DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS - Granicus

AGENDA BILL

Beaverton City Council Beaverton, Oregon

SUBJECT: Development Review Process Improvement Project: Report on Phase Two and Receive Feedback and Direction on Phase Three Proposal.

FOR AGENDA OF: 03-21-17 BILL NO: 17055

DATE SUBMITTED: 03-08-17

CLEARANCES: City Attorney ~_,c~\l:. V

CAO fr Finance Planning · Public Works

PROCEEDING: WORK SESSION EXHIBITS: 1. Phase Two Report 2. PowerPoint Presentation

BUDGET IMPACT

EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $x

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

AMOUNT BUDGETED $x

APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $x

City Council listens to staff presentation and provides feedback and direction on Phase Three proposal.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: From Spring 2015 through present, city staff and managers responsible for the development review process, with assistance from Kennedy Consulting LLC, Kone Consulting LLC, and Communitas Planning LLC, began the process of identifying and implementing business process improvements. The primary purpose of this project is to meld the Planning, Site Development and Building processes into a seamless development review process that is:

1) supported by customer service that is timely, consistent, respectful, clear, accountable 2) conducted in partnership with the development community with better tools and support to

staff in performing their roles.

The project uses a continuous improvement approach and Lean methodology to facilitate outcomes, including:

• a clear understanding among all process owners of the end-to-end process, • identification of inefficiencies that create backlogs and inconsistent outcomes, • a shared vision for an improved process that addresses frustrations and inefficiencies, • changes to reduce permit review time and to improve customer and staff satisfaction.

INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION: The Phase Two Report, attached, includes an overview of activities from Phase Two and a proposal for Phase Three activities and technology solutions. This information intends to drive the next phase of the process improvement effort and provide the city's executive leaders with data to make informed decisions about future investments in the development review process.

Agenda Bill No: 17055

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

PHASE TWO REPORT MARCH 2017

Community Development Department Public Works Department + Kennedy Consulting LLC Communitas Planning LLC 0 R E G 0 N

!EXHIBIT 1 I

1

T A B L E 0 F CONTENTS

SECTION INFORMATION PAGE

1 Executive Summary 1-2

2 Phase Two Overview 3-6

3 Phase Three Proposal 7-9

Acknowledgements

Appendices

A. Phase Two Technology Solution Recommendation

B. Customer Service Philosophy

C. Customer Service Stance

D. Customer Service Philosophy, abbreviated

E. Customer Service Metrics - DRAFT

-------·------- . Current State Value Stream Map from Phase One

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS To provide land use actions, construction permits, inspections, and final project sign-off to development projects that is supported by customer service that is timely, consistent, respectful, clear, and accountable, while satisfying local, county, regional, state, and federal rules and regulations to maintain excellence in the built environment for the community, neighborhoods, and residents.

WHAT WE ARE DOING Improving the city's process in order to: • Provide improved and consistent customer service • Communicate more effectively with customers and between staff • Provide appropriate tools and implement technology to streamline the process • Update to industry standards and increase competitive advantage of the city

WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS While we see this as the beginning of a shift to continuous improvement as a regular part of business culture, there are specific tasks to accomplish in order to baseline where we are, where we want to be, and how to get there.

Phase 1 120 l 5-20 l 6 l • 'Current State' mapped to define current process • 'Future State' mapped to define desired process • Actions: investigate, test, implement or let go • Technology Assessment and Recommendations

Phase 2 12016-2017! • Customer Service

o Staff Workshops o Customer conversations

• Technology o Software: Request for Information, including recommendations o Hardware: Smartphones and Ruggedized tablet

• Continuous Improvement o Staff: additions and changes, streamlining assignments, targeted training o Permit Center: fillable forms, portal on website

Phases 3 and 4 (2017-2018) • Customer Service

o Coordinate information in guidebooks, brochures, forms, procedures, web, etc. o Workshops: 'Developing in Beaverton' for customers, Risk Management

• Technology o Electronic Document Review Implementation o Electronic Application System Request for Proposals

• Continuous Improvement o Value Stream Mapping: Inspection Process o Kaizen Event: Project Close-out 3

Future Phases Customer Service, Technology, Continuous Improvement, Long-term Capital Investment

DRP - PHASE TWO REPORT Section l - Executive Summary

page l

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Quarterly Work Focus and Budget Estimates (2017- 2020)

FY 16-17 Tech RFI Metric Work Plan Communication COMMUNICATION Technology Metrics Use Phil & Stan Priorities

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Technology Metrics Workshop Draft Bid Consultant Bid Process Consultant

Services Consultant $7,088 $5.775 $3,000 $3.000

TECHNOLOGY Demon strati on s Recornrendation Draft Bid Bluebeam Bid Processs Bluebeam

Bluebeam Vendor $25,000

Application Consultant

System Vendor

GENERAL Sta ff time, Materials, Printing, Mailing, Advertising, Event Services and Supplies

FY TOTAL $ 43,863 $7,088 $5,775 $3,000 $28,000

FY17-18 Bluebeam GO LIVE Development Workshop COMMUNICATION General QA I QC on Products Workshop Customer Workshop

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Inspection VSM Closeout Kaizen Event Develop Survey lrrplerrent Survey

