HomeMy WebLinkAboutPresentationBuilding Permit Process Review
December 28, 2016
Overview
On June 23rd, 2016 the City Commission directed the Administration to conduct a review of the Building Department's current
permitting processes and solicit stakeholder input for incorporation. The directive focused on smaller projects and projects that
did not use a 3rd party permit "expeditor"/"runner." The Administration was asked to make recommendations for process
improvement and implementation.
During the course of discussion for this resolution, it was also also recommended that the following be considered:
• Electronic Plan Submission/Review: An enterprise -wide electronic system would minimize the inefficiencies of physically submitting
to the City and moving plans between plan reviewers. This will allow concurrent reviews by all trades, thereby reducing delays.
• Workshops/Review Meetings: Coordinate with architects and engineers to make them aware of common reviewer comments and
submission mistakes (or, frequently committed errors), so as to reducing the number of times plans are resubmitted for review.
• Staffing Review: Consider contracting with external plans reviewers to reduce average review times.
• Electronic Permitting System: Enhance the electronic permitting system.
Collaboration with Design Professionals: Engage engineers and architects on an ongoing basis to make sure they understand what is
expected of them.
Interdepartmental Communication: Improve collaboration between departments (Building, Planning & Zoning, Public Works and Fire,
etc, - as necessary).
Fast Tracks: Review feasibility of enhancing the "fast track" processes for smaller projects.
The Administration set out to dive into building data, talk to users of the process, meet with staff at all levels, and review technology
in order to understand opportunities for improvement and create an action plan. The team contacted and reviewed scope
experiences with other municipalities/counties.
Consultant Review
The Administration engaged the professional services of Accenture, a global management consultancy, services integration,
technology, and outsourcing services firm to design and facilitate user experience workshops to better understand customer
experiences. The work scope was condensed and expedited to enable inclusion in this report. Obviously, the engagement of Accenture
contributed to the delay in submitting this report. The annexure to this report comprises the work done by Accenture.
2
Assumptions and Definitions
The following are applicable assumptions, terms, and definitions that are useful references in understanding this report:
What is a small project?
As directed by the Commission's Resolution, this initial study primarily focused on smaller projects. However, several
elements of the recommendations are also applicable to other types of more complex projects that are routinely processed
through the Building Department. Examples of "smaller" projects include bathroom and kitchen remodels, decks, driveways,
fences, sheds, electrical work, and other jobs of similar scale. Generally, the job cost of a small project is less than $100,000
with printed (hardcopy) building plans that are less than 6 standard plan sheets. Projects of this cost and scale generally
qualify for a same -day "walk-through" plan review. However, in some cases there are characteristics of the project that require
special processes and a "drop-off" of the plans.
Single Family Residences: During this review, the process for building new Single Family Residences (specifically in T3
Zoning designations) was also examined.
Developments involving commercial activity were also looked at, specifically job types that affect small businesses (such as
interior remodels).
What are Special Permits (Waivers, Warrants, Exceptions, Variances)?
Special Permits provide a legal alternative when it's impractical or impossible to comply with the City's strict Miami 21 Code.
However, this process has additional requirements and can lead to delays and increased cost. An applicant - at times -
reserves the right to change design plans to conform with the code, allowing construction to be "By -Right." This process is
managed by Planning and Zoning.
3
What is an NCD / Historic Districts?
A Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) is an overlay zoning district that is intended to preserve unique and distinctive
neighborhoods that exhibit a certain defined character worthy of protection, such as physical features, design characteristics,
and recognized cultural or historical identity. The NCD provides additional regulations or design guidelines for new
construction, major alterations and additions to existing buildings, in order to protect, enhance and perpetuate the value of the
neighborhood conservation area. Requirements associated with NCD's / historic areas have the potential to cause additional
delays on projects.
