Copy of Final Report

Henrico County Department of Planning Key Information Technology Strategies By Jessica Zielonis, Jonathan Wyss, Sharon Sykes, Samantha Kenny & Leigh Estes

2012

Virginia Commonwealth University Master of Public Administration Program

5/3/2012

Henrico County Department of Planning: Key IT Strategies - 2012 Page 1 of 55

923 West Franklin Street Scherer Hall, Room 401

Richmond, Virginia 23284

May 3, 2012 R. Joseph Emerson, AICP Director of Planning County of Henrico Department of Planning 4301 East Parham Road Henrico, Virginia 23228 Dear Mr. Emerson: The Virginia Commonwealth University, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, PADM 689 Consultant Team would like to thank you and your staff for the opportunity to work with the Department on our Capstone final research project. It has been a wonderful learning experience that will surely benefit each one of us throughout our chosen careers and we hope will prove equally valuable to the Department of Planning. The Consultant Team is submitting for your review our final report, which clearly outlines the methodology used to collect and analyze the presented data. In addition, we have included a Gantt chart (Appendix D) mapping out a timeline for high priority projects and a number of recommendations derived from our analysis that we believe will enable the Department of Planning to reach its IT objectives and increase process efficiencies as well as the optimization of resources. If you or your staff note any errors in our data collection or analysis, please contact us so we may address the deficiencies. Otherwise, we hope this report will prove beneficial in the Department of Planning’s efforts to achieve greater integration of information technology with its business processes. Thank you again for the enormous opportunity extended to our team. Sincerely, VCU PADM 689 Consultant Team


Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Problem Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Statement of Challenges .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Root Causes ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Realizing Potential ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Organizational Structure .................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Increasing Efficiencies and Effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Overview of the Science of Muddling Through ............................................................................................... 11

5.0 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Strategic Planning in Local Government ......................................................................................................... 12 5.3 Resistance to Change and Transformational Change within Local Government ............................................. 13 5.4 Business Processes ........................................................................................................................................... 16 5.5 E-Government .................................................................................................................................................. 17 5.6 Going Paperless ............................................................................................................................................... 18 5.7 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 18

6.0 Overview of Planning Department ................................................................................................................................... 20 6.1 Planning Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 20 6.2 Henrico County Board of Supervisors ............................................................................................................. 22 6.3 Departmental Organization Structure .............................................................................................................. 22 6.4 Comprehensive Planning Division ................................................................................................................... 23 6.5 Development Review and Design Division ..................................................................................................... 23 6.6 Zoning Administration Division ...................................................................................................................... 23 6.7 Planning Systems Division .............................................................................................................................. 24

7.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25 7.1 Stakeholder Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 25 7.2 Interviews ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 7.3 Synthesis of Interviews & Observations .......................................................................................................... 27 7.4 Electronic Survey & Results ............................................................................................................................ 28 7.5 Survey Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 7.6 Survey Results as Compared to the Literature ................................................................................................. 38

8.0 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................. 40 Project Recommendation # 1 ................................................................................................................................. 40 Project Recommendation # 2 ................................................................................................................................. 41 Project Recommendation # 3 ................................................................................................................................. 42 Project Recommendation # 4 ................................................................................................................................. 43 Project Recommendation # 5 ................................................................................................................................. 44 Project Recommendation # 6 ................................................................................................................................. 45 Project Recommendation # 7 ................................................................................................................................. 46 Project Recommendation # 8 ................................................................................................................................. 47 Project Recommendation # 9 ................................................................................................................................. 48 Project Recommendation # 10 ............................................................................................................................... 49 Project Recommendation # 11 ............................................................................................................................... 50

9.0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 51 10.0 Appendices........................................................................................................................................................................ 55


1.0 Introduction The Henrico County Department of Planning is a leading organization in community development, and strives to achieve greater interaction and responsiveness with its customers and stakeholders. The Department of Planning has a long tradition of commitment and reliability within the government and community, and is a pivotal element in maintaining the critical balance of business with residential tax base within the County. Developers have long recognized the advantages and desirability of the Henrico County community and the Department of Planning continues its efforts to maintain high standards that will continue to create the “coveted quality of life.” Over the years, the Department of Planning management and staff have collectively dedicated their efforts toward customer and stakeholder responsiveness, and community development progression. The Department has made significant strides in automating and integrating its business and records management processes, and seeks new means of improving electronic communication with its customer base and stakeholders. The Department recognizes the need for automated sophistication, and has worked toward that end in order to further increase efficiencies and effectiveness Please note that a table of acronyms may be found in Appendix A.


2.0 Problem Analysis

2.1 Statement of Challenges

The Department of Planning is facing not only technological challenges, but human challenges that often accompany the technological aspects. Ultimately, there are three root causes which perpetuate the challenges within the agency. The first component is the digital divide, the second component is the silo effect, and the third is lack of an approach and buy-in to technology. Individually, each component is its own significant challenge, but taken together, the three components form a much greater challenge within the Department of Planning. However, it is not an insurmountable challenge and can be overcome. These challenges can serve as opportunities for the agency (Bryson, 2004). In fact, the Department of Planning has the opportunity to use information technology to transform itself into the exemplary leader of Henrico County’s community development agencies and to become a prime example of what a planning department can be for a local government. Transformation is change, which can be especially challenging to organizations whose experiences are deeply imbedded within the organizational culture. (Hamel and Prahalad, 1996). Consequently, it is not surprising that many organizations experience resistance to change. In fact, resistance to change is a perfectly natural reaction (Oregg, 2003). The important thing is to identify sources of resistance and deal with each one patiently and appropriately, yet effectively (Schein, 1999). This is especially true for changes related to information technology; a subject which many people find intimidating.

2.2 Root Causes The Digital Divide - The digital divide refers to inequalities between groups in terms of access, use or knowledge of information and communications technologies (Chinn & Fairlie, 2004). A digital divide involving lack of skills and knowledge can also be called a knowledge divide (Sciadas, 2005). A knowledge divide occurs when the digital divide has moved beyond inequalities in access and resources, and instead involves lack of information about technology as well as a “diffusion” in “appropriate utilization of Information and Communication Technologies” (Sciadas, 2005). Chinn and Fairlie go on to add, “computers...require substantial levels of education” and training in order for employees to utilize their full potential. Without proper training and education for those who are lacking knowledge in technologies, inequalities will continue to grow and develop amongst staff (Chinn & Fairlie, 2004). In the case of the Department of Planning, the digital divide has led to a knowledge gap between those who are adept with technology and the systems within the agency, and those who prefer older methods of performing tasks, such as paper files.

Through interviews with Department of Planning staff, it was discovered many still prefer paper documents to digital files in order to complete many of their daily tasks. This may be because the Department’s systems are not often seen as user friendly due to their complexity in carrying out simple tasks. FileNet, the countywide digital information storage system, is a content management system that has a fair technological capability, and could be utilized for much more than the Department’s current uploading of documents. With digital files, it is possible to have unlimited copies of a file that can be used by a number of people simultaneously and requires less time to go into the FileNet system to pull


these documents. In contrast, hard copies are limited in number, can only be used by one person at a time, and require searching manually for the documents needed. This example illustrates a difference in knowledge, and how these differences affect daily work life within the Department of Planning. Increased efficiency is perhaps the biggest opportunity for resource savings within the Department of Planning which can be achieved by merely encouraging staff to find the digital copies available on the computer instead of the hard copies they are accustomed to using. Efficiency is increased when staff use the digital-based copy that can be viewed and used by multiple people, instead of waiting for the one original copy of a file that is shared by all employees. Often, hard copy files can be lost or incomplete, and project times slow down while waiting for that one hard copy file. Some tasks that could be handled in a matter of hours or minutes will take days simply because staff is not trained on how to better utilize the software systems available to them. There are numerous training opportunities available through the County’s Department of Human Resources to all county employees and departments. The Department of Planning has potential resources to meet the training challenges presented within the department. The Department has the capability to succeed in its modernization efforts merely by encouraging staff to pursue training opportunities accessible to them. Silo Effect - During the most recent “building boom,” Henrico County experienced tremendous growth in residential and commercial property development. In order to provide timely review and submission to the Planning Commission, the staff within the Department of Planning worked extensive hours to meet required deadlines and process development applications. Typically, applications are submitted by the Department of Planning to the Commission within two months. This is a very limited amount of time to coordinate and complete all required activities. There are up to 14 review agencies involved in the process, and the Department of Planning is the focal point for the activity. In order to streamline the review processes and timeline, the functions are distributed according to specialty and functionality, creating functional compartmentalization. Departmental or divisional silos typically start when organizations experience rapid growth and begin to separate work according to specialization or individual functions, resulting in loss of communication, coordination, and collaboration across divisions. Instead of all divisions focusing on collective organizational goals, the divisional goals are pursued, competition between divisions ensues, and sub-cultures are formed. The sub-cultures promote unity and loyalty to the division, but overall hurt the effectiveness and productivity for the organization by limiting collaborative efforts and infusion of alternative approaches and attitudes (Peters, 2011). Silos are also defined “as groups of employees that tend to work as autonomous units” which promotes resistance to integration of work across the units, thus limiting ideas and collaborative efforts which could enhance work processes and efficiencies (Select Strategy.com, 2002). “An information silo is a management system incapable of reciprocal operation with other, related management systems…The expression is typically applied to management systems where the focus is inward and information communication is vertical (Peters, 2011). In the Department of Planning, the silo effect may have made coordination and communication among divisions difficult to achieve. These agency wide silos may limit the optimal productivity within an organization, provide greater opportunity for security lapses and


privacy breaches, and potentially can frustrate consumers who increasingly expect information to be immediately available and complete (Peters, 2011). The Department of Planning does an excellent job of integrating the work across divisions, but research suggests that the Department of Planning may exhibit the silo effect in two separate and distinct ways; divisionally and technologically. The divisional silo effect exists within the Department of Planning between the Comprehensive Planning Division (CPD), the Development Review & Design Division (DRD), and the Zoning Administration Division (ZAD); and extends out to other departments involved in the application review process. There are 14 review agencies involved in the application process and include the Building Inspections Department (BID), the Department of Public Works (DPW), and the Department of Public Utilities (DPU), along with several other county and state agencies/departments (Henrico County, 2007). Each of these departments and divisions has established agendas and submission deadlines within the review process, and these remain their focus and priority. In regards to technology, the application review process appears splintered across departments and divisions. While the Department of Planning IT Manager has been able to integrate the large number of systems and repositories to maintain and retrieve needed information, in some instances, the systems and the data contained, namely TideMark, are not maintained by the Department of Planning, and control is extremely limited and restricted. Expansion of TideMark functionality across departments and divisions is within system capabilities, but would require a collaborative effort to do so. Likewise, data and records that are maintained by the Department of Planning are constructed within structural silos. The three divisions within the department each maintain legacy data systems for different information needed throughout the review and approval process. All three use their own automated indexing and filing structure when organizing the data. The literature suggests that the organizational impact of not eliminating divisional silos may be divisional competition and rivalry, fragmented organizational goals, lack of cooperation and collaboration, conflicting objectives, political agendas, blaming, and distrust. All of these outcomes detract from the core business functions and interfere with productivity (Peters, 2011). Acknowledging existing barriers between the divisions within the Department of Planning demonstrates an opportunity to dismantle the silos and create a more unified organization and system of information processing. Buy-In - The third component of the challenge, which we term “buy-in”,that the Department of Planning faces has two key elements. The first element is providing a consistent approach to IT throughout all divisions within the agency. The second key element is establishing commitment and trust in an enterprise-wide IT system that will meet the needs of both management and staff. It is important to note that, although these issues exist, the Department has a huge number of resources at its disposal to address the challenges. In order to advance the Department’s IT initiatives, each element should be addressed simultaneously to limit the ongoing impact that each element has on the other. Interviews with the Department of Planning staff suggest that there is limited consistency in IT usage. This can be seen through 3 prime examples: Example # 1 – Inconsistent FileNet Formatting: All files on FileNet are Portable Digital Format (PDF) files; however, every file is not formatted according to a common standard. Each division within the Department of Planning formats these documents differently. Comprehensive Planning scans each


document of a case as individual documents, Zoning Administration scans each case as one PDF document, and Development Design and Review is scanning cases as two PDF documents (approval letters and all other plan information) (Personal Interviews, February 3, 2012 and February 9, 2012). Example # 2 – TideMark Case Numbers: Every case in TideMark is given a number specific to that individual case. However, every case is not numbered according to a common standard. This is a problem both within the Department of Planning and among all of the agencies within the Community Development umbrella (Personal Interview, February 3, 2012). Among the Community Development agencies, a hypothetical case may be numbered within TideMark differently by each agency. For example, The Department of Planning may identify a case within Tidemark as “Planning-001-2012.” Meanwhile, the Department of Public Utilities might identify that same case as “DPU-1-2012.” Other agencies may also have their own unique identifiers. It can be difficult to keep track of a case depending upon whether it is identified according to a Department of Planning identifier, Department of Public Utilities identifier, or another agency’s identifier (Personal Interview, February 3, 2012). TideMark’s case number hierarchy can be found in Appendix I. Example # 3, Inaccurate and Incomplete Information in TideMark: Throughout interviews with the Department of Planning, it became clear that the information in TideMark is not complete and may not be entirely accurate. Many staff members voiced concern over the reliability of data contained in TideMark because of the potential for incomplete or erroneous data records. This could prove particularly problematic because of the information integration between various systems and databases that the Department of Planning relies on. The common theme that each of these examples highlight is that there is no universal approach to utilizing IT within the divisions of the Department of Planning. The everyday consequences of each example are familiar to many staff within the Department of Planning: files on FileNet can be troublesome to locate because multiple PDFs may need to be reviewed in order to find the correct document. Electronic information is viewed with hesitation and cases can be difficult to track. Many cases do not resemble any common format. The consequences of these examples contribute to the second key element – the lack of commitment to and reliance on information technology available within the Department (Personal Interview, February 9, 2012). As technology becomes more advanced and the population becomes more technologically savvy, IT will continue to become more and more integral to public sector organizational operations. (Ebrahim and Irani, 2005). Hence, improving the approach to and sustaining commitment to IT is a challenge that should be embraced.


3.0 Realizing Potential The Department of Planning has been tasked with a major role and responsibility in the residential and commercial development process. Prior to the building recession, the Department of Planning had approximately 25 percent more staff to handle the large project (i.e. Plan of Development (POD), workload that was submitted by developers/engineers for approval by the Planning Commission. Currently, the Department of Planning has 50 positions allocated, but seven of these are either vacant or on hold for hiring. The building recession has enabled current staffing levels to meet the demands placed upon the department, but with the market showing signs of recovery, this could change in the near future (Personal interview, February 17, 2012). At its busiest, the Department of Planning was reviewing a vast number of plans on a monthly basis, and responding to multiple, often very detailed, information inquiries from fellow agencies, developers, and Board/Commission members. These information requests, more often than not, require the involvement of multiple staff members of varying levels to extract data from several sources through manual efforts or the use of automated records. These efforts frequently take substantial time away from day-to-day functions, and often must be produced within very limited timeframes (Personal interview, February 17, 2012).