Serv ices Consultant $13,000 $13,000 $3.000 $3.000

lrrplerrentaffon GOLIVE Draft RFP Proposal Process

Bluebeam Bluebeam App.System App. System TECHNOLOGY

Bluebeam Vendor $15,000 $10,000 $5.000 $5.000

Application Consultant $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

System Vendor

GENERAL Sta ff time, Materials, Prin ting, Mailing, Advertising, Event Services and Supplies

FY TOTAL $ 97,000 $28,000 $33,000 $18,000 $18,000

FY 18-19 Refine Products App. System App. System App. System COMMUNICATION Refine Products Technology General General

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Refine Survey Refine Workflows Refine Workflows Refine Workflows

Services Consultant $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

TECHNOLOGY Contract lrrplerrent lrrplerrent lrrpl errent

App. System App. System App. System App. System

Bluebeam Vendor $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Applica tion Consultant $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

System Vendor $150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

GENERAL Staff time, Materials, Printing, Mailing, Advertising, Event Services and Supplies

FY TOTAL $ 522,000 $168,000 $118,000 118,000 $118,000

FY 19-20 App. System GO LIVE Molntoln+lmprove Molntoln+lmprove COMMUNICATION Prepare for GO LIVE Advertise GO LIVE General General

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Workflow Refinerrent Workflow Refinerrent General General

Services Consultan t $3,000 $3,000 $1,500 $1,500

TECHNOLOGY lrrplerrent GO LIVE

Maintenance Maintenance App. System App. System

Bluebeam Vendor $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Application Consultant $10,000 $10,000

System Vendor $100,000 $150,000 $10,000 $10,000

GENERAL Sta ff time, Materials, Printing, Mailing, Advertising, Event Serv ices and Supplies

FYTOTAL $ 319,000 $118,000 $168,000 $16,500 $16,500

TOTAL $981,863

PHASES 2 3 4 5+

DRP - PHASE TWO REPORT Section l - Executive Summary

page 2

2 PHASE TWO OVERVIEW

For 2016-2017 we focused on customer service standards and technology solutions based upon City Council direction. We also continued to proactively identify, problemsolve, and take actions toward improving our services.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Streamlining Staff Assignments • Building Permits assigned within 24-hours, rather than within one week. • Type l Planning Permits reviewed without the delay of assignment.

Targeted Training • Building staff participated in Oregon Building Official Association trainings, Short

School, and other opportunities. • Planning staff receives training through the Oregon Chapter of the American

Planning Association and other resources. • Site Development:

o Weekly Inspector meetings include 30-minutes of staff training o Erosion Control Training & Certification o Investigating American Public Works Association (APWA) Construction Inspector

Training • The city provides a breadth of trainings through the Human Resources Department

that staff also take advantage of.

Permit Center Portal on Website One page overview for the community and customers to see the multiple functions that might apply to permit-related activities within the city.

Butldtng

COde Complitnc:• Progr..,,

Planning Oivislon

PERM IT CENTER

The Cly of Benel'lorfs Pemiil Center provides support dumg "1e dtvetopmeont revtew

process We woR In partnmhlp With cu'lomefl to provide~ confiStent, rflpeettul , dear

Traineci ana Ngnry-SdeG ctty st.an Work toge'lMf IO~ lanCI UH oemlonl, COMU\ICUon

permits • .ispttllof'IS Incl final pro;ttt sign-off Developmenl-fevinr PKICHS rttponstililll!S are

·P11mq· 1ota1anctsuitellnctuseregulltlons"'°llncluseLaw

• Site Development eng1neemg reqUlfements for pl.Ible ana pttvaie lnfrutructure

• Building. national ana suite 1equtrement1 lor DUllOing conslluction

• Tne City of Beaverton 1se111rgeo wtth e~ng !Mt p<ojecls oe~ wlhln the clly

utl$ty loul, county. regklnll, state Nod federill ru6H and regullllofll We maintain

e.11cdience In ltle built environment fOr O!Jf communl'J, nelgntlOrnooGS and residents

CONTACT US

Community Development

~

ll'l'lyslu l Address

12725SWMlltkanWay

Beavel'IOn. OR 97~

M•ltlnfAddl'HI

PO BoH75.5

Beavel1on OR9707M75!i

Phone 503-626·2•93

Fair~26·2~

Public Works

P'fl'fSicllAdclrtH

96005WAllenBIYO

Beaverton, OR 97005

http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/PermitCenter

DRP - PHASE TWO REPORT Section 2 - Phase Two Overview

page 3

5


Customer Conversations (January 20 l 7) From consultant facilitated conversations w ith customers representing property owners, developers, and industry consultants.

Compared to five years ago, staff are doing a better job in helping us achieve our goals.

What customers need from the city process:

• Permit Center should be consistently welcoming

• Emails and Phone calls: o Respond within 24 hours o Provide c lear contact information

• Plan review: o Provide predictable timelines o Reduce the number of rounds of review o Improve collaboration in multi-jurisdiction reviews

• Reduce the number of Conditions of Approval

• Reduce Conflicts and Confusion: o Consistent responses to questions o Resolve issues/give advice o Provide clear inspection notes o Consistent approach to in the field issues o Be clear regarding how to resolve conflicts between approved plan and field

issues

• Make Project close-out more efficient

Staff Conversations 120161 Compiled from consultant facilitated workshops and meetings.