4
Approach
The Administration coordinated all the relevant City departments involved in the permitting process to facilitate discussion, review
processes, gather user feedback, analyze data, engage consulting support and document action items. The following steps were
followed in preparation of this summary:
1. Start with Data
The iBuild application is a City -built application that is used to manage building permitting -related activities. It is the system of
record for most data related to the building permitting process. Data was pulled (or extracted) from this database into a data
discovery tool, allowing the team to explore an initial set of questions:
• How many "Single Family Homes" are newly constructed each year? Remodeled?
• Is this a significant number compared to other construction activity in the City of Miami?
• How long are plan reviewers taking in each trade/discipline, specifically for Single Family Homes?
• Are there specific construction activities that take longer than others?
During this analysis and exploration, other questions arose, setting the stage for additional user research. It also became
apparent that certain data points were missing to paint a complete picture of the permitting experience.
Some Data we have:
• Quite a bit of activity detail from Application Submission to
Certificate of Completion/Occupancy.
• Time spent in each Trade
• Total Time in City vs. Time with Customer/Design Professionals
• Type of Work Performed
• Zoning Type
Some Data we do NOT have:
• Data does not identify clearly if a permit runner was used; so,
while the project focuses on small projects without expeditors,
it's currently impossible to do deep analysis on impact of
expeditors using iBuild data.
• Data does not indicate if there was a special planning/zoning
process (waiver, warrant, etc.) involved, again impeding deep
analysis on this topic.
5
2. Meet with Internal Users at All Levels
Throughout all phases of this study, efforts were made to keep users at the forefront. Internal users were the first to be
interviewed. The intent was to engage them early -on in this problem -solving effort, dive deeply into processes, identify
constraints and discover pain points. Special attention was placed on front-line employees - those users with the most
interaction with City of Miami customers. Management was relied upon to provide validation and additional perspectives
about process and organizational limitations.
3. Meet with Customers (Architects, Engineers, Expeditors, Owners) and Map their Experiences
It was important to gather insight from a cross section of customers. Homeowners, Design Professionals, and Permit
Runners/Expeditors were all engaged - each offering unique perspectives on the state of the building permit process.
Customers were invited to attend a series of meetings designed to gather open-ended feedback and map out the way in which
users experience the process. Invitations were extended in person to customers on the 4th Floor of the MRC Building, through
homeowners associations, and via social media (Nextdoor).
The Administration engaged Accenture in the design, implementation, and analysis of this customer "feedback and
journey mapping" exercise.
Additional follow-up and interviews also took place with individuals who participated in the group sessions and others who
were unable to attend.
4. Review Findings with Department and Develop Action Items.
Findings were reviewed with key staff with the goal of informing current operations and developing an action plan for
improvement. In some cases, the departments were able to make immediate improvements (such as implementation of
Information Desk as widely suggested by interviewed users). In other cases, action items are more long-term in nature (such
as Proposed Electronic Plan Review Project). In the Action Plan included later in this report, actions have been noted as Done,
In -Progress, and Future. - A summary of findings begins on Page 9.
6
Software & Technology
While many of the discovered issues included in this report require basic process and cultural changes, several can be solved with
improved technology. The Information Technology (IT) Department currently supports and maintains the iBuild Application. In
addition, IT has a number of active process improvement projects specifically targeting permitting -related activities. It was
determined that a lack of process documentation has hindered previous improvement efforts. As a result, IT recently implemented a
business analysis team charged with understanding process and documenting requirements. All work is focused on "improving the
customers' service experience and making the city a better and easier place to do business."
The business analysis conducted by IT includes:
• Joint workgroup sessions
• Site visits to other local municipalities
• Interviews with subject matter experts and stakeholders
• Review of department process related literature and city ordinances
• Surveys
• Analysis of department data
• Process -related simulation exercises
Their findings were heavily considered throughout this study.
The following activities are currently in process for various departments. These activities are beyond the scope of the City
Commission Directive; however, the Administration felt strongly that it was important to review them as they will aid in the overall
goal of process improvement.
