audit of the Development