What the city process needs from applicants: • Clear concepts at pre-application stage • Complete and accurate applications at time of submittal • Site Development applications submitted after Facilities Review • As near as possible to l 003 complete plans for Building and Site Development

review • Understand the Structural Code minimum requirements • Submit modifications and information in a timely manner • Be responsive to city questions as the arise • Read city communications in their entirety

DRP - PHASE TWO REPORT Section 2- Phase Two Overview

page 4

6


Staff Workshops on Customer Service 12016)

• Leadership's Role in Customer Service: The qualities and characteristics of highly customer-focused organizations -what do they do, how do they act? What is the leader's role in setting the tone and guiding the organization toward a customerdriven approach? What are the barriers that get in the way of being successful? How does the organization sustain the culture over time?

One workshop held with Directors and Management Team

• Customer Service Philosophy & Providing Exceptional Service in a Regulatory Environment: What is it, what does it mean, what behaviors are required? And how do attitudes, behaviors and mindset produce positive service delivery outcomes, even when customers can't have what they want?

Two workshops held with Development Review Staff

• Problem Solving and Critical Thinking: How to appropriately use independent judgement and group-based (peer-to-peer) decision-making to solve problems and answer questions in order to increase responsiveness to customer needs.

Two workshops held with Development Review Staff

• Developing Metrics for Measuring Customer Service: How to build metrics and a performance measurement program to help understand how effectively your process is performing, continually improve it over time, and increase overall customer satisfaction with development review.

Two workshops held with Development Review Staff, Management Team, and Department Directors

Products

• Our Service Philosophy

• Our Service Culture Stance

• Customer Service Metrics


7

page 5


TECHNOLOGY

Software

Request for Information (RFI}: Electronic Systems for Permit Submittal, Document Review, Online Permit Tracking, Mobile Applications, Code Enforcement, and Public Records

• Responses: 14 responses were received by April 18

• Review: Staff reviewed and recommended six for demonstrations

• Demonstrations: Six demonstrations occurred August 22 through 31

• Recommendations: Below is an overview of staff's recommendation, ranked in order of preference, followed by the reasoning on each recommendation. The recommendation is based upon the systems that have been reviewed and demonstrated since the beginning of this project. This recommendation was presented to leadership and administration for their consideration in the fall of 2016.

1. Commercial off the Shelf Vendor Solution Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an integrated vendor solution that will replace the Beaverton Records and Application Database (BRAD), integrate an Electronic Document Review (EDR) system, and provide for ease of customer and community access to information.

2. BRAD + Electronic Document Review Enhance the Beaverton Records and Application Database (BRAD) and contract for an EDR vendor solution.

3. State System + Electronic Document Review Contract with the State of Oregon Building Codes Division to accept the state's system with some customization and contract for an EDR vendor solution.

4. Do Nothing Keep the status quo. Turn on some BRAD functions that had been turned off due to lack of usage and then make better use of the system we have.

Hardware

Smart Phones: All Site Development Inspectors now have smart phones which enable them to take photos, email , check schedules, and communicate more effectively in the field.

Ruggedized Tablets: One Site Development Inspector is now testing the use of a ruggedized tablet for field inspections. This technology is in use by the Oregon Department of Transportation with great success. It is survey-level GIS software in a tablet allows for quality control and inspections on a job site via 'walking' a plan .


page 6

8

3 PHASE THREE PROPOSAL

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Customer Solutions Work on product development, refinements, and implementation in order to provide more transparency, responsiveness, and understanding in the process for our customers and staff. • Continuous Improvement Refresher • Development Review Process Guidebook for Customers • Customer Survey(s) • Reporting Tools I Use of Metrics

Workshops

For Customers • Developing in Beaverton

A general introduction to the City of Be_averton Development Review Process: what a customer can expect, what the city expects, resources, roles and responsibilities.

For Customers and Staff • Risk Management

To address city and staff risks associated with the fine line that staff walk between helpfulness and city liability issues in the Development Review Process, Inspections, and acceptance of public improvements from the private sector.

For Staff Further use of LEAN methodologies, as identified through Phase One, to improve portions of the Development Review Process. • Inspection program (Value Stream Mapping)

To address inconsistencies with plan review, how inspections are conducted, use of technology in the field, and customer communication.

• Project Closeout (Kaizen Event) To address the multiple roles and responsibilities involved in this portion of the process, Issues to address during review and construction that could make closeout more fluid, and customer communication.

Project Manager Research an approach to customer service that includes a designated staff project manager (from cradle to grave), determine how this might be implemented at the city, and provide management with a recommendation.

Ombudsman Research an approach to customer service that includes an Ombudsman position at the city that a customer would pay to have shepherd their project through the process for a fee, determine how this might be implemented at the city, and provide management with a recommendation.

DRP - PHASE TWO REPORT Section 3 - Phase Three Proposal

9 page 7


TECHNOLOGY Implement the most appropriate 'Electronic Systems for Permit Submittal, Document Review, and Mobile Inspection' to support the work of Building, Planning, and Site Development staff, ease customer submittal and tracking, and provide a portal for citizen inquiries.

The current approach is to move forward with implementation in two separate, but concurrent, phases. The purpose of this two-phased approach is to: • More immediately reduce the amount of paper and inefficiencies attributable to

our current paper plan review process • Allow staff to become proficient in electronic plan review while the longer-term work

on implementing a new electronic application system takes place • Improve the customer and staff experience

Electronic Document Review CEDRl (2017 implementation)

Bluebeam Revu, https://www.blueb~am.com/ .