3.1 Organizational Structure The Department of Planning is currently organized and operates under the traditional hierarchical model that emphasizes managerial control over specialized functions and specific pieces of the overall process. Some research suggests the “stovepipe” or “silo” operating structure limits process management that could increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency. The existing structure was established to segregate work under the traditional system of managerial control over established divisions, and information technology was developed within each division to meet the needs of the individual processes performed within each defined area. This structure may emphasize divisional achievement over organizational achievement, and restrict communication and collaboration across the department. Likewise, business processes and automated systems were established to meet the individual needs of each division, rather than creating the most organized means of processing the work through the entire department. While the existing structure has enabled the individual divisions and the Department of Planning to perform the required work within established time constraints, technologies have been developed that could increase departmental productivity, if properly implemented. From an executive perspective, the business processes could be synchronized in order to create the greatest public benefit, and information could be produced from a single point of electronic inquiry, instead of piecing together information from multiple points of segregated and independently-maintained data. This conception requires that the organization structure conform to the business processes rather than the reverse, which is typically the case (Gulledge and Sommer, 2002). The implementation of a unified “customer-focused” business approach requires the integration of data and processes that are currently disbursed within organizational silos (Nash, 2010). The implementation and utilization of process-driven technology is not compatible with hierarchical structures, and results


would be very limited. In order to realize success and increase efficiencies within the organization, restructuring is necessary to achieve desired results. Empirical evidence indicates that “organizations that take the time to align their business processes with their information systems are more likely to achieve success. If the business process requirements do not align with the business processes that are supported by the software, then there is a gap. The only way to close the gap is by business process modeling and analysis, followed by careful software configuration or customization” (Gulledge and Sommer, 2002). Technology systems used by the Department of Planning could be based on customer needs and not on departmental structure. The full benefit of IT capabilities cannot be realized unless there is a shift in the structure, since the hierarchical and network systems are fundamentally different approaches to business processes (Shirky, 2008). According to Deming (1950), 85 percent of workers’ efficiency is the result of the business system, with individual skill accounting for the remaining 15 percent. Business processes are optimized when the work utilizes the “best available” techniques and technology; “productivity gains of 100 to 300 percent” can be realized (Weeks and Bruns, 2005).

3.2 Increasing Efficiencies and Effectiveness The Plan of Development Review Process and Subdivision Review Process are critical points where the Department of Planning has an opportunity to increase value for its customers and increase efficiencies and effectiveness through the use of technology and streamlined business processes. System development that would enable a web-based application process would provide multiple benefits for the department’s customers, in addition to simplifying the application flow throughout the various review departments (Henrico County, 2007). Through developing a “process management approach,” the Henrico County Planning Department could potentially cut the two-month submission deadline to the Planning Commission; be more timely and responsive to individual inquiries; eliminate the use of compensatory (comp) hours and paid overtime; and utilize additional resources toward the ongoing development of the department’s strategic plan and process enhancements.

In 2011, Department of Planning staff accrued 943 hours of comp time, and were paid for 59 hours of overtime (Personal interviews, February 9, 2012 and February 20, 2012). During peak years of development, this number may, however, be significantly higher. Conservatively calculated, the additional cost of the combined comp time and overtime earned for 2011 is over $37,000, if utilized. The compensatory hours earned must be used by the employee within a specified timeframe or they will be “lost.” Interviews conducted with various staff within the Department of Planning (February 9, 2012 and February 20, 2012), suggested the majority of employees lost a substantial portion of the comp hours earned because they were unable to take leave due to the sustained workload demands of the department. Prolonged periods of excessive work hours can have a detrimental effect on the individual employee, and negative outcome for the organization (McKay, 2012). Typical causes of employee burnout can include:

Trying to be more productive in the face of impending staff reductions Having to be more productive because of staff reductions Lack of rewards for increased productivity


Not having enough time away from work Studies indicate that employees experiencing burnout due to overwork are more likely to make mistakes in their work, feel resentment toward the employer and coworkers, and search for other job options (McKay, 2012). Feelings of overwork and burnout can have profound effects on an employee’s overall job performance and emotional and physical well-being. Areas affected by stress and burnout are employee behavior, attitudes, outlook, relationships, and health. Some of these impacts are more significant than others. With the majority of Department of Planning staff are working extended hours during periods of increased development within the county, the impact can be increased exponentially and may have an even more profound effect on the overall office performance. For employees, burnout may manifest itself in a number of ways that directly or indirectly impact the productivity of their employers. Symptoms of job burnout can display themselves in both the employee’s personal and professional life and can lead to larger mental, emotional, and physical issues (Mayo Clinic, 2012 and McKay, 2012). Additionally, burnout or prolonged stress can result in depression, anxiety, and physical illness. These side effects can be further exacerbated to the point that employees become severely depressed, suicidal, mentally unstable, or have a stroke/heart attack (McKay, 2012). Even though employees may only experience the milder impacts of burnout, it places the overall organization output and productivity in jeopardy. The result of organizational workloads beyond the normal capabilities of the combined staff can be displayed as follows:

Figure 1 - Burnout Cycle

The cycle may be interrupted by changing the organizational structure to fit the business processes that will best serve the customers. The business processes implemented must also provide the needed software and technological framework to bridge the divisional silos and heighten efficiencies. Resources can be redirected from requiring staff overtime toward process refinement and automation which would result in enhanced operational efficiencies and effectiveness. By altering the current process cycle, the organization truly optimizes its resources, increases productivity, and reduces the risk of negative consequences from overload and burnout.

Increased workload

Increased staff demands/hours

Stress/burnoutNegative impact on employees

Less productivity


4.0 Theoretical Framework

4.1 Overview of the Science of Muddling Through When assessing organizations that are addressing multi-layer challenges or transformations, there are frequently competing or conflicting priorities that arise from differences in values, objectives, and opinions. Since there is no way to eliminate the differences, management must find a means of negotiating through them to achieve organizational goals and aims (Shafritz, Layne, and Borick, 2005). Charles E. Lindblom’s theory on “muddling through” is an ideal theory to approach the integration of IT initiatives within this agency. In The Science of Muddling Through (1959) Lindblom draws attention to the "rational-comprehensive" approach. When Lindblom wrote his article, this approach was the popular model for developing policies. According to this approach, policymakers began addressing a particular policy issue by ranking their values and objectives for the plan. Next, policymakers would identify and thoroughly analyze one-by-one, all the alternative solutions to the issue at hand. In this step, it was important for them to make sure they accounted for all possible factors that could contribute to the problem, as well as, all possible alternatives to remedy the issue. In the final step, administrators chose the option that was evaluated as the most effective in fulfilling the original objectives.

Lindblom (1959) argued that the “rational-comprehensive” theory was not how real world policymaking occurred. He argued that it was too complicated to figure out all values and objectives and it was impossible to calculate values and objectives into numbers. He also argued that to analyze every idea, value, objective, policy, and program that is out there is too inefficient.

Instead of developing a complete list of all objectives and programs, Lindblom believed that it was important to compare policies that were already in effect within an organization. He believed that by looking at the policies and programs already in place, it narrowed the scope of one’s investigation and analysis. Lindblom stated that instead of doing a comprehensive analysis of every policy option or program possible, narrowing the process of “successive limited comparison” or muddling through, is how policies are developed in the real world (Shafritz, Layne, and Borick, 2005). This is extremely efficient because it only looks at practical policies already set up; in the end it is responsive to the goals of a sufficiently broad set of constituents. A practical alternative is using Muddling Through in deciding on possible improvements of existing IT initiatives, programs, and policies.


5.0 Literature Review

5.1 Introduction Both technology and strategic planning affect daily work activities and resource allocation in local government (Gordon, 2005). Since technology and strategic planning are critical elements within local government, it is important to examine different factors that may aid in determining why some local governments resist change. Through a review of the literature, it was found that some governments and governmental staff resist technology because information systems are often at high risk for failure (Goldfinch, 2007). The team reviewed literature that discusses business processes in local government because the business processes in place within local government affects their ability to perform e-government services and go paperless. E-government allows for better delivery of government services to businesses, citizens, and other stakeholders. Transferring documents from a paper to an electronic form has increased the efficiency and effectiveness of local governments around the country (Fagan, 2006). Local government must develop and implement business processes that will facilitate its services, and develop training programs that will support these efforts. The team also reviewed literature that discussed and reviewed Henrico County’s efforts to go paperless over a decade ago. Technology is constantly changing and Henrico County, along with local governments all over the country, seeks to keep up with ever-changing technology in order to provide its citizens with a “coveted quality of life.” The Department of Planning has tasked the Henrico County IT Process Consultation Team to help develop a plan to strategically navigate through technology, and provide a clear direction and path to reach the county’s goals and overall vision. The team assessed the Department of Planning’s preferences, capabilities, and challenges related to IT. This literature review begins with looking at strategic planning as it relates to IT.

5.2 Strategic Planning in Local Government The literature suggests that strategic planning efforts document an organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges as they relate to information technology and information technology’s integration with business processes (Bryson, 2004). Organizations, including local government systems, often face resistance to change as well as pessimism when attempting to develop and implement new technology. Bryson (2004) defines strategic planning as “a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization (or other entity) is, what it does, and why it does it.” Strategic planning includes information gathering, clarifying the mission that is to be pursued, identifying issues to address along the way, the development and exploration of strategic alternatives, and an emphasis on the future implications of present decisions (Bryson, 2004). A strategic plan initiative establishes short-term goals, long-term goals, and develops an implementation plan for goal achievement opportunities (Gantick & Lipe, 2002). Local government needs to be able to plan strategically in a changing political environment and align daily operations seamlessly with long-term strategic objectives (Weeks & Bruns, 2005). When it comes to strategic planning, a paradigm shift is necessary to overcome negative thinking (Gantick & Lipe, 2002). Strategic planning extends into the day-to-day activities of local government employees and affects performance and resource allocation decisions (Gordon, 2005). Performing an environmental scan and situational analysis are important, but it is essential that all plans and recommendations be linked to the


day-to-day activities (Gordon, 2005). There must be a direct connection between the plan and those employees that will implement the plan. There is a growing awareness of the need to ensure buy-in of the plan by those employees that will carry out the plan and they must be included in the process (Gordon, 2005). Therefore, it is essential to identify and interview stakeholders. The team has interviewed division heads within the Department of Planning, as they are responsible for implementing initiatives identified by the county. Identifying and understanding the availability of current resources is crucial for local government. Budgets for local governments have diminished quite significantly since the onset of the recession in 2008. Local governments face the challenge of providing adequate services with diminished financial support. Local governments must ask the question of how to produce a high-quality outcome at a low cost (Weeks & Bruns, 2005). Municipalities can improve performance without necessarily increasing spending. Local governments should try to learn from best practices in order to improve their own performance (Afonso & Fernandes, 2008). Board members in Peoria County, Illinois have chosen to address these issues by conducting an annual strategic planning session at an offsite daylong retreat. Board members indicated that it is beneficial to step away from their daily tasks and consider the future impact of decisions made today (McDonald, 2010). As the town of South Windsor, Connecticut was applying for an award in excellence in total quality principles, reviewers for the award noted that the town would benefit by reviewing its current resources and how these resources are distributed (Gantick & Lipe, 2002). The Florida Department of Revenue reengineered up to 22 legacy computer systems to create a single integrated tax administration system. This effort generated a $321.8 million return on investment with 83 percent cost savings. Revenue increases continue to accrue (Weeks & Bruns, 2005). Local governments often benefit from developing a holistic approach towards strategic planning. County officials should begin by viewing the system as a whole and identifying how it will benefit or affect services. It is beneficial to create a strategic plan that allows for system flexibility and future expansion (Adams, 2010). It is important to understand the starting point and decide how to reach the destination of the project. Implementing smaller pilot projects introduce new ideas to staff and elected officials who are able to retrain or hire additional staff (Adams, 2010). Strategic plans are unable to move forward and local government cannot experience a shift in thinking, however, if local governments participate in negative thinking and resist change (Gantick & Lipe, 2002). 5.3 Resistance to Change and Transformational Change within Local Government

There are numerous reasons that lead to organizational transformation, and many coinciding or resulting activities that may produce a degree of angst within fragments of the organization. Often, within these fragments, the emotional response may be exhibited as resistance, even when the outcome is clearly favorable and/or desirable. In order for the organization to succeed in executing the transformation, this resistance and inertia must be overcome. Resistance to change can take the form of several different characteristics (Oregg, 2003):

Reluctance to lose control and cognitive rigidity Lack of psychological resilience and intolerance to the adjustment period A preference for low levels of stimulation and novelty Unreasonable attachment to old habits (Oregg, 2003)


In terms of adopting new technology, individuals or organizations can be skeptical and perhaps resist change. Large information systems are more likely to fail than smaller information systems, and failure may occur for several reasons. The information systems may experience data inadequacies, technical problems, issues with management, and difficulties with the process. When attempting to develop or implement new information systems and practices, local governments may experience technical skill shortages, cultural clashes, political infighting, and external environmental factors (Goldfinch, 2007). Aims for information technology should be modest, and local governments should carefully consider risks and uncertainties before developing and implementing a new information system. Given the tremendous IT advancements that the Department of Planning has made over the last two decades, it is not surprising that a number of staff struggle to keep up with the successive changes and developments. Shaun Goldfinch, a professor of Public Administration at New Zealand’s University of Otago and author of Pessimism, Computer Failure and Information Systems Development in the Public Sector (2007), found that the majority of IT initiatives are at least partially unsuccessful. Heeks and Bhatnagar (1999) identify ten reasons as to why IT initiatives are often failures:

Critical Factors in IT Failures

Factor Description Factor Description Information

Information and data inadequacies

Cultural

Clashes with national/local culture

Technical

Problems with IT such as incompatibility across agencies

Structural

IS (Information system) clashes with organizational and/or management structures

People

Lack of staff with sufficient training, skills, or inclination to handle or develop IT

Strategic

IS not coordinated across different agencies

Management

Lack of management skills, knowledge and training

Political

Political in-fighting derails project

Process

Processes are inadequate to integrate community or channel relevant information

Environmental

Factors outside the organization disrupt the project

*Chart adapted from (Heeks and Bhatnagar, 1999)

Table 2 – Critical Factors in IT Failures

The examples in the previous section and other examples provided by the Department of Planning’s staff may reflect some of these factors. Having multiple environmental factors in place at the same time, it increases the risk factors for IT initiatives. Apprehension over dynamic business and IT processes can limit commitment and assurance with the initiatives, or conversely, lead to unrealistic expectations of IT capabilities. While IT is a tool, it should not be viewed as a remedy for systemic issues (Hamel and Prahalad 1996).