• iPW - Public Works: GIS-based system that will accept, track and facilitate the processing of a permit application. Some PW
sub -permits are already being tracked via iBuild. The Right of Way (ROW) section will be the first of three divisions to be
addressed. The project will allow expedited reviews by the Public Works Department during the building permit process.
• Status: Currently underway. Users are currently testing initial features.
7
• Building: IT and Building have partnered to identify requirements for an "Electronic Plan Review" application. While Building
is taking the lead, all departments will benefit from this enterprise -wide system.
Status: Requirements gathering is underway. Additional Business Analyst consultants have been hired to assist with
expediting this phase.
• iPlan - Planning and Zoning: This new initiative will provide all divisions within the Planning and Zoning Department with a
system to accept, track, and process plans. This will help the department provide more specific project details and streamline
special permitting.
Status: Business processes and system requirements have been identified and validated. Resources are being identified to
begin development of an initial phase to specifically deal with the tracking of warrants and waivers. This priority and scope
for the pilot was largely based on feedback from internal and external users.
• Neighborhood Enhancement Team: This is a new platform for NET to accept, track and issue supplemental construction
related permits.
Status: Requirements for issuance of a construction noise waiver and garage sale application have been identified and
validated. This project is currently being scheduled for development.
Discussion with Other Cities
The Administration had discussions with the following municipalities and the County in preparation of this report:
• Miami Beach
• Coral Gables
• Pompano Beach
• Tampa
• Miami -Dade County
• New York City
8
Data Finding Summary
Historical Data from the iBuild application was pulled for the last few years to better understand review times for different project
types. In most instances, "median" numbers were used instead of "averages" as they represented are more accurate picture of
operations. Special attention was given to Single Family Homes and "Small Projects." Here are some highlights:
• Single Family Residence New Construction Permits only accounted for about 0.4% of total permit volume in 2016. As
the resolution paid special attention to Single Family Residences, it was important to know what volume this work type
actually represents.
• Typically, it currently takes about 310 days to acquire a permit for New Construction of a Single Family Home.
• Less than half the time (about 145 days) is spent in the hands of the City. The remainder for construction of a new single-
family residence is spent with the applicant, design professionals, and other regulatory agencies (County DERM, WASD, FDOT,
etc.)
• There is a lot of back and forth between the City and Applicants on Single Family Residences with plans often requiring
about 10 reworks. Sometimes this is the result of missing information on behalf of the applicant.
• Historically, Structural and Zoning have represented the longest timelines within the plan review process for Single
Family Residences.
• While it is impossible to tell from the data which plans required a special zoning process, we know from meeting with staff
and customers that delays in zoning are usually the result of plans requiring additional steps associated with special
permits.
• During the process review, it was also discovered that sometimes plans get "stuck" in physical transfer between plan
reviewers. For example, a reviewer in public works or electrical completes a review and marks the plan in the next bin for
pickup in iBuild, but the plan doesn't physically make it to the pickup bin for another day or more.
• Volume/Workload Increase: Some delays can also be attributed to a steady increase in the number of permits issued per
year. More than 26,500 permits were issued in 2016, a 12% increase over the previous year. Volume had already
increased 22% from 2014 to 2015.
• Right Of Way Designations for those developments that are mandated by Code to provide land for street expansion,
including its required approval process and acceptance by Miami City Commission have also been known to impact timelines
on permits.
9
How Many Days Does it take to get a Permit for a
New Single Family Residence (T3 Zone).
(All "Day" calculations are the mean number of days in each category)
2014 2015 2016:
Days from First Submission to Permit
148 244 310
Days In City Plan Review
2016 by Quarter
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
346 305 342 259
53 95 158 142 162 195 145
41 39 35 24
8 10 17 25 14 14 13
Days In Structural
16 30 34
Days In Zoning
Days In Public Works 3 8 17
Days In Building
17 15 16 17
2 2 6 6 3 6 6
Days In Plumbing 0 1 3
2 4 3 2
Days In Electrical 0 2 5 5 5 6 5
*Zeroes indicate same day activity
• Permits for Small Projects (With a project cost of less than $100,000.) are a large majority of total permit volume
representing about 90% of all permit applications submitted to the building department.