Efficiencies gained by moving forward with Bluebeam Revu this year include: • Electronic plan submittal • Electronic routing/assignment • Concurrent review • All electronic comments available for view by all other staff (quick conflict id) • QA/QC of final comments • Accountability of staff and customer

Resources Needed: Funding for acquisition and maintenance of software and electronic storage; staff time and dedication; adequate support from Information Services Division.

Electronic Permit Submittal. Tracking, and Mobile Inspection (2017-2019)

Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Develop and publish a Request for Proposals (RFP) on an electronic permitting system to replace the current BRAD system. This approach will require an RFP requirement for Bluebeam Revu to be the integrated EDR system.

Resources Needed: Funding for consultant services for RFP development and implementation management; acquisition and maintenance of software and electronic storage; staff time and dedication; adequate support from Information Services Division.


page8

10


COMMUNICATIONS Consistent information through forms, procedure manuals, customer information packets, and developer workshops.

Permit Center • Set-up, Organization, Cleanliness • Form consistency and conversion to fillable and multi-lingual • Brochures I Information: redesign and develop brochures, packets, and webpages. • Portal: Web I lntraweb updates and consistency • Phil & Stan: strategies for use and display

How-To • DRP Guidebook for customers

. See Continuous Improvement section.

• CDD Guidebook for staff See Continuous Improvement section .

Workshops • Developing in Beaverton

See Continuous Improvement section.

• Risk Management See Continuous Improvement section.

Training Continue targeted training opportunities for staff

Quarterly Accomplishments and Updates Email Blasts to Customers and Staff


page 9

11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Development Review Process Improvement Project is not possible without the contribution of time, energy, and commitment of staff and leaders throughout the city. Their commitment to this project and their desires to create a more integrated, customer responsive and streamlined development review process are invaluable.

Thank you to staff and their leadership:

City Council Cate Arnold Lacey Beaty Betty Bode Mark Fagin Marc San Soucie

Denny Doyle, Mayor

Community Development Department Cheryl Twete, Director Leigh Crabtree, Operations Manager, Project Manager Alan Papesh Garth Bentley Anna Slatinsky George Heimos Arthur Ice Greg Evers Bill Berg Heidi Scarbrough Brad Roast Jana Fox Brian Blalock Janiene Lambert Brian Martin Brianna Addotta Bruce Erlandson Bryce Mclaughlin Cadence Moylan Carl Werner Carmin Ruiz Cassera Phipps Chris Underwood Elena Sasin Floyd Gregg

Public Works Department David Donaldson, Director Andrew Barrett Ben Keeley Bo Chan Bonnie Collins Floyd Harrington Greg 0' Brien Jabra Khasho

Jason Turinsky Jeff Salvon Kelly Perkins Kenneth Rencher Lainie Stambaugh Larry Warfield Lawrence Ambrister Liz Jones Luke Pelz Megan Braunsten Michael Baird

Jessica Hild Jim Duggan Kevin Azar Kevin Golden Naomi Patibandla Randy Van Houten Sandra Graham

Mike Howard Mike Williams Patricia Luebke Rick Hardman Rod Buxton Soja Adams Sandra Freund Scott Whyte Shannon Pfeiffer Sherrie Rivera Stacy Revay Steven Regner Suzanne Tyler Tim Boatwright Todd Juhasz Tyler Ryerson

Sergey Dezhnyuk Sheila Martin Thu Mai Tina Nguyen Wendy Hemmen

12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finance Department Patrick O'Claire, Director Taylor Hollandsworth

City Attorney's Office Bill Kirby, City Attorney Peter Livingston

Mayor's Office

Frank Bond

Grace Wong

Randy Ealy, Chief Administrative Officer Adam Korst Holly Thompson Debbie Baidenmann Joyce Barnard Dianna Ballash Lani Parr Erin Gordenier Michelle T agmyer

Human Resources Department Angela Moreschi, Director Jennifer Marston Nancy Boden Rokus

Jane Chen

Scott Keller Travis Dutton Vanessa Macleod

13

!APPENDIX A I

Beaverton 0 R E G 0 N

Commun ty Development and P•Jblic Works Departments 1272') SVv Millikan Way. PO Box 4755, Beaverton, OR 97076

General Information (503) 526-2222 V /TDD www.BeavertonOregon.gov

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

City Councilors

Development Review Process-Technology Review Team

November 29, 2016

Development Review Process Improvement Project: Phase Two Technology Solution Recommendation

Staff recommend a 'Commercial Off-The-Shelf' integrated vendor solution.

We want to be The Best of Oregon.

A funding commitment to support, and direction to issue, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) integrated vendor solution for the city's Development Review Process is the staff consensus recommendation. This recommendation includes replacing the Beaverton Records and Application Database (BRAD) system and integrating an Electronic Document Review (EDR) system with a system that is easy for customers, community and staff to use and improves overall communication. Staff's recommendation is based upon review and analysis of technology options and solutions since early 2015, including:

• City of Hillsboro visits • ePlan Soft demonstration

• City of Gresham visit • RFI process (outlined after solutions) • State of Oregon Building Codes • Six Vendor Demonstrations

Division demonstration (outlined after RFI process)

"Ah-Ha" moments for staff that heavily influenced this recommendation:

Pace of System Evolution : The available software solutions that support development review

at the municipal level have advanced considerably in the recent past and are continuing to

evolve at a rapid pace. The ease of configurability, implementation time, and integration of

Electronic Document Review (EDR) software have all improved in vendor solutions since other

jurisdictions began their implementations and even since our site visits and conversations with

other implementing jurisdictions.