There are several types of changes that an organization can experience. These changes include incremental, evolutionary, transformational, and disruptive (Kelley, 2012). Transformational change can be defined as “[a] shift change in the underlying structure, processes and culture that the organization has used in the past. A transformational change is designed to be organization-wide and is enacted over a period of time.” Transformational change is also defined as “[a]n alteration of an organization’s structure, work processes and culture driven by strategy” (Kelley, 2012). There are three stages of transition as an organization proceeds through transformational change. The first stage is endings; employees break away from existing models of how things are done. The second stage is the neutral zone; people are caught between the old ways of doing things yet do not understand fully the new ways. The third stage is new beginnings; the new models are in place and employees have successfully adapted and changed (Bridges, 2000). An organization attempting to undergo transformational change will require changes in behavior, a shift in organizational culture, and different systems and processes that guide how work is performed (Kelley, 2012). There are several reasons why transformational change is necessary for an organization. Employees often resist change and prefer to stick with the status quo; they fear the unknown and risk involved. Dysfunctional complexities occur when an organization has irrelevant practices, redundant activities, and a bureaucratic structure (Kelley, 2012). Managing staff fears and expectations tends to be the greatest challenge (Nussbaumer & Merkley, 2010). It is important for management to explain by employees need to understand why they are being asked to change and how they can create value (Nussbaumer & Merkley, 2010). There are limits to the amount of disruption that any system can absorb, which often leads to declined productivity and quality of work (Conner & Hoopes, 1997). Several actions occur when an organization attempts transformational change. During periods of change, staff will experience many types of behaviors; including tentativeness, undue pessimism or optimism, and elevated stress. Leadership must define the need for change and continually reinforce why change is necessary in order to remind employees of the benefits that will happen when the desired results happen (Kelley, 2012). Dealing with passive and active resistance requires flexibility and commitment. Leaders need to engage staff in an ongoing dialogue to clarify vision and help them see how change will serve their interests also (Nussbaumer & Merkley, 2010). Change is stressful; a library at a Canadian university conducted an open-ended interview to explore why change was stressful. Five sources of change stress were found; these sources are increased workload, uncertainty and ambiguity, interpersonal conflict, perceived unfairness and perceived loss (Robinson & Griffiths, 2005). Organizations should take steps to overcome resistance and inertia. Organizations should ask if the employees in the organization are ready and able to change. Leadership should keep in mind before implementing a change, whether their employees have the ability, knowledge, aptitude to learn or motives to undergo transformational change (Kelley, 2012). The decision makers need to decide if they and their staff are committed. Several individuals or groups can play a role in overcoming resistance and inertia. A change sponsor legitimizes change, while a change agent implements the change. Change targets are the groups that must change. A change advocate wants to achieve change, but lacks the sufficient sponsorship. Finally, a change stakeholder has a vested interest in change (Kelley, 2012). Current services and systems can inhibit the ability to move forward. Eight strategies can create a foundation for transformational change and help overcome resistance and inertia (Nussbaumer & Merkley, 2010):


1. Create a framework for change 2. Leverage outside expertise 3. Build a leadership team 4. Design a new organizational structure 5. Influence organizational culture 6. Manage and transition change 7. Form operational teams and workgroups 8. Reflect on changes

When an organization examines it motivations for change and takes the necessary steps to overcome resistance, transformational change has the potential to be effective. Local governments can move forward with their business processes when they are ready and committed to change (Goldfinger, 2007).

5.4 Business Processes Enterprise Content Management (ECM) is a business process used when developing and implementing new information technology systems. Hart (2010) defines ECM as “a strategy for the coordinated management of all content throughout an organization, allowing for people and systems to find and use content from within any business context using platform agnostic standards.” When developing an ECM system, it is vital that there is a way for content “to be accessed by anyone, anywhere, and as needed, wanted and permitted” (Hart, 2010). If local governments do not develop a system that captures all forms of content, much documentation will be lost that might be beneficial in the future (Hart, 2010). Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) allows departments to share information electronically. Without a developed ERP system, local governments often maintain legacy systems that usually cannot “talk” to other departments or share information electronically (Ferrando, 2001). ERP systems allow employees to produce reports much more quickly. With ERP systems, less time can be spent creating manual reports and employees will be able to work more efficiently (Ferrando, 2001). However, a supervisor that pushes employees to work within a flawed process is likely to make only small gains in progress. By reengineering a systems process through technological or process changes, managers can create 100 percent to 300 percent productivity gains (Weeks & Bruns, 2005). When training employees on ERP systems, the trainer should tailor the program to the department with a focus on the modules that the department would actually use. This process increases the level of comfort of the employees and it often reduces mistakes (Ferrando, 2001). Leadership should assign clear roles and expectations for senior leaders, business process owners, operational managers, supervisors, and employees (Weeks & Bruns, 2005). Electronic storage media and software will change while records stay the same (Isaacs, 2002). Developers plan electronic systems as part of a long-term strategy for records retention. Department create a schedule for migrating records and transfer documents to alternative forms of media (Isaacs, 2002). The electronic document management system should consider the design, maintenance and service management to a community versus creating a technology tool. Cities and counties can implement document management projects by considering several factors:


1. Types of documents that can benefit from electronic management 2. Long-term document retrieval needs 3. System maintenance requirements Competitive government uses modern business management systems to cut costs, increase productivity, and improve services. Problems can arise when one attempts to apply an effective tool of technology to a flawed process (Weeks & Bruns, 2005). Tidemark is an effective tool of technology that has many additional features available that Henrico County could use to advance its technological initiatives and business processes. The town of Kennewick, Washington implemented a core ECM system to create a new business process that would allow the town to provide more services within its current resources and improve efficiencies throughout city government (Harney, 2010). Documents had previously been stored in multiple locations including minute books, filing cabinets, and old imaging systems. Physically routing paper for review and approval to multiple staff members can make it difficult to track down the physical location of a needed item. There were problems with “marooned” documents. Different departments had different procedures for processing, and employees often left paper copies on their desk. The town contracted with a developer to create a search and retrieval repository for electronic retrieval of documents; staff were subsequently able to make updates and resubmit documents back into the system. The town was able to save $166,000 for storage and maintenance of filing cabinets. The town estimates that they will save over $1 million over the next five years in paper costs. There is assurance that the most current version of a document is always available (Harney, 2010). Investing in upgraded hardware and creating a business management system that can manage more applications on fewer servers prepared the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota for the transfer to e-government (Isaacs, 2002). The city updated its infrastructure to provide residents with increased flexibility and accessibility while accessing the information and services it needs, including one-stop permitting on the web (Isaacs, 2002). Before this effort, building permits and other government services citizens and business could obtain services and information during normal business hours at the appropriate government building. The city wanted to move more information and services to the Internet to accommodate growing demand. Business processes prepare local government for the transfer to e-government (Isaacs, 2002).

5.5 E-Government Fagan (2006) defines electronic government (“e-government”) as “government agencies using technologies to transform relations with citizens, businesses, and other arms of government.” E-government allows for better delivery of government services to citizens; including improved interaction with business and industry, citizen empowerment through access to information, and more efficient government management (Fagan, 2006). There is a range of constituencies to consider when developing e-government. Government-to-citizen (G2C) applications include the provision of online information and services. Government-to-business (G2B) applications include electronic procurement. Government-to-employee (G2E) applications include human resource internets. Finally, government-to-government (G2G) applications provide integration between government agencies, including state and local entities (Fagan, 2006). The town of Tyler, Texas built a community website, or a “one-stop” online portal, which included G2C and G2B online services. Services that the town subsequently provided include obtaining building permits, submitting public information requests, and obtaining


zoning variance permits. Citizens and businesses were able to download common forms off of the Internet and allow paperless access (Fagan, 2006).

5.6 Going Paperless Transferring documents from a paper to an electronic form has increased the efficiency and effectiveness of local governments around the country. Casper, Wyoming began implementing a paperless system in 2002 (Isaacs, 2002). Leadership had observed that it took many staff hours to chase down one paper file and they sought to organize documents in one central location to simplify the document retrieval process. The city needed to hold on to records that could be easily deleted, lost or rendered obsolete with software or computer upgrades. In 1997, the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin began a pilot program to scan and store digital copies of paper documents that several different departments as well as citizens frequently used (Isaacs, 2002). Before the city undertook this project, paper copies of records such as permits were stored in different buildings throughout the city. The city employees scanned the documents into a document imaging system. When a citizen or developer wants to see what progress has been made on a particular project they can easily access the records they want to see (Isaacs, 2002). Henrico County first began its efforts to manage documents electronically in 2000 by developing a countywide electronic document management system (Isaacs, 2002). In 2001, the police department began scanning all traffic accident reports using the system. The police department scans and saves accident reports in the computer system and throws paper versions away. The police department chose the scanning process with accident reports due to the high retrieval rate (Isaacs, 2002). When residents request copies of the accident reports, staff members query the database and print image files. The police department used to have lines of people waiting to retrieve accident reports while staff members looked through the file cabinets to retrieve reports. Sometimes reports were misfiled, making the process even more difficult. The county asked itself several questions. First, the county determined why it was important to maintain documents electronically. Next, county leadership asked why it was necessary to maintain certain subsets of documents and determined who needed access and for how long. The county wanted established metrics to know why departments kept certain documents (Isaacs, 2002). Images and information were stored using the software system, FileNet. In 2002, five community development agencies began using the system to manage permits. Two hundred employees could access the system, and 74,000 documents had been stored. Henrico County Department of Planning established a goal of eventually going paperless (Isaacs, 2002).

5.7 Summary The literature suggests that strategic planning includes information gathering, clarifying the mission, identifying issues to address along the way, the development and exploration of strategic alternatives, and an emphasis on the future implications of present decisions (Bryson, 2004). Organizations that attempt change will often face resistance from individuals or groups within the organization. Enterprise Content Management (ECM) is a business process used when developing and implementing new information technology systems. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) allows departments to share information electronically. ERP systems allow employees to produce reports much more quickly.


When training employees on ERP systems, the trainer should tailor the program to the department with a focus on the modules that the department would actually use. Electronic storage media and software will change while records stay the same (Isaacs, 2002). Competitive government uses modern business management systems to cut costs, increase productivity, and improve services. E-government allows for better delivery of government services to citizens; including improved interaction with business and industry, citizen empowerment through access to information, and more efficient government management (Fagan, 2006). Transferring documents from a paper to an electronic form has increased the efficiency and effectiveness of local governments around the country (Fagan, 2006).


6.0 Overview of Planning Department The Henrico County Department of Planning, through land use policy and planning provides the framework for the physical, social and economic growth of the County. It is primarily responsible for encouraging and promoting the orderly use of land for redevelopment and growth through intermediate and long range comprehensive planning and implementing Henrico County’s Zoning Ordinance and other land use regulations and policies (Personal Interview, February 3, 2012). The Department of Planning provides staff support to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, including reviewing and providing recommendations on all land use matters presented to the Boards and Commission. The Department’s mission is to “provide professional planning leadership to accomplish excellent management of the valued resources which create [Henrico County’s] coveted quality of life” (Henrico County Virginia, 2012).

6.1 Planning Commission

The Henrico County Planning Commission consists of six members appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. One member of the Board serves on the Planning Commission. The Board appoints one member from each magisterial district – Brookland, Fairfield, Three Chopt, Tuckahoe, and Varina. A chairman is annually elected and presides at all public hearings conducted by the Commission. The Planning Commission is required to (1) investigate and report on every proposed amendment, supplement, change, or repeal of a zoning regulation, and every proposed change in any of the district boundaries as shown on the County zoning maps; (2) review and recommend every Provisional Use Permit; (3) review and approve Plans of Development, Subdivisions Landscape Plans, Lighting Plans, Special Exceptions, and Alternative Fence Heights under certain circumstances outlined by the County’s Zoning Ordinance (Henrico County Virginia, 2012). The Commission conducts two public hearings a month. A quorum consisting of four members is required for each meeting. Three general categories of development proposals require a public hearing: re-zonings, provisional use permits, subdivisions and plans of development. Depending on the proposal, a project may have to go through several public hearings before construction can begin. Rezoning is necessary when the applicant (a person, partnership, or private company) wants to change the zoning classification of a particular piece of land in order to develop or use the land for purposes other than what is permitted by the current zoning classification (See Figure # 2). The applicant must either own the land, or be specifically authorized by the owner to request the change in zoning.


Figure 2 - Henrico County Zoning Classifications (Henrico County, VA)

A Provisional Use Permit (PUP) is necessary when the proposed land use, permitted by the district’s current zoning classification, also requires the approval of conditions and restrictions that make it more compatible with surrounding properties. A Plan of Development (POD) is a multi-phase process during which the applicant submits drawings of a property, depicting building layout, water and sewer lines, roads, drainage, landscaping, and other necessary improvements. The current zoning classification must permit the proposed use of the property. All phases of the POD process (Appendix G) include a public hearing before the Planning Commission, unless the change is so minor that administrative approval is possible (Henrico County Virginia, 2012). A POD is required for:

Multi-family dwellings, hotels, hospitals and medical facilities, banks, savings and loan institutions, office buildings containing more than 5,000 square feet of floor area, automobile service stations, drive-in restaurants, airports, fairgrounds and amusement parks

Any development when parking spaces are to be used by more than one establishment Any development adjacent to, or with entrances or exits to or from, a four lane street Subdivisions, which create one or more new lots from an existing parcel of land; they are most

often associated with residential dwellings, including single family and townhouse developments (Henrico County Virginia, 2012).

In order to ensure accountability and to encourage citizen input, new rezoning and provisional use permit applications are summarized and posted to the Department of Planning’s website, along with expected public hearing dates shortly after they are submitted. The Commission conducts hearings approximately eight weeks after the filing deadline. Cases scheduled for public hearing are advertised in the local newspaper, The Richmond Times-Dispatch. Blue rezoning signs are posted on relevant properties and notices are mailed to all adjacent property owners for each POD. The POD/Subdivision hearings are not advertised; however, notices are sent to adjacent property owners. Agendas for the POD/Subdivision hearings are available on the Department of Planning’s website (Henrico County Virginia, 2012).


6.2 Henrico County Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors has five members, one representing each of the County's magisterial districts. It is the policy-making body of the County. Elected each year, the chairman presides at all Board meetings and serves as the official head of County government for these proceedings. The Board of Supervisors conducts two public hearings a month. The Board’s website offers live streaming of all regular meetings in addition to achieved videos and agendas for previous hearings. In addition to the Planning Commission, the County Board of Supervisors also holds a public hearing for each rezoning and provisional use permit request. All requests are approved, denied, or deferred to a later meeting. When reviewing a rezoning request, the Board of Supervisors considers a number of factors, and seeks to answer the following questions:

Is the request consistent with the County's Land Use Plan? Could development allowed by the request be expected to be reasonably compatible with

existing development? Would approval of the request be consistent with other decisions to approve requests for similar

uses and sites? Can a need for the change be established? Is the change consistent with the orderly development and growth of the community? Does the change conform to the County's plan for major street development? Will the change adversely affect or impede the normal flow of traffic? Will the change constitute spot zoning? Will the change adversely affect the value of surrounding property? Is the change in conflict with the County's plan for future land use?

When reviewing a provisional use permit request, the Board of Supervisors considers a number of factors, and seeks to answer the following questions:

Is the location appropriate and not in conflict with the intent of the County's comprehensive plan?

Would the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare be adversely affected? Are adequate utilities and off-street parking facilities provided? Are necessary safeguards for the protection of surrounding property, persons, and neighborhood

values provided? Are County Code requirements satisfied?

6.3 Departmental Organization Structure

The Department of Planning staff functions in an advisory capacity to the Planning Commission, which in turn is advisory to the Board of Supervisors. The Board makes the final decision on any rezoning or provisional use permit request. The Department of Planning accepts rezoning and PUP applications once a month according to a given submission deadline. Within the first week of acceptance, Planning staff review each application for accuracy and completeness. Cases are assigned to individual planners


who have roughly two weeks to review each proposal, obtain input from staff and review agencies, and formulate a recommendation for the Planning Commission. All recommendations are forwarded to the Commission as formal staff reports approximately two weeks before the scheduled public hearings. The role of staff in the review process for Plans of Development, Landscape Plans, and Subdivisions is similar to that of rezoning and provisional use permit requests; however, the Planning Commission, makes the final decision as to whether approve or deny each request. They typically do not go before the Board of Supervisors unless they are county projects (Henrico County Virginia, 2012). An organizational chart can be found in Appendix F.

6.4 Comprehensive Planning Division The Comprehensive Planning Division focuses on the “big picture” of land use and development. The division is responsible for reviewing all re-zoning and provisional use permit applications. Planning staff prepare recommendations for each request, which are then submitted to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. In addition to its administration responsibilities, the division is also currently working on a number of Site Selection Studies, which compile and analyze data on available land. Thirty “areas of interest” within the County requiring are further study have been identified. These areas of interest must be examined because Virginia state law requires land use plans to be updated every five years. The County’s land use plans emphasize “smart growth” and sustainable development (Personal Interview, February 17, 2012).