• Permits for Small Projects in Single Family (T3) Residential Zones account for 29% of Total Permit Volume.
• For Small Projects in a T3 Residential Zone, Tree Permits have some of the longest process times, often in excess of 60
days. In cases where both Tree Removal and Relocation are in the scope, permit approvals in 2016 took about 270 days.
(Time for "Tree Permits" includes the period required for field inspections, arborist report, and 10 days + 2 days - USPS Receipt -
for mandatory posting).
• Anecdotally, it is understood that tree permits trigger significant delays in a variety of construction projects.
• While all permits for recent quarters have not been closed yet, there are signs of improvement in the data from permits
issued in Q3 & Q4 2016.
10
• Specifically, notable improvements were made to Structural Times in Q3 & Q4 (after the Building department engaged
structural consultants to assist with workload). Single Family Residence times were reduced by about 20% over the 2nd half
of the year and other smaller Structural reviews were reduced to an average of about 5 days (according to daily
operational reports).
• After acknowledging need for faster turnaround on smaller projects, Zoning reprioritized reviews and also showed
improved results for Q3 & Q4 2016 when compared against the beginning of the year.
11
Work Item
Breakdown
A sample of common "work
items" was used to better
understand how long certain job
types were taking in plan review.
Keep in mind that while these
"median" numbers do provide a
useful estimation of process
times, not all permits or types
were included in this sample.
Zero's in the "Days In -Process
with the City" column reflect
same day activity. The data show
that for many work items -
particularly smaller/simpler
types - much of the time "plan
review" time is not spent at the
City, but rather in the hands of
the applicant and/or design
professionals.
Number of Plan Reworks required
is also included to provide a sense
of how many versions of plans
were required to pull the permit.
This analysis will be used to
prioritize information and
improvement efforts.
Days from Permit
Application to
Issuance
Days In -Process with Number Of Plan
the City
Reworks
Permit Type
Work Items
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016
BUILDING
BUILDING
ROOFING
ELECTRICAL
FIRE
MECHANICAL AIR
PUBLIC WORKS
TREE PERMIT
RESTAURANT (50 + OCCUPANTS)
AWNING OR CANOPY/CLIMATE RIBBON
WOOD DECK/CONCRETE SLAB
85
26
44
132
29
36
142
62
58
28 35
13 15
5 14
78
31
22
5 6
2 2
3 2
7
3
2
POOL / SPA / FOUNTAIN
24 41 52 12
13 21 3
4 4
DEMOLITION - TOTAL
9 35 35 0
0 0 1
1 1
SHED
13 30 32 13
11 17 2
2 2
WINDOWS
15 28 28 7
10 18 1
1 1
PAVERS
12 20 33 0
0 0 1 1 2
WOOD FENCE
13 16 21 3
7 14 2
2
1
SHUTTERS (NO ELECTRICAL)
11 8 21 8
7 21 1
1 1
REGULAR EXTERIOR:DOORS
DEMOLITION - INTERIOR
METAL FENCE
KITCHEN/BATHROOM REMODELING
WOOD/LAMINATE/TILE
FLAT ROOF
TILE ROOF
SHINGLE ROOF
BOX SIGN
GENERATOR
ROUGH WIRING OUTLETS
SERVICE REPAIR
NEW FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
14
19
7
1
2
1
1
26
11
3
0
1
13
16
8
8
1
1
1
1
34
34
9
0
2
21
17
13
10
1
2
1
1
35
26
15
0
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
NEW CENTRAL AC / HEATING SYSTEM
38 64 133 0
0 8 1 2 6
VENTING SYSTEM
41 164
86 0
7 7 1 3 3
REPLACE SAME LOCATION CENTRAL AC
/ HEATING
0 0 0
0 0 0
DRIVEWAY APPROACH
TREE RELOCATION' TREE REMOVAL
TREE REMOVAL
99
87
86
185
141
91
174
272
87
0
459
469
16
179
187
14
152
61
2
0
0
4
2
0
4
7
3
12
Recommendations & Findings from User Study/Action Plan
The administration met with internal and external users at all levels.