Electronic Document Review and Communication: Effective automation of an EDR process is essential to improving communication with our customers and between the three divisions. Efficiencies are gained in an integrated approach to work process and flow. A big caution is that if the tools within an EDR product are weak or rudimentary, the result may be very little improvement for the investment; it is for this reason that we believe ProjectDox is not a viable solution. Most vendor proposals include one of the following options : Adobe Pro, Bluebeam, ePlan Soft, or reviewer system agnostic. With ProjectDox we would be "cobbling it all together" and not using an industry standard EDR solution.

Development Review Process Improvement Project Technology Recommendation - November 29, 2016 p. 1

14

TEAMWORK+ SOLUTIONS =SERVICE

Limitations of the State of Oregon System: Our initial review and demonstration of the State of Oregon Building Codes Division system revealed that the state system provides more than what we thought it could provide and that the state is interested in providing more options. However, the state system does not provide modules for Site Development, Inspections, or integrated EDR. It is now clear that the state system lacks critical functionality for a city the size of Beaverton that also has the intention of providing high level customer service.

There are also hidden costs in going with the state system, which can be very difficult to quantify, such as:

What is the level of effort needed to create a Site Development module and further build out the Planning module? How much would the city have to invest in a separate EDR product? If the city invested in customization of the state system and a separate EDR product, would they work together on the state's platform?

Options We recognize that our number one_ recommended solution, above, is not the only solution. To that end a spreadsheet is attached that depicts and describes the rationale for the recommendation as compared to other solutions that were considered. The solutions considered are ranked and outlined, below:

#1 RFP for Vendor Solution: Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a formal quota on an integrated vendor solution that will replace the Beaverton Records and Application Database (BRAD), integrate an Electronic Document Review (EDR) system, and provide for ease of customer and community access to information. Estimated Cost: Ranging from $120,000+ to $1.4 million+ Estimated Time: 12-24 months

(Funding Approval, RFP Process, Implementation of 7 + months, Go-Live).

#2 BRAD+ Electronic Document Review: Enhance the Beaverton Records and Application Database (BRAD) and issue an RFP for a formal quote on an EDR vendor solution. Estimated Cost: up to $500,000 (EDR $75,000+; BRAD ~$300,000; Consultant ~100,000) Estimated Time: dependent upon /SD and DRP staff

(Process development, developing, testing, training)

#3 State System+ Electronic Document Review: Contract with the State of Oregon Building Codes Division to accept the state's system with some customization and issue an RFP for a formal quote on an EDR vendor solution and implementation. Estimated Cost: State $30,000+ and EDR estimate $75,000+ Estimated Time: 6 - 12 months

#4 Do Nothing: Keep the status quo. Perhaps turn on some BRAD functions that had been turned off due to lack of usage and then make better use of the system we have. Estimated Cost: $0 upfront (loss of business and competitive advantage) Estimated Time: Staff time and training on existing BRAD 15

Development Review Process Improvement Project Technology Recommendation - November 29, 2016 p.2 TEAMWORK+ SOLUTIONS= SERVICE

EXAMPLE PRICING STRUCTURE

So.S (No.,,.d UHrt) Hosted (Concurrent Usen)

Upfront Annuol Upfront Annu1I

TOTAL · Year 1 $ 257,210.00 $ 201,470.00 $ 601,710.00 $ 36,600.00

TOTAL-Year 2 s 207,514.10 s 130,870.00

PLAN ROLLS ., 2016

SITE DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING - SOUTH COOPER MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL

Development Review Process Improvement Project Technology Recommendation - November 29, 2016 p . 3

On-PromlM (Concurrent UHrt)

Upfront Annuol (Stondord) Annuol (Piotlnum)

$ 601,710.00 $ $

s 94, 270.00 s 113,860.00

16

TEAMWORK +SOLUTIONS= SERVICE

VALUE STREAM MAPPING - 2015

"CURRENT STATE/ AS-IS" • -

~-------- · ---------· --------

"FUTURE STATE"

c.,..,~ • • ·--~ lt'T p, 61),'\

[)._.. ............... "1~··0"1

Development Review Process Improvement Project Technology Recommendation - November 29, 2016 p. 4

•

TEAMWORK +SOLUTIONS =SERVICE


Our Service Philosophy !APPENDIX Bl

TEAMWORK +SOLUTIONS =SERVICE. What does this mean? It means we care about our community, its people, and the customers we serve. This philosophy drives our every action. We take pride in delivering friendly and efficient services and in working together to find creative, cost effective solutions that make Beaverton a great place to live and work.

The following are behaviors that are required of each member of Community Development and Public Works Departments to successfully live this philosophy:

• -.o. - -

---

Facilitate problem resolution. Work within teams and across divisions to find solutions to customer concerns and service delivery problems.