6.5 Development Review and Design Division

The Development Review and Design Division is responsible for the review and approval of all current development projects for Henrico County, both commercial (businesses, offices, industrial complexes, schools) and residential (subdivisions for single-family homes). The division is currently working less on new construction applications and more on on-going development projects. Once a plan of development application is deemed complete, the division manages the review process for the County by coordinating all public hearings, distributing copies of the plans to all review agencies, ensuring all plan comments are posted electronically online in addition to organization activities with the project engineer(s) for submission to the Planning Commission. After review of a POD is complete, it is sent to the Planning Commission for approval (Personal Interview, February 22, 2012).

6.6 Zoning Administration Division The Zoning Administration Division’s daily responsibilities include the interpretation and administration of the County Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Administration staff deals with the issues arising during construction that become more urgent as the project nears completion. The division reviews the parameters written into the original plan and determines if it has been completed as approved. The division is also responsible for zoning enforcement as well as staffing the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), which hears appeals from decisions of the planning director and requests for variances, and examines requests for temporary use and certain less involved conditional use cases. Led by an annually elected chairman, the BZA consists of five citizen members appointed by the Circuit Court. Submitted appeals and applications are automatically advertised in local newspapers and reviewed during regular


meetings conducted by the BZA once a month. On appeal, a decision may be sustained, reversed, or modified, while applications are approved or denied. The Board currently handles about four cases a month on average, which is significantly lower than the BZA’s peak periods (20/25 cases per month). The Zoning Administration division handles around 250 formal requests for zoning certification (1 per work day) and about 3,000 inspections per year (Personal Interview, February 22, 2012).

6.7 Planning Systems Division The Planning Systems Division consists of technological support specialists or IT specialists. The division focuses its attention on technology strategies and systems within the Planning Department. The IT support specialists oversee the development and maintenance of all IT systems within the agency (For full list see HPD Inventory Summary). The Planning Systems Division Manager is in charge of development, maintenance, and security of all computers and software systems within the agency. The IT Manager also produces many policies and procedures in terms of technology within the agency. One of the major roles that other IT staff play include helping to create, develop, and advance the various software systems in place within the agency. The planning systems division provides internal technical support to all Planning staff. It is important to note the division is not directly involved in the business processes associated with land use and development. Rather it is the division's responsibility to ensure that all systems are functional and up-to-date in regards to the data and software used. There are many different software applications used within the Department of Planning due to the various roles and responsibilities throughout the agency. These applications include internet browsers, Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, Microsoft Outlook (Calendar/Email), FileNet, TideMark, GIS, Comprehensive Planning Access Database, Division of Review and Design Access Database, and Board of Zoning Appeals Access Database. IT support specialists not only update and manage these different systems, but they also ensure that the Department of Planning staff are knowledgeable on their various functions and uses so they can use them in carrying out daily tasks. The software systems most critical to completing projects within the Department of Planning are FileNet, TideMark, and GIS. FileNet is a software system designed to help organizations manage their content and other business practices and projects. Henrico’s Department of Planning uses FileNet to ensure documents are stored, maintained, and accessible to all staff. TideMark is a software system used by all the divisions within the Planning Department. It manages PODS (commercial developments), subdivisions (residential development), variances, conditional use permits, and appeals. It is also used to publish and store agency plan review comments which are distributed electronically to the developers. GIS is another critical system within the organization. Planners heavily utilize this program as a way to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present all types of geographical data in the office and in the field. This system has helped streamline the approval process for projects as well as enhance our level of customer service. For a complete list and detailed description of Planning Initiatives, see Appendix F. Appendix B, which is on the next page, is a simplified model of the Department of Planning’s business process.


7.0 Methodology

7.1 Stakeholder Analysis

A stakeholder analysis is a critical part of understanding Henrico’s Department of Planning. A stakeholder analysis is the process of identifying individuals or groups that are likely to have an impact on or be affected by a proposed action or policy (Bryson, 2004). It helps develop “a more precise picture of the players” within the agency (Bryson, 2004). It is important to sort the various stakeholders according to their impact on implementation of new policies within the agency and the impact that the actions that these policies will have on them (Bryson, 2004). Power vs. Interest Grid - A grid allows for the visualization of who the stakeholders are in regards to Henrico’s Department of Planning (Bryson, 2004). It also focuses on the roles stakeholders play in getting a policy implemented (Bryson, 2004). The stakeholder analysis process allows for the identification of people or organizations that are mostly likely to affect or be affected by this consultation’s policy and its actions (Bryson, 2004).

For the purposes of this Power vs. Interest Grid, people or organizations are sorted based on their impact on the policy and its development or on how the policy action will influence them (Bryson, 2004). The placement of the people and groups are subject to change at any time as their involvement and authority changes during this process consultation process. In addition to movement throughout the grid, stakeholders can also be added or dropped from the grid at any stage in the policy development process. The Power vs. Interest Grid (Appendix K) can be found on the next page and within the appendices.


Subjects - The subjects for this plan include the Technology Support Specialist, the Zoning Administration Principle Planner, the Department of Planning Staff, and outside contractors. The subjects, located in the upper left corner of Figure 1, have a high interest in the direction of technology support systems and other policies and programs associated with these programs because they will be directly impacted by decisions made by the board and upper management. However, the amount of power they have over the Department of Planning’s decisions and outcomes associated with new policy implementation are rather low (Bryson, 2004). Players - The players have both high interest and power in regards to the policy and its implementation (Bryson, 2004). Some players in the Department of Planning include the Director, and two Assistant Directors. The upper management of Henrico’s Planning Division has a high interest in technology programs and systems within their agency, and help by providing leadership to the Department of Planning in regards to new policies and technology systems. They also demonstrate interest by their willingness to look into new ideas and policies to streamline their department’s practices. Crowd - The crowd, located in the bottom left square in Figure 1, is comprised of the Henrico residents and community development groups. This group has little power and interest in the decision-making process or outcomes of this policy (Bryson, 2004). Henrico residents who are not utilizing the direct services of the Department of Planning have very little interest in their internal policies and procedures. Taxpayers are also stakeholders because their tax dollars could be allocated to fund any policies or resources created because of this consultation report. Henrico County community development agencies are also a part of the crowd; they play a role in approval process of plans, but have little say in the processes within the Department of Planning. These agencies include Permit Center, Community Revitalization, Public Utilities, Public Works, and Division of Fire. Context Setters - This group, known as the context setters, has a lot of power over the desired outcome of the policy, but has little interest or time in addressing the overall issue due to the numerous tasks and responsibilities they have (Bryson, 2004). This group of stakeholders consists of the principal planners and division managers. These two division managers have the power to implement new policies in terms of scanning and best practices for their division, however, and need to promote communication and uniformity in daily procedures in order to advance the departmental agenda. The Henrico County Manager and Virginia General Assembly also have great power in creating new programs and funding for new technologies, but lack of input may indicate lack of overall interest.

7.2 Interviews The unique nature of our project has required the conduction of a number of site-visits and face-to-face informational interviews with each division manager at the Department of Planning. Since our project will eventually involve the development of a comprehensive, five-year strategic information technology plan, these interviews and sites visits have been absolutely critical to the project development. They have allowed the researchers to gather information about the Department of Planning that is not available on the Internet – each interview and site visit has provided the group with numerous insights and perspectives about the role technology plays in the department’s daily operations and processes. The Department of Planning is broken into four divisions – Comprehensive Planning; Development, Review and Design; Zoning Administration, and Information Technology. During division manager


interviews (Comprehensive Planning; Development, Review and Design; Zoning Administration), a structured questionnaire was created and used to gather information. A structured questionnaire was used in order to maintain consistency, ensure the same questions were asked during each interview, and provide a frame of reference for group members. The questionnaire included the following questions:

1. What are your main responsibilities? Describe your typical day to us. 2. What’s your caseload currently like? 3. Who do you work with outside of your division (developers, contractors, community

development agencies, etc.)? How do these groups (external stakeholders) impact or influence your daily responsibilities?

4. How are you communicating with these people? 5. How do you communicate internally? For example, how often do you have staff meetings? 6. How do use technology on a daily basis (burden or benefit)? What do you wish it could do that it

isn’t already doing? 7. What systems & databases do you find helpful? Which ones do you find challenging? 8. What is your interaction with the other divisions like? How often do you interact with planners

and staff in other divisions? 9. What do you view as the strengths of the Planning Department? In what areas do you experience

challenges? The questions were framed in a way to capture three key points of information:

1. The division’s perspective and willingness to embrace technology in a way that aligns it with its business processes in order to make use of the Department of Planning’s systems, software, and programs in a more efficient manner

2. The daily responsibilities and expectations of each division and how those fit into the overall Department of Planning

3. Each division’s current use of technology Due to the technical nature of our interviews with the Information Technology (IT) Division manager, they were somewhat less formal and significantly less structured compared to the other interviews conducted. It is during these meetings that we have learned about the different systems, programs, and databases the Department of Planning is using and how in theory they should all interconnect and overlap. As a team, we typically developed a list of agenda points/questions prior to each meeting with the IT manager, which served as a guide to keep our meetings on topic and on time. During our meetings, the IT manager walked us through the most critical on-going technology initiatives that need to be completed in order to serve as a foundation for a comprehensive information technology strategic plan. Critical initiatives include back file conversion, current scanning efforts, agency-wide Tidemark implementation, data management, a unified case number and the department’s current website capabilities.

7.3 Synthesis of Interviews & Observations In addition to learning the main focus and business processes of each major division, division manager interviews (Comprehensive Planning; Development, Review and Design; Zoning Administration), have enabled the team to capture a continuum of opinions about the way technology is viewed within the


agency. Both extremes are apparent. On one hand, the Department of Planning has planners who are using technology to its fullest potential in order to do their jobs more efficiently. They understand the benefit technology serves in completing daily tasks, responsibilities, and business processes. On the other hand, the Department of Planning has planners and managers who continue to operate in an effective manner using previously established manual processes. Divisional interviews suggest one division leads in understanding and utilization of technological capabilities. This particular division has a firm grasp on the role technology plays in its day-to-day tasks, and understands the importance technology plays in the efficiency of the Department of Planning’s business processes. For example, the division utilizes technology in a number of ways, particularly in the field through portable ToughBook computers and remote web-interfaces. These technologies enable staff to complete assignments and sign off on cases while significantly reducing processing time and creating a cost savings. According to the division manager, closing cases in the field has been one of the biggest benefits of the adoption and utilization of technology because it allows applicants to instantly know whether their case has been closed, and the division manager does not have to respond to numerous inquiries at the end of every day because everything is handled electronically (Personal Interview, February 22, 2012). This not only results in additional cost savings to the County through increased efficiencies, but also provides cost savings to the customers and garners goodwill through interactive technology applications. The department’s technological capabilities are not consistent across their three major divisions. Our interviews suggest that one division has yet to fully embrace the technological capabilities available to them, and another views technology as a challenge or burden; and has been able to increase its manual efficiencies in response to heightened demands. During an interview with the division’s manager, it was expressed that it often takes staff longer to figure out how to use the technology in order to perform a specific task, then to simply complete that same task manually. For example, when the division creates case reports, they are typed in Microsoft Word and printed out for the department’s director and assistant directors for reviewing and editing. Each written report also includes colored electronic maps and graphics. Once the written portion is finalized, a staff member prints and copies all of the report’s components. Copies are then scanned back on to the computer and uploaded to the department’s website for public access. All three divisions acknowledged a lack of technological consistency across the divisions or the department as whole. All also indicated that more significant advancements could be achieved with senior management’s promotion and sponsorship of technological initiatives and utilization, which could increase departmental commitment to these endeavors (Personal Interview, February 17, 22, 28, 2012).

7.4 Electronic Survey & Results In addition to conducting face-to-face informational interviews, the team also administered an electronic survey. The purpose of the IT Satisfaction Survey was twofold. First, it was designed to assess the Department of Planning’s IT preferences, capabilities and challenges. Second, it was meant to solicit input from organizational members beyond the organization’s leadership. Data was collected from April 2nd to April 17th.


According to the Department of Planning’s Organizational Chart, published on October 28, 2011, 43 employees are currently working at the department. Hence, with 38 respondents, the response rate was a very satisfying 88.37 percent. However, of the 38 people who began the survey, only 32 people actually finished. Consequently, the completion rate is slightly lower - 74.4 percent. The survey included eight questions:

1. Which of the following technologies, systems and/or databases do you use to perform the Department of Planning work processes?

2. Do you access plan files/information/data using FileNet? If you answered "yes", how often do you access files/information/data electronically? If you answered "no", please provide the main reasons as to why you do not access plan files/information/data electronically.

3. What current technologies, software programs, systems and/or databases make your job easier? 4. What would need to be different for you to use the tools you do not currently use? 5. What are ways the Department of Planning can do things differently in the future to move

technology forward? 6. Gender 7. Tenure at the Department of Planning 8. Age

Each question was coded as follows:

Responses to Question 1 were coded according to three categories (Yes, I use this daily, Sometimes, but not daily, and no, I do not use this) and 13 technologies, systems and/or databases (Internet Browser, Microsoft Office Suite {Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Access, Outlook – Calendar, Outlook – E-mail}, FileNet, TideMark, GIS, Comprehensive Planning Access Database, DRD Access Database, BZA Access Database). Respondents were able to select their response from a menu of options presenting all three categories across the top and 13 technologies, systems and/or databases down the left hand side.

Responses to Question 2 were coded according to five categories (Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Never, and No Response). If a category included a response, it was marked with a 1 (1 stands for “Applicable”). If a category did not include a response, it was marked with a 0 (0 stands for “Not Applicable”).

Responses to Question 3 were coded according to ten categories (GIS, FileNet, TideMark, Microsoft Office Suite, Google Products, Adobe, Internet, Intranet, Oracle and No Response). If a response included a category, it was marked with a 1 (1 stands for “Applicable”). If a response did not include a category it was marked with a 0 (0 stands for “Not Applicable”).

Responses to Question 4 were coded according to seven categories (Training, Buy-In, Quality and Quantity of Information, Better Hardware and/or Software, Greater Integration, User-Friendliness and No Response). If a response indicated a category, it was marked with a 1 (1 stands for “Applicable”). If a response did not indicate a category, it was marked with a 0 (0 stands for “Not Applicable”).

Question 5 was coded identically to Question 4.


Question 6 was a demographic question focusing on respondents’ gender. Responses were coded according to three categories (Male, Female and Prefer not to say). Respondents were able to select their response from a menu of options presenting all three categories. Respondents who skipped the question were collapsed into the Prefer not to say category.

Question 7 was a demographic question focusing on the length of a respondents’ tenure at the Department of Planning. Responses were coded into seven categories (Less than 1 year, 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 16-20 years, More than 20 years, and Prefer not to say). Respondents were able to select their response from a menu of options presenting all seven categories. Respondents who skipped the question were collapsed into the Prefer not to say category.

Question 8 was a demographic question focusing on Age. Responses were coded into seven categories (20-20 years old, 30-39 years old, 40-49 years old, 50-59 years old, Older than 70 years old, and Prefer not to say). Respondents were able to select their response from a menu of options presenting all seven categories. Respondents who skipped the question were collapsed into the Prefer not to say category.

It is important to note that for Questions 3, 4 and 5, the percentages will not add up to 100 percent. This is because responses can span multiple categories.

7.5 Survey Data According to Question 1, the most widely utilized technologies, systems and/or databases used to perform Department of Planning work processes are:

Based upon the responses to Question 1, it is clear that the three most widely utilized technologies, systems, and/or databases are TideMark, GIS and FileNet. Still, the following results should not be used to jump to conclusions. What this survey cannot quantify is what positions require the use of certain

FileNet

GIS

TideMark

26.32%

2.63%

31.58%

10.53%

21.05%

15.79%

63.16%

73.68%

50.00%

Figure 3 ‐Most Widely Used Technologies, Systems and/or Databases

Yes, I use this daily No, I do not use this Sometimes, but not daily

N = 38Question 1: Which of the following technologies, systems and/or databases do you use to perform the Department of Planning work processes? A complete list of technologies, systems, and/or databases can be found within this report's appendices.


technologies, systems and/or databases. Consequently, it is up to the Department of Planning to determine what an acceptable use rate is. 73.68 percent of respondents (28 respondents) reported using GIS daily. 21.05 percent of respondents (8 respondents) reported using GIS sometimes, but not daily. 2.63 percent (1 respondent) reported never that he or she does not use GIS. 63.16 percent of respondents (24 respondents) reported using FileNet daily. 26.32 percent of respondents (10 respondents) reported using FileNet sometimes, but not daily. 10.53 percent of respondents (4 respondents) reported they do not use FileNet. 50.00 percent of respondents (19 respondents) reported using TideMark daily. 31.58 percent of respondents (12 respondents) reported using TideMark sometimes, but not daily. 15.79 percent of respondents (6 respondents) reported they do not use TideMark. No respondents skipped Question 1. However, some did not select a choice for each category. Hence, the completion rate for this question (averaged across all categories) is 98.18 percent. According to Question 2, FileNet is accessed:

Based upon the responses to Question 2, there is a difference between the usage rates reported in Question 1 and the rates reported in Question 2. The responses to Question 2 indicate a lower use rate than the responses to Question 1 indicate. Figure 2 illustrates a continuum of FileNet use. Examples of responses included “no, not needed for [my] job”, “all day every day” and everything in between. One respondent reported use, but expressed a preference for hard copy files, “I often use file net to access files but still prefer to use paper files because documents are easier to find that way.” Four respondents

Daily Weekly Monthly Never No Response

47.37%

31.58%

5.26%10.53%

5.26%

Figure 4 ‐ FileNet Usage Rates

N = 38Question 2: Do you access plan files/information/data using FileNet? If answered "yes", how often do you access files/information/data electronically? If you answered "no", please provide the main reasons as to why you do not access plan files/information/dataelectronically.


reported that they never use FileNet due to a lack of training and accurate, up-to-date information – “No, I have someone else look up information, Reason: Lack of training” and “The active fiscal information for the case files is not included in FileNet.” 47.37 percent of respondents (18 respondents) use FileNet daily. 31.58 percent of respondents (12 respondents) reported they use FileNet weekly. 5.26 percent of respondents (2 respondents) reported they use FileNet monthly. 10.53 percent of respondents (four respondents) reported they never use FileNet. 5.26 percent of respondents (two respondents) did not provide a response. Only 36 respondents provided a complete response to Question 2. Two respondents skipped the question, resulting in a 94.74 percent completion rate. According to Question 3 (What current technologies, software programs, systems and/or databases make your job easier?), the technologies most frequently reported as making the work of Department of Planning employees easier are:

Based upon the responses to Question 3, the technologies, software, systems and/or databases that are most frequently reported as making work easier are Microsoft Office Suite (which includes Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint and Outlook). TideMark, FileNet and GIS. One respondent stated that “GIS, TideMark and FileNet are among the most crucial programs along with e-mail. Without these, I do not believe we would be able to do business.” 63.16 percent of respondents (24 respondents) reported that GIS makes their job easier. 55.26 percent of respondents (21 respondents) reported that FileNet makes their job easier. 55.26 percent of respondents (21 respondents) reported that Microsoft Office Suite makes their job easier. 44.74 percent of respondents (15 respondents) reported that TideMark makes their job easier.

GIS

FileNet

TideMark

Microsoft OfficeSuite

63.16%

55.26%

44.74%

55.26%

Figure 5 ‐ Technologies, Software, Systems and/or Databases That Make Work Easier

N = 38Question 3: What current technologies, software programs, systems and/or databases make your job easier? A complete list of technologies can be found within this report's appendices.


Only 32 respondents provided a complete response to Question 3. Six respondents skipped the question resulting in an 84.21 percent completion rate. According to Question 4, the things that would need to be different in order for people to use the tools they do not currently use are:

Based upon the responses to Question 4, the four most critical needs that would promote the use of tools not currently being used are training, user-friendliness, buy-in, and better hardware and/or software. The greatest number of respondents (14) – 36.84 percent – indicated training would be necessary for them to use the tools they currently do not already use. Responses indicating a desire for training included “TideMark is confusing and tough to navigate without prior introduction/training” and “Better training for other technologies and tools would lead to increased use.” Increased user-friendliness was also a main concern of respondents – “I would love to see TideMark more Planning friendly versus Building Inspections.” 21.05 percent of respondents (8 respondents) indicated that user-friendliness would need to be different in order to use tools they do not currently use. Six respondents - 15.79 percent – expressed a need for buy-in. One respondent stated there would need to be “100 percent compliance and buy-in by all members of the department in adding their data” in order for tools not currently used to be used. Five respondents (13.16 percent) indicated a need for better hardware and/software in order for them to use the tools they currently do not use. For example, one respondent stated, “if TideMark and FileNet data was all available via GIS,” use would improve.

36.84%

21.05%

15.79%

15.79%

13.16%

2.63%

2.63%

Provide Training

Increase User Friendliness

Establish Buy‐In

No Response

Acquire BetterHardware/Software

Enhance Information

Foster Greater Integration

Figure 6 ‐What Would Need to be Different?

N = 38Question 4: What would need to be different for you to use the tools you do not currently use?


2.63 percent of respondents (1 respondent) indicated that a greater quality and quantity of information would need to be available for them to use the tools they currently do not use. 2.63 percent of respondents (1 respondent) reported that greater integration would be needed in order for them to use the tools they currently do not use. 15.79 percent of respondents (6 respondents) did not provide a response. Thirty-two respondents provided a complete response to Question 4. Six respondents skipped Question 4, resulting in an 84.21 percent completion rate. According to Question 5, there are several things the Department of Planning can do differently to move technology forward:

Based upon the responses to Question 5, the top three things that can be done to move technology forward are ensuring buy-in, increasing both the quantity and quality of electronic information and providing training. Both Questions 4 and 5 highlighted the need for training and buy-in. 39.47 percent of respondents (15 respondents) indicated that buy-in is required in order to move technology forward. A number of respondents were adamant about the necessity of buy-in to technological advancements. One respondent stated, “Force staff to use the technology available to them.” Another respondent expressed to “have a Managerial lead push toward implementing new technologies and enforce it.” Other responses included the following:

“Higher level management e.g. supervisors to director need to dictate that technology be used and then use it. Too many delegate technology to those below them so they do not have to use it. There should be some form of consequences should one not know how to use it.”

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

Provide Training

Establish Buy‐In

Enhance Information

Acquire Better Hardware/Software

Foster Greater Integration

Increase User Friendliness

No Response

Figure 7 ‐What Can Move Technology Forward?

N = 38

Question 5: What are ways the Department of Planning can do things differently in the future to move technology forward?


“Upper management should lead the lead the charge to motivate the staff forward and make certain that such change is taking place. In many cases there is individual enthusiasm, but little group enthusiasm. The most common complaint I hear is "I don't see how this is relevant to me". Although there are cases where our work may not be noticed by us, it will be noticed by others who rely on such information. And as we progress towards a more technical endeavor the small matters left unattended will be our biggest challenge later.” “Top down enforcement of using the new technologies.”

26.32 percent of respondents (10 respondents) indicated that greater quantity and quality of information can move technology forward. One respondent stated, “Once background data entry is complete, reliance on electronic records will be possible.” Another respondent expressed that in order to move technology forward, the department would need to “ensure that everyone is responsible for updating databases.” 23.68 percent of respondents indicated that training (9 respondents) is necessary to move technology forward. Responses expressing a desire and need for training includes the following:

“1. Have more input from all employees involved with technology. 2. Once new technology has been introduced classes or instructions should be introduced to the entire staff. 3. Have detailed manuals located in file room for anyone to have access to if they attend or missed the initial instruction class.”

“Training should correspond better with initial usage of new technology. Training often did providing too much info at one time. Regular in-office refresher courses would be helpful as well.” “Better explanation of how to use technology, especially if we don’t use it often; better training.” “Provide more in-house training, particularly GIS.”

18.42 percent of respondents (7 respondents) indicated that greater integration can move technology forward. 15.79 percent of respondents (6 respondents) indicated that user-friendliness can move technology forward. 10.53 percent of respondents (4 respondents) indicated that better hardware and/or software can move technology forward. 15.79 percent of respondents (6 respondents) did not provide a response. Thirty-two respondents provided a complete response to Question 5. Six respondents skipped Question 5, resulting in 84.21 percent completion rate. According to Question 6 (Gender), at least 44.75 percent of respondents indicated that are male and 28.95 percent are female. However, 26.32 percent of respondents declined to indicate their gender.


Due to the high number of people declining to indicate their gender, it is not possible to accurately analyze survey results based on gender.

Based upon the responses to Question 6, 44.74 percent of respondents (17 respondents) reported that they are male. 28.95 percent of respondents (11 respondents) reported that they are female. 26.32 percent of respondents (10 respondents) reported that they preferred not to indicate their gender. It should be noted that the “prefer not to say” category was collapsed with the no response category (6 respondents did not provide a response).

It should be noted that the “prefer not to say” category was collapsed with the “no response” category. Thirty-two respondents provided a complete response to Question 6. Six respondents skipped Question 6, resulting in an 84.21 percent completion rate.

According to Question 7 (Tenure at the Department of Planning), the longevity of Department of Planning employees breaks down as illustrated in the chart below:

Male45%

Female29%

Prefer not to say26%

Figure 8 ‐ Gender

N = 38Question 6: Gender.


Due to the high number of people declining to indicate the length of their tenure, it is not possible to accurately analyze survey results based upon tenure.

Based upon the responses to Question 7, 2.63 percent of respondents (1 respondent) reported have been with the organization for less than a year. 10.53 percent of respondents (4 respondents) reported that they have been with the organization for one to five years. 28.95 percent of respondents (11 respondents) reported that they have been with the organization for six to 10 years. 15.79 percent of respondents (6 respondents) reported that they have been with the organization for 11 to 15 years. 2.63 percent of respondents (1 respondent) reported that they have been with the organization for more than 20 years. However, 40 percent of respondents (13 respondents) reported that they preferred not to indicate the length of their tenure at the Department of Planning.

It should be noted that the “prefer not to say” category was collapsed with the “no response” category (6 respondents did not provide a response). Thirty-two respondents provided a complete response to Question 7. Six respondents skipped Question 7, resulting in an 84.21 percent completion rate.

According to Question 8 (Age), the age distribution of the Department of Planning breaks down as illustrated by the chart below:

Less than 1 year3%

1 to 5 years10%

6 to 10 years29%

11 to 15 years16%16 to 20 years

3%

More than 20 years5%


Figure 9 ‐ Tenure

N = 38Question 7: Tenure at the Department of Planning.


Due to the high number of people declining to indicate their age, it is not possible to accurately analyze survey results based upon age. Based upon the responses to Question 8, 7.89 percent of respondents (3 respondents) indicated that they are between 20 and 29 years old. 18.42 percent of respondents (7 respondents) indicated that they are between 30 and 39 years old. 10.53 percent of respondents (4 respondents) indicated that they are between 40 and 49 years old. 21.05 percent of respondents (8 respondents) indicated that they are between 50 and 59 years old. 2.63 percent of respondents (1 respondent) indicated that they are between 60 and 69 years old. 0 percent of the respondents (0 respondents) indicated that they are older than 70. Thirty-two respondents provided a complete response to Question 8 (6 respondents did not provide a response). Hence, the completion rate for this question is 84.21 percent. It should be noted that the “prefer not to say” category was collapsed with the “no response” category.

7.6 Survey Results as Compared to the Literature The literature suggests several themes that develop throughout the survey results. The themes include buy-in, individual perspectives that suggest resistance to change, leadership sponsoring change, increasing the quantity of electronic content, and training. One respondent indicated that there needs to be 100 percent compliance from the whole department in adding data or it will not work. Gordon (2005) suggests in the literature a growing awareness of the need to ensure buy-in of the plan by the employees who will carry out the plan; they must be included in the strategic planning process or it will not work.

20 to 29 years old8%





Older than 70 years old0%


Figure 10 ‐ Age

N = 38Question 8: Age.


Another respondent noted that he or she did not see how certain technology was relevant to them; this is why they did not use certain technologies. There is often a resistance to give up old habits in organizations. The benefits to the individual may differ from the benefits to the organization (Oregg, 2003). Other survey respondents expressed a desire for managers to take the lead and push staff to use the technology that is available. Leadership can serve as change sponsors and legitimize change (Kelley, 2012). Leadership should have clear roles and expectations for senior leaders, business process owners, operational managers, supervisors, and employees (Weeks & Bruns, 2005). Survey respondents requested an increase in the quantity of information available electronically in order to move technology forward. Hart (2010) suggested that if a local government does not develop a system that captures all forms of content, documentation that could be beneficial will be lost. Training was a large concern for the survey respondents. Results suggest a large desire for training on new programs, refresher courses, and manuals available in the file room for employees to use for questions. When putting together a training program, Ferrando (2001) suggests that modules should be put together that the department would use. This action would increase the comfort level of employees and reduce mistakes.


8.0 Recommendations

Project Recommendation # 1

Pilot Projects

Project Name: Henrico County Department of Planning IT Analysis

Project Member(s): VCU PADM 689 Consultants

Primary Project Recommendation Objective

To implement smaller pilot projects first within the Department

Business Justification

Based on the literature, other local/state governments have demonstrated success with implementing pilot projects before unrolling agency wide initiatives

Business Tactics

Implement new systems and technologies to one division before implementing within the entire department

Project Benefits

Allow for an opportunity to introduce an idea before spending costly time and resources on department-wide implementation

Identify the problems that need to be fixed early on Smaller projects may create an opportunity to ignite change within the whole

department



Training

Project Name: Henrico County Department of Planning (HCDP) IT Analysis



To invest in technology training for all Department of Planning staff


To increase staff technological knowledge, skills sets, capabilities, and comfort level

Business Tactics

Provide ongoing IT training to support current systems and processes to leverage the Department’s full potential

Define a training period where existing agency applications are given supplementary support to become fully accepted and utilized by their stakeholders

Develop training curriculum to ensure lessons are applicable to position and individual needs

Assign resources to allow staff to attend external training sessions in order to avoid any major interruptions in daily work activities

Create post training step by step tutorials for all procedures/systems to serve as a reference guide for staff

Develop and provide technology operations manual for all Planning staff Communicate technology changes via email notification to all Planning staff

Project Benefits

Maximize return on investments in Henrico IT systems and human capital Improve customer service Improve staff knowledge, skills set, capabilities, and comfort with IT systems Improve efficiency in work activities Increase moral within the Department Decrease reliance on manual files



Integration




To consolidate IT Processes throughout Henrico’s Department of Planning


To streamline efforts throughout Henrico’s Department of Planning

Business Tactics

Consider editing, reformatting, and revising DRD’s Subdivision Review Process and Plan of Develop Review Process documents (see Appendix J for current instructions)

Develop a strategy to provide improved streamline processes of projects underway and projected completion dates

Align all databases and software in order to gain a complete picture of the department’s operations

Minimize the flow of paper Simplify processes by reducing/combining the number steps where possible

Project Benefits

Improve customer service by generating a faster turnaround time Reduce operation costs; increase efficiency Decrease amount of time required to complete daily tasks Increase clarity for all stakeholders Require less time to train new employees Enable formerly autonomous units to interconnect and work towards the same

goals Increase public value



Complete High Priority IT Initiatives




To better align Department of Planning’s business processes with its technologies


To increase efficiencies that result in cost savings

Business Tactics

Complete electronic back file conversion/content management Complete ongoing content management Complete TideMark implementation/ data management

Enhance website capabilities and format

Project Benefits

Increase ability to leverage data across the county Improve agency organization Improve efficiency across projects as well as daily work activities/responsibilities Provide clarity and uniformity across all divisions Allow concurrent access for all cases Increase integrity and security of manual files Establish electronic backup to mitigate the effects of unforeseen disasters Enable remote access and promotes teleworking Improve customer service and provide clarity to clients

Streamline processes

*A list and description of IT Initiatives can be found in Appendix F.