Keep each other out from under the bus. Replace "that group won't accept it" with "that design does not satisfy Section X of Code Y."

Educate whenever and wherever possible. If someone clearly understands the requirements and expectations, they will be more likely to meet city standards. Explain codes in the simplest terms possible.

Demonstrate leadership. Be proactive- know the customer's timeline and anticipate issues that will need to be addressed.

•

Be accountable for your actions. Keep each other informed to create a consistent and reliable customer experience. Admit to your mistakes and do whatever you can to facilitate a corrective action.

Be a respectful regulator . Explain in plain terms why a requirement is necessary and ask the customer how they plan to address/solve the issue. Remain calm and avoid becoming defensive or adversarial.

Do It Now. Deal with issues, questions, and requests in a timely manner. We adhere to a standard of consistent and reliable 24-hour response time.

Manage customer expectations Provide a reality-ba~ed estimate of when you will be able to respond to a request, answer a question, or address a problem - and then meet the expectation.

18

(Beaverton 0 R E G 0 N

TEAMWORK+ SOLUTIONS =SERVICE IAPPENDIXCI

Our Service Culture Stance

**

Shared Success • We understand and own that, without our customers, our work doesn't exist- their

success is our success.

Clear Process • We identify ways to stop problems from reoccurring.

• We are open to improving the process as needed.

Service Coordination • Service is responsive, consistent and coordinated across all divisions. • We coordinate with overlapping and neighboring service providers to best align our

interpretations of common/shared laws, plans, codes, applications and processes

Tools and Technology • We match the right tools and technology to the service needs of our customers, in the

office and in the field. • We have the technology necessary to support timely customer service, integrate our

processes, work more efficiently, and increase transparency for customers.

Education and Outreach • We strive to educate and build relationships with our customers and market our

services and educational offerings. • We empower customers to take ownership of their projects. • We listen, engage in open dialogue, and do what we can to help customers achieve

their objectives. • We help our "first line" customers understand that development review exists to

ensure safety and quality in the built environment. • We provide materials in multiple languages in line with the city 's Language Access

Policy.

People + Skills • We have the right people with the right skills. • We have specialists in all facets of our program who have excellent communication

skills and the capability to deal with complex problems and issues.

• We stay informed about new and emergent development ideas, materials, and technologies.

19



Our Service Philosophy Lead

!APPENDIX DI

Work on each project with intent to build solution-oriented relationships. You are more likely to be invited in to conversations, not avoided.

Deliver Manage Expectations by provide reality-based estimates about when you will be able to respond to requests, answer questions, or address problems and then meet the expectation. Don't over-promise or under-deliver.

Respond Address issues, questions, and requests in a timely manner. Adhere to our standard of consistent and reliable 24-hour response time.

Anticipate Strive to understand internal and external timelines and anticipate issues that will need to be addressed.

Coordinate Engage city staff, across divisions and departments, to address conflicts in code and code interpretation in order to provide consistent and unified responses.

Account Admit mistakes and do whatever you can to facilitate a solution.

Educate Explain code requirements in the simplest terms possible and why they are necessary, whenever and wherever you can. If someone clearly understands the requirements and expectations, they will be more likely to provide information that meet the standards.

Reference Inform that "the design does not satisfy Section X of Code Y" rather than phrases like "that group won't accept it."

Request After providing an explanation, ask the customer how they plan to address the issue.

Respect It is possible to be respectful regulator through taking a firm stance that gains you customer respect. Remain calm, resist becoming defensive and do not get adversarial (even if someone argues with you).

Improve Continuously work together to identify issues and solve customer concerns and service delivery problems. Keep each other informed to create a consistent and reliable customer experience.

20


lAPPENDIX El

Measuring Customer Service in Beaverton's Development Review Process

Background One of the recommendations for improving Beaverton's development review process is to build a new customer service culture for Development Review. This has been the focus of project activities for all of 2016. One aspect of improving the culture and the customer's experience is creating a small set of meaningful performance metrics that will help the city understand and track the customer's overall experience and certain procedural aspects of the process that are most important to customers.

Best practice research of municipal development review processes, as well as customer feedback from Beaverton's own process reveal that timeliness of the process is the most important measure for customers. The City has some metrics and performance standards in place for measuring timeliness of certain aspects of the process:

• Percentage of site development plan review comments returned within 4 weeks • Percentage of right of way and facility permits processed within 48 hours • Percentage of inspections performed within 48 hours (right-of-way and site development) • Percent of building inspections completed within 24 hours of request

However, Planning, Building and Site Development do not collectively measure the cycle time from receipt of application to final approval or the number of reviews required to achieve final approval.

Recommendations Beaverton development review staff participating in two metrics workshops in October 2016 overwhelmingly recommended timeliness as the most important metric for measuring the quality of customer service from Beaverton's process. The following are measures that received the highest number of "vote" when asked to name the three most important measures for the development review process:

Procedural Measures - Timeliness Customer Satisfaction Measures 1. Percentage of applications reviewed within set 3. Percentage of customers satisfied with the

timelines for each application type helpfulness of development review staff 2. Number of review cycles required for final 4. Percentage of customers satisfied with the

approval of each application type availability of development review staff 5. Percentage of customers satisfied with the

predictability of the development review process

6. Percentage of customers satisfied with the timeliness of the development review process

All of these measures align with nationwide best practices for jurisdictions and would provide the City with data on the aspects of the process that are most important to customers.