Internship Program




To recruit student interns to assist Planning staff


To reduce the amount of work for the Department of Planning staff while simultaneously training potential future employees

Business Tactics

Create and design an internship program that meets the department’s current needs.

Outline specific internship program goals and objectives. Develop intern recruitment strategies (school visits/ job fairs). Establish and cultivate relationships with local universities, community colleges,

and vocational/technical schools.

Project Benefits

Improve organizational efficiency, productivity and maximization of staffing resources.

Offer a low-cost method for training potential future employees. Help to identify potential future hires, a pipeline for candidates. Provide an opportunity for leadership and supervisory experience for developing

employees. Serve as way to gain short-term talent, fresh ideas and innovative perspectives. Establish new relationships/contacts and increases the department’s visibility on

local university campuses.

*Internship coordinator contact information may be found in Appendix E.



Gantt Chart




To expand and maintain the provided Gantt Chart specific to each division


To establish accountability and responsibilities for IT project development

Business Tactics

Utilize Gantt Chart to manage every IT project for each division Maintain a rolling Gantt Chart for all IT projects Ensure staff responsibility is clearly assigned for each project Incorporate specific time frame for each project into provided Gantt Chart

Project Benefits

Improve agency organization and accountability Improve efficiency of Department’s projects and daily work activities Increase clarity of personal/division tasks Increase visibility of project status

*For an example of a Gantt chart, see Appendix D.



Public Value




To increase the sense of public value within the Department of Planning


To build a personal connection with work products

Business Tactics

Create inspirational mission statement based on the answers to the following questions

o Who we are? o Why do we exist? o How do we help? o How to respond to stakeholders? o What is our philosophy? What are our values and culture, and what makes

us unique? Strengthen sense of ownership in the Department’s mission and vision Increase staff/departmental awareness of their role in creating the “coveted quality of

life” for families and business within Henrico County

Project Benefits

Improve client relations and customer service Increase commitment and pride in staff contributions Improve public image, work environment, and deliverables Enhance buy-in to IT



Consequences




To develop and enforce consequences for staff not utilizing all position relevant technology platforms


To ensure staff compliance to new IT initiatives and projects

Business Tactics

Create a department wide strategy to enforce consequences Consistent reinforcement from all senior management levels Ensure senior management leads by example for expected behaviors

Clearly state IT expectations and reasons for consequence implementation

Project Benefits

Create a department wide strategy to enforce consequences Consistent reinforcement from all senior management levels Ensure senior management leads by example for expected behaviors

Clearly state IT expectations and reasons for consequence implementation



Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)




To establish an HCDP Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) that integrates with Henrico County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), and will outline IT system and staff redundancy in the event of a natural or man-made event which might render current HCDP business systems inoperable.


To provide policies and procedures to ensure the execution of emergency response functions mandated under the EOP, and establish a mechanism for business continuity in the event of operational interruptions or staff inaccessibility.

Business Tactics

Develop policies and procedures for COOP and EOP integration Outline needed staff and system redundancy and replication to remain responsive

under all conditions Assign critical roles and chains of command in conformance with National

Incident Management System (NIMS) Test COOP/EOP system on a regular basis Provide means of remote storage for records

Project Benefits

Ensure ongoing HCDP operations under any adverse conditions Ensure response to County need in the event of an event Provide for staff replication for critical functions Outline precise business processes and system functions for continuity Identify critical and essential elements of business operations



Virtual Communication




To increase the accessibility of government to citizen (G2C) and government to business services (G2B).


To increase citizen engagement.

Business Tactics

Develop comprehensive social media strategy (Twitter, Facebook, RSS Feeds) that permits and promotes on-going two-way conversations between the Department of Planning and stakeholders

Develop a strategy to ensure all content is current and accessible Train staff to utilize social media and remain up to date with current social media

practices, risks, and platforms Ensure equipment and systems are capable of virtual conferencing

Project Benefits

Increase accessibility and accountability Maintain positive relationships with stakeholders Increase efficiency and effectiveness Broaden communications base



eGovernment




To transition to an eGovernment environment.


To keep pace with competitors

Business Tactics

Develop capability for electronic filing and plan submittal Establish online instant messaging system Sponsorship by management of automation processes Prepare for transition to all-encompassing eGovernment services Promote and reinforce paperless work environment

Project Benefits

Uphold countywide goal of going paperless Better use of resources Improve security over records Quick response to stakeholders Enhance buy-in to IT Better delivery of services Promote and reinforce paperless work environment


9.0 Conclusion Based on the departmental review of the business and records management processes, it is apparent that the Henrico County Department of Planning has the necessary talent, energy, and resources to accomplish the IT integration required to maintain its competitive edge with neighboring communities. With the development and integration of the various IT databases and data repositories, the Department has established a clear understanding of the need for a unified system that will span all divisions, interact with customers and stakeholders, and provide standard report capabilities for various users. The Department of Planning is now poised to position itself as a leader in Virginia community development interactive services, and to advance the business and automation integration that will establish the eGovernment portal that will benefit not only the Department, but all potential users of planning data. The recommendations attached are designed to provide the foundation for the transition and transformation to achieve the highest level of responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency within the Henrico County Department of Planning.


References Adams, D. (2010). ITS: A holistic approach for a local agency. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 80(5), 39-45. Afonso, A., & Fernandes, S. (2008). Assessing and explaining the relative efficiency of local governments. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(2008), 1946-1979. Bridges, W. (2000). Leading transition: A new model for change. Leader to Leader, Spring, 31-34. Brooks, C. (2001). Declining Government Confidence and Policy Preferences in the U.S.: Devolution, Regime Effects, or Symbolic Change?. Social Forces, 79(4), 1343-1376. Bryson, John M. (2004). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement 3rd ed. San Francisco CA: Josesy- Bass. Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 239-256. Chinn, M.D. and Fairlie, R.W. (2004). The determinants of global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Economic Growth Center; Yale University. Retrieved from http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp881.pdf. Conner, D., & Hoopes, L. (1997). Elements of human due diligence: Supporting the nimble organization. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 49(1), 17-24. Davy, G. (1998). City makes getting a business license a one-stop deal. The American City and County, 113(1), 65. Fagan, M. H. (2006). Exploring city, county and state e-government initiatives: An east Texas perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 101-112. Ferrando, T. (2001). Training employees to use erp systems. The American City and County, 116(14), 12. Gantick, M. J., & Lipe, M. R. (2002). Successful strategic planning in town government. ASQ's..Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, 2002, 705-710. Goldfinch, S. (2007). Pessimism, Computer Failure and Information Systems Development in the Public Sector. Public Administration Review, 67, 917-929. Gordon, G. (2005). From vision to implementation and evaluation: The changing state of strategic planning. PM. Public Management, 87(8), 26-28.


Harney, J. (2010). Remarkable case studies: From paper to electrons at city hall. Infonomics, 24(1), 36- 39. Hart, L. (2010, September 2). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://wordofpie.com. Heeks, R., Bhatnagar, S. (1999). Understanding Success and Failure in Information Age Reform.

Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in IT Enabled Public Sector Reform, edited by Richard Heeks, 49-74. London, UK: Routledge.

Henrico County Virginia. (2012). Planning Department. Retrieved from http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/. Isaacs, L. (2002). Following the paperless trail. The American City and County, 117(6), 51-60. Kelley, R. (2012). Business policy module 12 transformational change. PowerPoint slides, School of

Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-

67. McClain, C. & McClain, M. (2007). Allied health care employees’ workplace skills and competencies: Are they prepared? Career and Technical Education Research, 32(2), 99-113. McDonald, K. (2010, Mach 20). Peoria county officials look ahead at challenges. McClatchy- Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://proxy.library.vcu.edu. Nussbaumer, A., & Merkley, W. (2010). The path of transformational change. Library Management, 31(8/9), 678-689. Oregg, S. (2003). Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693. Prahalad, G. H., Prahalad, C.K. (1996). Competing for the Future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Robinson, O., & Griffiths, A. (2005). Coping with the stress of transformational change in a government department. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 204-221. Romeo, J. (2004). View at the top. The American City and County, 119(11), 36-39.

Schein, E.H. (1999). Process Consultation Revisited: Building the Helping Relationship. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Sciadas, George. (2005). Infostates across countries and over time: Conceptualization, modeling, and measurements of the digital divide. Wiley, 11(3), 299-304.


Shafritz, Jay M., Layne, Karen S. & Borick, Christopher P. (2005). Classics of Public Policy. New York: Pearson Longman. Weeks, D., & Bruns, D. (2005). Private-sector tools for the public sector: Business process management scores big at a Florida state agency. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 2005, 31-41. http://tammipeters.com/2011/03/02the-silo-effect–communications http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/ Plan of Development Review Process, revised January 8, 2007. http://www.onpreinit.com/2009/10/business-silo-effect-it-software http://www.selectstrategy.com/ Improving Performance by Breaking Down Organizational Silos, 2002.


10.0 Appendices

Table of Contents

Appendix A – Table of Acronyms

Appendix B – Business Process Flow Chart

Appendix C – Data Warehouse

Appendix D – Gantt Chart

Appendix E – Internship Contacts at Local Colleges and Universities

Appendix F – IT Initiative Appendix

Appendix F – Planning Department Organizational Chart

Appendix G – Subdivision and Plan of Development General Overview

Appendix H – Sample Board of Supervisors Agenda

Appendix I – TideMark Case Number Hierarchy

Appendix J – DRD Case Review Instructions

Table of Acronyms Consultation Report

Henrico County Department of Planning

BID Building Inspections Division

BZA Board of Zoning Appeals

COOP Continuity of Operations Plan

CPD Comprehensive Planning Division

DPU Department of Public Utilities

DPW Department of Public Works

DRD Development Review and Design Division

ECM Enterprise Content Management

EOP Emergency Operations Plan

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

G2B Government‐to‐Business

G2C Government‐to‐Citizen

G2E Government‐to‐Employee

G2G Government‐to‐Government

GIS Geographic Information System

HCDP Henrico County Department of Planning

IT Information Technology

IVR Interactive Voice Recognition

LUP Land Use Plan Amendments

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTP Major Thoroughfare Plan Amendments

OCR Optical Character Recognition

PDF Portable Digital Format

POD Plan of Development

PUP Provisional Use Permit

REZ Rezoning cases

RRPDC Richmond Regional Planning District Commission

SAS Small Area Studies

SIA Substantial in Accords

SSS Selection Site Studies

SUB Subdivision

VAR Variance

ZAD Zoning Administration Division

ZCL Zoning Conformance Letters

1

DATA WAREHOUSEMicrosoft SQL Server Database

Non-SpatialBusiness Data

(Planning Schema)

Spatial BusinessData - GIS Layers(PlanGIS Schema)

`

Custom Applications/Tools

Legacy

Comprehensive Planning Case Tracking System

(.Net Application C#)REZ, PUP, MTP, LUP, SIA, SAS,

SSS Cases

Zoning AdministrationBZA Case Viewer

(.Net Application C#)

Development Review and Design (DRD) Case

Tracking System(MS Access Application VBA)

2007 and Older POD and SUB Cases

Planning GIS Toolbar(.Net Application C#)

Planning Mailer Toolbar(.Net Application C#)

Transactional Transactional

Call Tracking System(.Net Application C#)

DRD MS Access Database

ZAD MS Access Database

ZAD MS Access Database

Zoning AdministrationBZA Case Tracking System(MS Access Application VBA)

2010 and Older VAR, CUP, APL Cases

Zoning Conformance Letter Tracking System

(MS Access Application VBA)2011 and Older ZCL Cases

Legacy

TidemarkOracle Database

Tidemark Advantage

2011 and Newer VAR, CUP, APL Cases

2008 and Newer POD and SUB Cases

2012 and Newer ZCL Cases

Transactional

On Demand Upload

Twice Daily Upload

GIS Spatial Views

Custom Ad Hoc Reports

FileNet Indexing

FileCoder Export

FileCoder (Fileroom)MS Access

Notice Letters

Web/Map Services

Kofax Capture/FileNet(Scanning)

Report Application Server

ArcGIS Application

Report Application Server

Custom Database Views

COTS

Case Map Toolbar(.Net Application C#)

Tower Tracking System(.Net Application C#)

LegacyConditions Tracking

Systems(POD, SUB, VAR, CUP)

Online Development Review Comment

Systems

Mailer(REZ, PUP, POD, VAR,

CUP)

Owner(s) Start Due Phase Status

Technology Division manually index POD and SUB case numbers 7/2/12 10/1/13 Planning Not Started

Comprehensive Planning scan case files from 1998 – 2000. 7/2/12 1/2/13 Not Started

Zoning Administration scan case files from 1997 – 2006 7/1/12 7/1/13 Not Started

DRD scans case files: POD from 2003 – 2011 and large format plans from 2003 ‐ 2007 7/2/12 7/1/13 Not Started

Planning Systems scan remaining of Zoning Conformance Letters 7/2/12 8/1/12 Not Started

Comprehensive Planning scanned all LUP amendments, MTP amendments, SIA, SSS, and SAS case files. 7/2/12 7/1/13 Not Started

Make decisions regarding when to split LUP/MTP Amendments and Small Area Studies before they can be finalized 7/2/12 1/2/13 Not Started

DRD prepped remaining subdivision files for scanning 7/2/12 7/1/13 Not Started

Planning Systems scan plats and as‐builts need for SUB cases 7/2/12 7/1/13 Not Started

Determine Department wide standard for electronic scanning 7/2/12 10/1/12 Approving Not Started

Increase use of file check out system 7/2/12 1/2/13 Not Started

Develop written procedures for each division to ensure every document is scanned 7/2/12 10/1/12 Not Started

Develop system to ensure all cases are closed electronically 7/2/12 10/1/12 Not Started

Fix typographical errors and incorrect case number formatting 7/2/12 1/2/13 Not Started

Establish and enforce data entry requirements for current and future cases 7/2/12 8/1/12 Not Started

Ensure all case data integration 7/2/12 10/1/12 Not Started

Use TideMark hierarchy to organize case data in an easily accessible format 7/2/12 1/2/13 Not Started

Standardized case numbers across all IT platforms 7/2/12 1/2/13 Not Started

Identify potential website models to emulate 7/2/12 7/1/13 Planning Not Started

Yes Not Started Planning

No On Hold Executing

In Progress Reviewing

Complete Approving

2/1/13

10/1/12

11/1/12

2012 Henrico County Department of Planning Timeline

7/1/13

Last Updated: 4/30/2012 14:10

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

Jan

Dec

Nov

* See appendix ## for detailed description of projects

Enhance Website Capabilities and Format

Planning Systems Division

Objective Owner Initial Legend ‐ (List initials of specific person assigned to task)