There were three additional timeliness measures that were discussed at length without reaching consensus:

21

• Percentage of emails and phone calls responded to within 24 hours. Some felt this would be easy to measure with call logs and/or an easy to use desktop widget. Others felt that this is a great standard that staff should be accountable to, but that the time involved in collecting the data may not be worth the effort. Best practice research shows 24-hour response time as a performance standard, but no evidence that jurisdictions typically measure it.

• Percentage of applications reviewed within 48 hours for "completeness" (to continue to detailed review or returned to customer requesting needed information). This seems like a reasonable standard and fairly easy to measure.

• Percentage of over the counter permits issued the same day. (Leigh, I don't have clear notes about why people thought this one was important. Doesn't this occur most of the time any way? What will we learn if we measure it?)

Finally, a suggestion was made to track customer questions received in the permit center to identify frequently asked questions that could be developed into an FAQ for the City's website. Planning keeps call logs tracking this information, however, Building and Site Development do not. Technically this is not a performance measure, however, tracking frequently asked questions helps improve the customer experience in several ways:

1) It tells us what customers do not understand about the process so we know how to better educate them.

2) It creates more consistently and predictability in the process when answers are provided in the same way across staff and across division lines

3) Customers can get answers to their questions online, freeing up staff to focus on tasks that keep applications moving to meet set timelines.

Measuring Timeliness The problem with timeliness is widespread, with developers and applicants all over the country voicing concerns about how long it takes to obtain approval for a project. In most communities, the land development approval process, standards, and forms have been developed incrementally over the years and in many cases have become increasingly complex and challenging for applicants to navigate. Reviews have become more and more complicated, which results in longer and longer timeframes. Some cities have attempted to solve this problem by setting performance standards and timelines from the time an application is accepted to the time it is either approved or denied.

The problem is that the overall timeline is not under the control of the city. The city can't control the amount of time the applicant may need to make changes that they city requires for the development and it can't control the process and timelines of other jurisdictions that are involved in a project. The way to solve this is to set and monitor performance standards for the sub-processes that are under control of the city. Many projects go through more than one cycle of review.

22

Recommended Measure #1: Percentage of applications reviewed within set timelines for each application type

One widely accepted best practice for measuring review cycles is to set a timeline for the first review cycle, and they cut the timeline for each subsequent review cycle in half. For example, if the first review cycle is 40 days, second cycle would be 20 days and the third cycle 10 days. The performance measurement would be what percent of the projects meet the 40, 20 and 10 day goals. Another best practice is to set a performance target for meeting these timelines. For example: Beaverton meets the performance target of 40 days for first review 80% of the time. This way of measuring and targeting is effective in two ways: it lets staff and customers know how well the City is performing to its agreed upon timelines, and it attempts to reduce the actual time of each review cycle so the overall length of the process is shortened. Some jurisdictions are also measuring customer timelines, so they have data to use in educating customers when there are complaints the process is taking too long.

Recommended Measure #2: Number of review cycles required for final approval of each application type. Three or fewer review cycles for most projects is considered to be an industry best practices. Jurisdictions that are attempting to reduce the overall timeline from application to final approval, as well as the number of review cycles are tracking this metric. Being able to see the number of review cycles by application type will also help illuminate where customers are getting bogged down, through lack of understanding, or where the city's own process is breaking down.

Measuring Customer Satisfaction.

Best practices in measuring customer satisfaction have changed dramatically with the availability of simple, online survey tools and with the use of Lean and Agile practices in process improvement. More frequent and regular feedback from customers about their experience allows the City to continually improvement staff performance and troubleshoot/fine-tune troublesome aspects of the process quickly and in real-time. We are recommending a very brief survey conducted in the same manner at five "points" in the process: 1) permit counter or initial contact/pre-application, 2) planning review; 3) site development review; 4) building inspection, and 5) close-out. The survey would include a couple of open-ended questions for customers to provide specific feedback, as well as the staff recommended measures:

3. Percentage of customers satisfied with the helpfulness of development review staff 4. Percentage of customers satisfied with the availability of development review staff 5. Percentage of customers satisfied with the predictability of the development review process 6. Percentage of customers satisfied with the timeliness of the development review process

The following is a sample of what the survey could look like:

1. Overall, how satisfied were you with the helpfulness of (permit center, planning, site development building) staff in responding to your questions and resolving issues?

r Very satisfied

r Satisfied

23

r Neutral

r Dissatisfied

r Very dissatisfied

2. Overall, how satisfied were you with the availability of (permit center, planning, site development building) staff when you needed them?

r Very satisfied

r Satisfied

r Neutral

r Dissatisfied

r Very dissatisfied

3. Overall, how satisfied were you with the timeliness of the (front counter, pre-app, planning review, site development review, building inspection, close-out) process?

r Very satisfied

r Satisfied

r Neutral

r Dissatisfied

r Very dissatisfied

4. Overall, the (front counter, pre-application, planning review, site development review, building inspection, close out) process was carried out in a structured and predictable manner that I was able to follow.

r Strongly agree

r Agree

r Neutral

r Disagree

r Strongly disagree

5. What did we do well?

6. What could we do better?

7. What type of information, help or education do you need in order to understand our process better?

24

!EXHIBIT 21

Development Review Process Improvement Project - Phase 2 Report

Phase 3 Work Plan Proposal .

March 2017

Development Review Process

Purpose

To provide

-

land use actions, construction permits, inspections, and final project sign-off

to development projects that is supported by

customer service that is timely, consistent, respectful, clear, and accountable,

while satisfying local, county, regional, state, and federal rules and regulations

to maintain excellence in the built environment

for the community, neighborhoods, and residents.

1

03/14/2017

What we are doing

Working toward:

Consistently great customer service

Consistently effective communication

A streamlined process

Increasing city's competitive advantage

Development Review Process Improvement PrOJect \l~rB t ' eaver on

I l I ~

What we are doing

Ours.Mc•~'(

Commercial . • Off-The-Shelf ~ ... Ii • COTS ' <D • '.:t 12!1 Application .e

System

Development Review Process Improvement Project \lV-B t ' ( Eeaver on

26

2

03/14/2017

CZ) Continuous Improvement

---

PERMIT CENTER

__ ..,.., ____ .,.... ______ _ _____ .,. .. ~------,_ _________ _ ____ .. ___ _ .,._ ______ _ -:... .. -· ...... ----·--... ·-- ...- ---------·---------

-- Forms -How-to information

Staff Assignments

-----~-

Training

Permit Center Portal

Development Review Process Improvement Project ~~~aye,rf?f"!

ff) Customer Service

Process Exploration

Leadership Discussion

Staff Interviews+ Discussion Groups

Observation of staff-customer interactions

Workshops

Development Review Process Improvement PrOJect \l~eaverton ' .~ 1 c ·~ ) ••

27

3

03/14/2017

© CUSTOMER SERVICE

Our Servi.Ce Philosophy H:AMW0R~ + :> Jl"TIONS - SERVICE

Our Service Culture Stance

• . =:.Z.::.'::.---- ----·- -

& : :::::.-=:::.--..-::-.. :::=

** : =· -;--'::..-=-~..:=;:.=~ • ~~t:!:--:_::==:-:::.--:..-.. . ::-::.=.-.:::.:._ .. ::-..=-----

. ::..~·---·--- .. -·--..

. ··-----------.. ----~----. ··-----~-- ........ ...._ .. -

Our Service Philosophy

~.:::".=..."':".::."'="''" __ .... ------

-________ ... _______ _

Development Review Process Improvement Project ~Vieaverton ( .~ l j l

G) Customer Service

Mutual Expectations

What applicants can expect

What customers need

What the process needs

• • •• -~-~-- ----- - - • •

Development Review Process Improvement PrOJect -\)~B t I eaver on ' t , •

28

4

03/14/2017

Customer Service

Mutual Expectations

"Compared to five years ago, staff are doing a better job in helping us achieve our goals."

Development Review Process Improvement PrOJect \l~rB f t eaver on ~ ' ' j

Metrics

Customer Service

3 Process is Predictable + Timely

3 Staff Helpful+ Available

3 Messages returned within 24 hours

3 Applications reviewed within timelines

3 Inspections Complete - Building within 24 hours - Site Development within 48 hours - Right-of-Way within 48 hours

# Review Cycles for final approval

Development Review Process Improvement Pro1ect ~~B f t eaver on ! ( .. ' •

29

5

03/14/2017

G') Technology

Electronic System for Permit Submittal, Document Review, Mobile Inspection Request for Information: • Multi-staff and Multi-division Participation • 14 Responses • 6 Demonstrations • Team Recommendation

Smart Phones

Ruggedized Tablets

Development Review Process Improvement PrOJect ~~eaverton ( ~ ~ ' , J '4

What's Next?

Continuous Improvement

Customer Solutions • Guidebook for Customers

• Customer Survey(s)

• Reporting Tools I Use of Metrics

Project Manager

Ombudsman

Workshops • Developing in Beaverton

• Risk Management

• Inspection program (Value Stream Mapping)

• Project Closeout

(Kaizen Event)

Development Review Process Improvement PrOJect ~~B- t t eaver on ! ( , ' j

30

6

03/14/2017

What's Next?

Technology

Electronic Document Review (EDR} Bluebeam Revu

Standard C D extreme

Development Review Process Improvement PrOject '\)~rB l t eaver on ~ [ _J .,

What's Next?

Communications

Permit Center • Set-up, Organization, Cleanliness • Forms I Brochures I Information • Web I lntraweb • Phil & Stan

Continuous Improvement, Workshops, Training • Coordination

Quarterly Accomplishments and Updates

Development Review Process Improvement PrOject \l~rB l t eaver on 1 ( ~ ' 'j

31

7

03/14/2017

@ Future Phases


Technology Electronic Application System Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) solution BRAD replacement

Communications

Commercial Off-The-Shelf

COTS Application

System

Development Review Process Improvement PrOJect ~rs~ayert?".

G) Future Phases


Technology

Communications

Long-term Capital Investment

Development Review Process Improvement Pro1ect ')lrs~ayerto~

32

8

I

Questions?

LOCATION

WATER

..... J:: (!)

iii J::

SANITARY SEWER

03/14/2017

•

SURFACE ! TAANSPORTATION

Development Review Process Improvement Proiect \l~rB t ' eaver on

( l 'l

33

9

Documents

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS - Granicus