12/3/12

7/2/12

8/1/12

9/4/12

5/1/13

6/3/13

4/1/13

Electronic back file conversion

On Going Content Management

TideMark Implementation/ Data Management

3/1/13

1/2/13

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Local Colleges and Universities With Internship Programs and Opportunities

Internship requirements vary but typically last one academic semester. Students typically receive academic credit. Virginia Commonwealth University Relevant Academic Programs Bachelor of Arts – Politics and Government Public Policy and Administration Post-baccalaureate graduate certificate – Public Management Master of Public Administration Master of Urban and Regional Planning Ph.D. – Public Policy and Administration Contact Information Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs Dr. Farah Stone Graham, Internship Coordinator 804.828.1989 [email protected] Additional opportunities may be available with Bachelor and Post-baccalaureate undergraduate certificates being offered in Information Systems. University of Richmond Relevant Academic Programs Undergraduate Degrees Business Administration Computer Science Leadership Studies Political Science Contact Information All of University of Richmond’s internship opportunities are coordinated through the Career Development Center. 804.289.8547 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Virginia Union University Relevant Academic Programs Undergraduate Degrees Business Political Science Computer Information Systems Contact Information All of Virginia Union University’s internship opportunities are coordinated through the Office of Career Services (OCS) Mrs. Penni Sweetenburg-Lee, Coordinator Henderson Center 104A Phone 804.257.5616 804.257.5888 Fax 804.257.5748 Randolph Macon College Relevant Academic Programs Undergraduate Degrees Computer Science Economics/Business Political Science Contact Information All of Randolph Macon College’s internship opportunities are coordinated through the Bassett Internship Program Dr. Ed Showalter, Program Director Thomas Branch Hall Room 127, First Floor 114 College Avenue Ashland, Virginia 23005 804.752.3103

ECPI University Relevant Academic Programs At ECPI, students complete externships rather than internships. Externships are shorter in duration and students do not receive academic credit. It may be an appropriate option for certain IT needs. Master Information Systems Bachelor Web Development Business Systems Administration Network Security Business Administration IT Management Associate Web Development Network Security Contact Information Career Services 1.800.986.1200

Electronic Back File Conversion – Content Management

Electronic back file conversion is a multi-phased project focused on scanning documents in order to make case information and data available electronically. All three divisions are involved in the project but each one is at a different stage in the back file conversion process (scanning efforts). Bizport, a county contractor, is currently responsible for all back file scanning efforts. Planning staff preps case files in the most appropriate order prior to sending them to Bizport, which takes a significant amount of time because most plans are haphazardly organized. Scanned files are sent back to the Department of Planning, where they are indexed and uploaded into FileNet by the Information Technology Division. There are two scanning exceptions, which include Development Review and Design’s large format plans and Zoning Administration’s conformance letters, which are scanned and indexed by Department of Planning staff. The multi-phased electronic back file conversion project consists of three separate phases.

Phase 1 Phase 1 of the electronic back file conversion project consists of scanning all case files up to 1991, and all hearing minute books for the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. It also includes scanning and indexing all of the department’s microfilm. Phase 1 is approximately 80% complete. The Information Technology Division still needs to manually index plans of development and subdivision case numbers.

Phase 2

Phase 2 is underway and approximately 50% complete. It consists of scanning case files starting in 1992 up until the individual division’s current need. Each division is at a different stage within phase 2. None of the divisions within the Department of Planning are at the same point in the use and implementation of automated systems and processes, or in bringing forward the legacy data. Comprehensive Planning has been scanning rezoning and provisional use permit case files since 2001, so the division only needs to scan documents up to 2000. The division is currently organizing and preparing rezoning and provisional use permit case files from 1992 – 2000 for Bizport. Zoning Administration has been scanning case files since 2007, so the division is currently preparing 1992 – 2006 variance and conditional use permit case files for the County’s scanning contractor. Development Review and Design (DRD) began scanning current case files in 2012, so the division needs to back file scan up to 2011. They have been scanning their large format plans since 2007. DRD is prepping 1992 to 2011 POD case files to be scanned. DRD is behind in terms of scanning; however, the division has developed an extremely through indexing process in order to make electronic retrieval easier (See Appendix # for File Organization Instructions). There is no consistency across the divisions within the Department of Planning in terms of how electronic files are broken down. Up until 1991, cases are scanned as one PDF

document; however, after 1991, the three divisions decide how to scan cases and each division takes a different approach. Comprehensive Planning scans each document of a case as individual documents. Zoning Administration is scanning each case as one PDF document, and Development Design and Review is scanning cases as two PDF documents (approval letters and all other plan information).

Phase 3 Phase 3 consists of scanning all ZCL case files, SUB case files, Subdivision Plats, LUP amendments, MTP amendments, and SIA, SSS, SAS case files. It is approximately 10% complete. Planning Systems has scanned and indexed 98% of Zoning Conformance Letters. Comprehensive Planning has prepped all LUP amendments, MTP amendments, SIA, SSS, and SAS case files; however, decisions need to be made regarding when to split LUP/MTP Amendments and Small Area Studies before they can be finalized. DRD has prepped the subdivision files through the D’s. The rest need prepping; however, the Department of Planning can scan through the D’s. In conjunction with the SUB case files, the plats and as-builts will be scanned as well. These will be done in-house by Planning Systems to ensure quality and preserve the plats themselves.

Ongoing Content Management

The Department of Planning uses the countywide system FileNet for all content management. Digital copies of case files are uploaded into FileNet. The department partially implemented content management in 2003. The department’s office assistant enters the initial information related to each case, electronically into FileNet. Most fields for each case are intentionally left blank, with the expectation that the planner assigned to the case will populate the remainder of the necessary information and close it out. The department does not have a system or process to ensure cases are closed once completed. There are two main issues associated with FileNet: (1) prevalence of typos and (2) lack of training/knowledge on how to retrieve files already uploaded in the system. Once documents are uploaded into FileNet, they are indexed. Indexing assigns all cases a classification according to a set of fix choices including document type, G-Pin # (parcel numbers), case numbers, project names, and addresses. Indexing is combined with Optical Character Recognition (OCR), which easily allows planners to search within a file for a specific word or phrase. By doing so, a search can drill into a file and isolate specific elements of files that are needed. Despite these two features of FileNet – indexing and OCR - the system still contains many typographical errors, which decreases the effectiveness of the search function. Certain documents will not appear in the search results if they contain typographical errors or incorrect case number formatting. In addition, a lot of older documents as well as e-mails, have been scanned into the system without being indexing. Since they were stored with no identifying information, there is no way for planners to retrieve them. Due to this flaw, the Department of Planning made the decision to purge all documents stored up to a certain point (2005). Documents currently being scanned into FileNet are scanned and indexed using OCR, but

these documents are not linked electronically to any of the other database information. Any referencing or association between FileNet and the agency’s other systems and the IT manager must orchestrate databases manually. Rather than integrate platforms haphazardly, the IT manager runs a script twice a day (at 12 a.m. and 12 p.m.) in order to update the data in both servers so they match. This means that data is not always real time; it is always 12 hours behind.

Tidemark Implementation

The Department of Planning currently uses Tidemark Advantage software to process, review, approve, and track a number of land use applications. This software, which the County has used for a decade, is rapidly becoming obsolete. The manufacturer is developing no upgrades, the vendor is providing minimal technical support and the functionality of the software is such that in-house add-ons and patches must be developed and installed in order to conduct the everyday business of the County. The Tidemark Advantage application was purchased in 2000 for approximately $50,000 and first utilized in Henrico County in July 2001. The software is primarily used by Community Development Agencies, which include Building Inspections, Planning, Permit Center, Community Revitalization, Public Utilities, and Public Works. The Division of Fire also uses TideMark to track and manage land use and community development activities related to the building permit process, permit inspections, land use application reviews, and code enforcement. The system is a client-server system, meaning the user interface is software that must be loaded on individual personal computers. Users, in turn, communicate with the server to access data stored on the server. This also means updates to the software application itself are labor intensive, requiring manually visiting all agencies that use the system. This contrasts with Web-based software that requires only updating the server to effect change for all end users. There are approximately 370 end users of the system. This includes approximately 35 end users who are using mobile wireless PCs to access the system remotely from the field. Approximately 60 users are logged in concurrently, and the bulk of the regular concurrent users work for Building Inspections and the Permit Center. Each TideMark add-on has been developed in-house to meet the disparate demands and needs of individual agencies. Inter-departmental communication and dissemination of information, while possible, can be laborious. In some cases, information stored in departmental databases must be reconfigured, exported to a format recognizable by Tidemark, and then accessed by the end user. This creates extra work for employees and additional steps in the business process. Add-ons have generally been created to address the customer-expressed interest in having more access to development-related information via the Internet. Some of these customizations have the unintended consequence of increasing complexity and making the replacement and conversion efforts correspondingly more difficult. As additional

customized enhancements continue to be made the cost and difficulty of replacing the existing system will continue to increase. In addition, a lack of a coordinated approach to the use and management of TideMark is prevalent across divisions within the Department of Planning. Data for all of the department’s case files has not been entered into TideMark. Comprehensive Planning cases including Rezoning Cases (REZ), Provisional Use Permits (PUP), Substantial in Accords (SIA), Land Use Plan Amendments (LUP), Major Thoroughfare Plan Amendments (MTP), Small Area Studies (SAS), and Site Selection Studies (SSS), have yet to be implemented into TideMark. An example illustrates the impact of the complication of finding data using TideMark because it is not all available electronically. If you want to look up a …

2011 case – you will be able to find the information in TideMark 1997 case – you will be able to find the information in an access database 2012 rezoning plan – you will be able to find the information in the

comprehensive case tracking system.

Currently TideMark has the ability to provide Planning staff with the following data:

2011 and newer information for variances, conditional use permits, and appeals to Board of Zoning Appeals.

2008 and newer cases concerning plans of development and subdivisions.

TideMark contains a built in hierarchy for case information in order to organize case-related data in an easily accessible format. Data is organized according to project case, master case, case and activities (See appendix #).

Unified Case Numbering System

Community Development agencies function independently and as a result a number of different identifiers are given to the same case. Case numbers are not consistent across agencies, which results in multiple numbers being used to refer to the same case. For this reason, confusion is created among departments when attempting to reference and discuss specific cases. In addition, there is no standard method for numbering cases within the Department of Planning. For example, some divisions use two digit years, whereas others use four digit years. Other divisions use padded 00’s. In short, there is no consistency across the board, which makes it difficult for planners to query the exact information they are looking for. As a result, case numbers do not always match across software and databases, which presents an obstacle when attempting to retrieve information or data.

Enhanced Website Currently, the Department of Planning has built its website in a manner similar to the County’s main website. This makes sense in that the Department of Planning is a part of the county. However, the website is a very plain and not very visually appealing website that serves as a one way conduit for information going from the Department of Planning to the public. The website is also difficult to navigate unless a person knows exactly what he or she is looking for. In order to launch eGovernment initiatives in the future, the Department of Planning should consider re-engineering its website. As the capabilities of websites become more advanced, the Department of Planning should ask itself what it would like its website to look like a year from now and even five years from now. The Department of Planning should look towards the websites of other public organizations for inspiration. For example, the Henrico Economic Development Authority has a very modern and functional website.

Data Management Four data management issues have been identified. First, there is no consistent data entry standard for current and future TideMark cases. Second, Comprehensive Planning needs to enter its data for all historical cases. Third, it is not clear what should be done with legacy data. Fourth, metadata for GIS layers would greatly enhance the utility of the Department of Planning’s GIS software. The frustrations with consistent data entry have already been documented in this report. However, to review, it has been reported that there is no consistent standard for current and future Tidemark cases. What to do regarding legacy data is also a question that must be considered. Generally, it has been indicated that the Department of Planning has two options. It can either set a high standard and attempt to create a complete picture of legacy data or it can do the minimum necessary while redirecting resources elsewhere.

JOE EMERSONDirector

1001-0001

Regina HillAdministrative Assistant

1001-0044

David O’KellyAssistant Director

1001-0024

Jean MooreAssistant Director

1001-0074

Nancy GrahamSr. Business Supvr

1001-0071

Jim StraussPrincipal Planner

1001-0028

Sylvia RayOffice Assistant IV

1001-0015

Rosemary DeemerPlanner IV 1001-0012

Jon SteeleTech. Supp. Spec IV

1001-0066

Livingston LewisPlanner III 1001-0076

Ben BlankinshipPrincipal Planner

1001-0007

Leslie NewsPrincipal Planner

1001-0027

Holly ZinnOffice Assistant IV

1001-0009

VacantPlanner IV 1001-0050

Kevin WilhitePlanner IV 1001-0031

Melba MitchellAcct/Fiscal Technician

1001-0025

HoldOffice Assistant III

1001-0037

VacantTemporary Position

1001-9900

HoldOffice Assistant IV

1001-0080

Paul StewartTech. Supp. Spec I

1001-0036

Rob PetermanTech. Supp. Spec I

1001-0003

Scott McDermottTech. Supp. Spec II

1001-0029

Susan MooreTech. Supp. Spec II

1001-0043

VacantPlanner I

1001-0023

Justin DoyleSr. Technician

1001-0032

David ConmyPlanner I

1001-0019

Lisa TaylorPlanner I

1001-0070

Aimee BerndtPlanner II

1001-0042

HoldZoning Enforc. Officer

1001-0013

Ryman JonesZoning Enforc. Officer

1001-0077

Jerry PeayZoning Enforc. Officer

1001-0038

Paul GidleyPlanner III 1001-0004

VacantOffice Assistant IV

1001-0014

Angela RobertsAccount Clerk III

1001-0016

Miguel MadrigalPlanner I

1001-0040

James RiceDeputy Zoning

Conformance Officer 1001-0011

Mike KennedyPlanner IV 1001-0078

Greg GarrisonPlanner II1001-0067

Roy PropsPlanner II

1001-0047

Diana CarverOffice Assistant IV

1001-0034

Curtis BarnesTech. Supp. Spec II

1001-0081

Christina GogginPlanner III 1001-0033

Pam WeltonPlanning Tech

1001-0064

Matthew WardPlanner II

1001-0018

Tony GreulichPlanner III 1001-0079

Lee PambidPlanner II

1001-0069

Ben SehlPlanner IV 1001-0008

Seth HumphreysPlanner IV 1001-0075

Kate TeatorSr. Technician

1001-0022

June RedfordTech. Supp. Spec I

1001-0002

Comprehensive Planning Division

Development Review & Design Division

Planning Systems Division

AdministrativeDivision

Zoning Administration Division

Eligible Position

Career Development Plan

Henrico County Planning Department Organizational Chart

Friday, October 28, 2011

HENRICO COUNTY NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Please take notice .that a special meeting of the Board of Supervisors will be held on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in the County Manager's Conference Room located on the third floor" of the Administration Building at the Henrico County Government Center, Parham and Hungary Spring Roads, Henrico, Vu-ginia.

The matters to be reviewed by the Board at this time are:

5:30 - 5:45 p.m. Yangju City, Korea, Tourism Briefing

5:45 - 6:15 p.m. Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program

6:15 - 6:45 p.m. Dinner

Barry R. Lawrence, CMC Clerk, Henrico County Board of Supervisors March 8, 2012

COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA Henrico County Board Room Board of Supervisors�’ Agenda

March 13, 2012 7:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION �– Rev. Dr. Albert C. Lynch, Pastor, St. Andrew�’s United Methodist Church APPROVAL OF MINUTES �– February 28, 2012 Regular and Special Meetings MANAGER�’S COMMENTS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS�’ COMMENTS RECOGNITION OF NEWS MEDIA PRESENTATION Proclamation - Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month - March 2012.

RESIGNATION/APPOINTMENT 63-12 Resolution �– Resignation of Member �– Community Criminal Justice Board.

64-12 Resolution �– Appointment of Member �– Community Criminal Justice Board.

PUBLIC HEARINGS �– REZONING CASE 65-12 C-7-12 Brookland

Hungry Creek Development Company, LLC: Request to rezone from R-3C One-Family Residence District (Conditional) to C-1 Conservation District part of Parcel 759-765-8952 containing .202 acres located approximately 500 feet east of Francistown Road at its intersection with Nuckols Road. The applicant proposes a Conservation District within the 100-year floodplain. The use will be controlled by zoning ordinance regulations. The 2026 Comprehensive Plan recommends Environmental Protection Area. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the request.

PUBLIC HEARINGS �– OTHER ITEMS 66-12 Ordinance - To Amend and Reordain Section 24-3 Titled �“Enumerated,�” Section

24-10 Titled �“Distance requirements,�” Sections 24-11, 24-15, 24-32, 24-50.2, 24-50.6, 24-50.18, 24-54.1, 24-77, 24-88, and 24-91 Titled �“Principal uses permitted,�” Section 24-13 Titled �“Accessory uses permitted,�” Sections 24-52, 24-67, and 24-89 Titled �“Conditional uses permitted by special exception,�” Sections 24-57, 24-61, and 24-65 Titled �“Development standards and conditions for permitted uses,�” Section 24-94 Titled �“Table of regulations,�” Section 24-95 Titled �“Additional requirements, exceptions and modifications,�” Section 24-96 Titled �“Off-street parking requirements,�” Section 24-98 Titled �“Parking lot regulations,�” Section 24-99 Titled �“Service stations and public garages,�” and

2

Section 24-104 Titled �“Signs�” of the Code of the County of Henrico, All to Revise the County�’s Zoning Ordinance to Permit Places of Worship as a Matter of Right in Additional Zoning Districts.

67-12 Resolution - POD2012-00009 - Approval of a Master Plan of Development for Brook Road Neighborhood Park - Fairfield District.

PUBLIC COMMENTS GENERAL AGENDA 68-12 Resolution �– Receipt of Operating and Capital Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year

2012-13 and Notice of Public Hearings on the Budget and Proposed Tax Rates.

69-12 Resolution �– Authorization to Accept Grant Funding from the FY2009 Metropolitan Medical Response System as Managed by the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management.

70-12 Resolution �– Approval of Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program.

71-12 Resolution - SIA-004-11 - Brook Road Neighborhood Park Site - Substantially in Accord with the Comprehensive Plan.

72-12 Resolution - Acceptance of Roads.

COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS�’ RESUME

March 13, 2012

INVOCATION �– Rev. Dr. Albert C. Lynch, Pastor, St. Andrew�’s United Methodist Church PRESENTATION PROCLAMATION �– Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month �– March 2012. Over 7,000 adults and children in Henrico County are estimated to have a developmental disability. Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month, which is observed nationally each year during the month of March, offers an opportunity to educate others about the abilities, realities, and hopes of persons with developmental disabilities and the positive influence of these persons on their communities. This proclamation recognizes March 2012 as Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month and calls upon Henrico citizens to celebrate the contributions of people with developmental disabilities in their efforts to attain �“A Life Like Yours.�” RESIGNATION/APPOINTMENT RESOLUTION �– Resignation of Member �– Community Criminal Justice Board. This Board paper accepts the resignation of William J. Conner, Sr., former Chief Magistrate, Henrico County, from the Community Criminal Justice Board. RESOLUTION �– Appointment of Member �– Community Criminal Justice Board. This Board paper appoints Yvette A. Ayala, Chief Magistrate, Henrico County, to the Community Criminal Justice Board for an unexpired term ending June 30, 2012 or thereafter, when her successor shall have been appointed and qualified. PUBLIC HEARINGS �– REZONING CASE C-7-12 Brookland

Hungry Creek Development Company, LLC: Request to rezone from R-3C One-Family Residence District (Conditional) to C-1 Conservation District part of Parcel 759-765-8952 containing .202 acres located approximately 500 feet east of Francistown Road at its intersection with Nuckols Road. The applicant proposes a Conservation District within the 100-year floodplain. The use will be controlled by zoning ordinance regulations. The 2026 Comprehensive Plan recommends Environmental Protection Area. Acting on a motion by Mr. Witte, seconded by Mr. Leabough, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (one

abstention) to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the request because it conforms with the objectives and intent of the County�’s Comprehensive Plan.

PUBLIC HEARINGS �– OTHER ITEMS ORDINANCE - To Amend and Reordain Section 24-3 Titled �“Enumerated,” Section 24-10 Titled �“Distance requirements,�” Sections 24-11, 24-15, 24-32, 24-50.2, 24-50.6, 24-50.18, 24-54.1, 24-77, 24-88, and 24-91 Titled �“Principal uses permitted,�” Section 24-13 Titled �“Accessory uses permitted,�” Sections 24-52, 24-67, and 24-89 Titled �“Conditional uses permitted by special exception,�” Sections 24-57, 24-61, and 24-65 Titled �“Development standards and conditions for permitted uses,�” Section 24-94 Titled �“Table of regulations,�” Section 24-95 Titled �“Additional requirements, exceptions and modifications,�” Section 24-96 Titled �“Off-street parking requirements,�” Section 24-98 Titled �“Parking lot regulations,�” Section 24-99 Titled �“Service stations and public garages,�” and Section 24-104 Titled �“Signs�” of the Code of the County of Henrico, All to Revise the County�’s Zoning Ordinance to Permit Places of Worship as a Matter of Right in Additional Zoning Districts. This amendment to the zoning ordinance seeks to ensure compliance with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. It would allow places of worship as a matter of right in all zoning districts, reduce their lot area and width requirements, and simplify their parking requirements. It would also modify other provisions related to places of worship. The Planning Commission recommended approval after a public hearing on December 8, 2011. The Director of Planning recommends approval of this Board paper, and the County Manager concurs. RESOLUTION - POD2012-00009 - Approval of a Master Plan of Development for Brook Road Neighborhood Park - Fairfield District. This Board paper is for Board of Supervisors�’ approval of a master plan of development, as required by Sections 24-11(b) and 24-106 of the Henrico County Code, to construct a neighborhood park with a visitor�’s center / shelter building, a picnic shelter, an historical interpretation plaza, a children�’s garden, a parking area, pedestrian paths, and related site improvements on parcel 784-750-6778 in the Fairfield District. The 6.13-acre parcel is located along the west line of Brook Road (U.S. Route 1), approximately 290 feet north of its intersection with Hilliard Road. The property is zoned B-3, Business District. The Department of Planning has coordinated the review of the plan of development with all County departments and has held a meeting with the project engineer and appropriate representatives from the Division of Recreation and Parks, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Public Utilities, the Division of Fire, the Division of Police, the Office of Building Construction and Inspections, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. All design issues raised during the review of the project have been resolved.

2

The Director of Planning recommends approval of the plan of development, subject to the staff recommendations, the staff plan dated March 13, 2012, and the conditions listed in the Board paper, and the County Manager concurs. PUBLIC COMMENTS GENERAL AGENDA RESOLUTION �– Receipt of Operating and Capital Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2012-13 and Notice of Public Hearings on the Budget and Proposed Tax Rates. This Board paper receives the County Manager�’s proposed Operating Annual Fiscal Plan (operating budget) and Capital Annual Fiscal Plan (capital budget) for fiscal year 2012-13, including all contemplated expenditures and estimated resources necessary to meet those requirements, including the estimate of funds deemed by the School Board to be needed for educational purposes. This paper directs the Clerk to advertise a synopsis of the budget and also to advertise a public hearing thereon to be held at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, in the Board Room at the Government Center, Hungary Spring and East Parham Roads, County of Henrico, Virginia. The advertisement is to appear in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Sunday, March 25, 2012 and will be posted in a prominent public location at which notices are regularly posted at both the Eastern and Western Government Centers. This paper further directs the Clerk to advertise the proposed tax rates and levies for calendar year 2012 and for a public hearing thereon to be held at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, in the Board Room at the Government Center, Hungary Spring and East Parham Roads, County of Henrico, Virginia. The advertisement is to appear in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Sunday, March 25, 2012 and will be posted in a prominent public location at which notices are regularly posted at both the Eastern and Western Government Centers. The Board is reminded that legal constraints require such advertising but in no way preclude continued work sessions and deliberations to review and consider changes to the budget or tax rates as the Board may deem appropriate. RESOLUTION �– Authorization to Accept Grant Funding from the FY2009 Metropolitan Medical Response System as Managed by the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. This Board paper authorizes the County Manager to accept grant funding totaling $72,000 from the FY2009 Metropolitan Medical Response System (�“MMRS�”) Grant Program as a sub-grantee of the City of Richmond, and as managed by the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. This grant, which does not require a local match, will be used by the Division of Fire to support a regional effort within the Richmond MMRS to conduct an analysis of capabilities and identify measures to enhance the regional medical surge response and capacity of the participating counties of Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, Goochland, New Kent, the City of Richmond, the affiliated health districts for these localities, and appropriate private sector partners.

3

4

RESOLUTION �– Approval of Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program. This Board paper approves a one-time Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program for eligible full-time employees. Details of the program will be discussed with the Board in a work session on March 13, 2012. RESOLUTION - SIA-004-11 - Brook Road Neighborhood Park Site - Substantially in Accord with the Comprehensive Plan.

At the request of the Division of Recreation and Parks, the Department of Planning conducted a study to determine whether the Brook Road Neighborhood Park Site is substantially in accord with the County�’s 2026 Comprehensive Plan (�“Plan�”). The site consists of a 6.13 acre parcel (784-750-6778) located approximately 290 feet north of the intersection of Brook and Hilliard Roads in the Fairfield Magisterial District. The Planning staff�’s report concluded that the proposed use for this site would not conflict with, or be a significant departure from, the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Plan and would support the intent of the Plan that identifies the need for new public services and facilities based on projected and planned growth in accordance with the 2026 Future Land Use Map. Staff also determined the proposed use of this site can be designed to be compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. At its meeting on February 9, 2011, the Planning Commission approved a resolution finding the Brook Road Neighborhood Park Site substantially in accord with the Plan. Further details regarding the proposed site are contained in the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission. The Director of Planning concurs with the finding of the Planning Commission that the proposed Brook Road Neighborhood Park Site is substantially in accord with the Plan and recommends adoption of the Board paper, and the County Manager concurs. RESOLUTION - Acceptance of Roads. This Board paper would accept the following named and described sections of roads into the County road system for maintenance.

1) 0.13 miles of Hampshire, Section 5. Three Chopt District.

The Acting Director of Public Works and the County Manager recommend approval of this Board paper.

Tidemark Case Number Implementation Plan of Development Plan Reviews

1. Original Plan Completed Prior to 2008 a. Assigned their corresponding Original Plan Planning ID as their

Master Case Number b. Filed in with their corresponding Original Plan Case File, no matter

what year they are submitted. c. Tracked in Tidemark d. Tidemark Case Numbers do not serve as the primary identifier

2. Original/Preliminary Plan Completed After 2008

a. Planning ID will not be assigned unless one was previously assigned. b. Planning ID will not serve as the primary identifier. c. No New Planning IDs will be created after 1/1/2011 d. Tidemark Original Plan Case will always serve as the Master Case

for all subsequent reviews, unless a corresponding Preliminary Review was done. In that case, the Preliminary Plan Case will serve as the Master Case for all subsequent reviews.

e. Tidemark Master Case Number will serve as the Primary Identifier on all Files, Agendas, Letters, Reports, and Maps.

f. Files will be stored in an individual file folder, but filed next to its related cases using the TM Master Case Number. The Master Case # will display as the primary case number on each File Label.

g. Each file label will also contain the individual Review Case Number, Case Name, Review Type, Review Level, Project #, and Planning ID (If one exists).

Subdivision Plan Reviews 1. Conditional Plan Completed Prior to 2008

a. Planning IDs are being created for all Subdivision Files b. File Labels will display the Planning ID, Name, Review Type, and

Section c. The Conditional Plan Planning ID will serve as the Master Case

Number for all subsequent reviews, no matter what year they are submitted

d. Each Final and its subsequent reviews will be filed in order by section number

e. For Subdivisions where no section is noted, a section ONE will be assigned.

Note: Subdivision Files will remain alphabetically filed until Planning ID’s are assigned. Once that is complete, they will be re-filed numerically by Planning ID

2. Conditional Plan Completed After 2008

a. Planning ID will not be assigned unless one was previously assigned to the Conditional Plan.

b. No new Planning IDs will be created after 1/1/2011 c. Planning ID will not serve as the primary identifier d. Tidemark Conditional Plan Case will always serve as the Master Case

for all subsequent reviews, unless a corresponding Preliminary Review was done. In that case, the Preliminary Plan Case will serve as the Master Case for all subsequent reviews.


f. Files will be stored Alphabetically until Kate finishes, then they will be re-files Numerically using the Tidemark Master Case Number.

g. The Tidemark Master Case # will display as the primary case number on each File Label.

h. Each file label will also contain the individual Review Case Number, Case Name, Review Type, Section, Review Level, Project #, and Planning ID (If one exists).

Preliminary Plan Reviews 1. All 2008 and Newer Preliminary Reviews will be tracked as Tidemark

POD Cases with a Review Type of “Preliminary Review” 2. They will be routed to the review agencies as usual, but now Agencies

will be able to submit comments through the online Comments System 3. Preliminary Reviews will not be available to the Public through the

Online Development Comment System. a. IT needs some time to set this up before we start this (I meet with

them this Friday to discuss this) 4. Planners will distribute comments as they do now 5. Planning ID’s will no longer be assigned (F-23, TC-110) 6. Preliminary Reviews will be filed in the File Room using the

Tidemark Case Number under the POD Cases. They will be denoted with a Preliminary Review on the file label.

7. Filing Scenarios b. They will be filed alone unless an Original Plan submittal follows.

In that case, the Preliminary will serve as the Master Case for any and all subsequent reviews.

c. Otherwise a Preliminary will remain as an orphan case Administrative Plan Reviews

1. No Corresponding Original Plan a. Tidemark Case Number will serve as the Primary Identifier b. Planning ID’s will no longer be assigned (F-23, TC-110) c. No Planning ID will be created d. The individual Review Case Number, Name, Review Type, Review

Level, Project #, and Planning ID (If one exists). e. Stores as an orphan case using the Tidemark Number

2. Corresponding Original Plan Review Completed Before 2008

a. Assigned their corresponding Original Plan Planning ID as their Master Case Number

b. Filed in with their corresponding Original Plan Case File, no matter what year they are submitted.

c. Tracked in Tidemark d. Tidemark Case Numbers do not serve as the primary identifier

3. Corresponding Original Plan Review Completed After 2008

a. Planning ID will not be assigned unless one was previously assigned to the Original Plan.

b. Planning ID will not serve as the primary identifier. c. No New Planning IDs will be created d. Tidemark Original Plan Case will always serve as the Master Case

for all subsequent reviews, unless a corresponding Preliminary Review was done. In that case, the Preliminary Plan Case will serve as the Master Case.


f. Files will be stored in an individual file folder, but filed next to its related cases using the TM Master Case Number. The Master Case # will display as the primary case number on each File Label.

g. Each file label will also contain the individual Review Case Number, Case Name, Review Type, Review Level, Project #, and Planning ID (If one exists).