Additionally, the administration engaged Accenture Consulting to conduct user
feedback and prepare a "journey map" to better understand the experiences
customers were having interacting with the permitting process. The City team
prepared responses / action items for the central findings of the study.
Status Key for Chart:
e Done
C In Progress / In Consideration
O Future
O Known Issues
Findings
Actions
Newcomers to the 4th Floor at
MRC are often confused and
intimidated. They often wait in
the wrong lines, for the wrong
people, for the wrong
departments.
Information on the website is not
simply stated, and does not
sufficiently guide users through
the permitting process - start to
finish.
O Information Desk: In September, the Building Department introduced an
information desk in the foyer of the 4th floor. The desk is currently staffed
by a security guard who has been trained to direct visitors and answer the
most common questions.
O New Signage: In September, the Building Department added new signage
to the 4th floor to help visitors navigate the area more effectively.
O Guides and Checklists: The department is currently compiling checklists
for the most common permit types to be used for new website and printed
for onsite use. A Checklist for "Fence Permits" was recently included as
part of the City's Alpha Website.
O Re -write website content: Permit -related content is currently being
reviewed and re -written as part of a Citywide website enhancement
project. Current content exists within departmental web page silos,
forcing users to visit multiple pages to get a full picture of a process. New
content will be more process/service-centric, as opposed to department
centric. For example, a new page might be titled:
"How to Remodel Your Home", "Get a Fence Permit for Your Home." or
"Construction for your New Business."
13
Results and comments provided
by plan reviewers to customers is
at times inconsistent; Sometimes,
plans are rejected for lack of
documentation or notations that
were actually submitted.
Check In/Check Out Process
between trades during drop-off
plan reviews needs streamlining.
O Staff Forum / Re-training: A forum for staff is currently being organized
for January 17th to share the findings of this study and to engage plan
reviewers about the importance of standardization across reviews. A goal
will be to reach consensus about what a high quality, plain language
comment looks like.
O Common Mistake Inventory: Prepare a common mistake document (Due
January 17) to share with design professionals in an effort to improve
overall quality of submissions. Design professionals sometimes cut
corners, submit supplementary documentation, and/or make notations in
inconsistent/non-standard ways, making it difficult for plan reviewers to
conduct efficient, accurate reviews.
O Reinforce Initial Checks: Plans will undergo more rigorous initial
acceptance process to verify completeness, statutory requirements,
reducing unexpected "stops" and potential need for re -submittals.
O Improve in -process location tracking: The building department is
exploring how to assign "dedicated mailbox locations" that can be
recognized by iBuild for the duration of the plan review, making it easier
to track plans and identify lags in the process. iBuild already has
functionality to support improved bin tracking - this will be further
explored.
O 1-Set Processing / Streamline Sheet Revision Submittals: The building
department is exploring the use of 1-Set Processing. With this approach,
rejected plans will remain in their mailbox; revised sheets may be
submitted, but will not be inserted by the customer. Plans may be checked
out for submittal to outside agencies. When returned, they will need to
repeat the Initial Quality Check to prevent submitters from having added
potentially unapproved edits. This will reduce paper handling and
alleviate issues with tracking.
O Electronic Plan Review: Ultimately, a paperless electronic plan review
process would solve this. IT is working closely with departments to
develop requirements for this.
14
While "walk-throughs" help with
some smaller projects, other
"small" projects must be dropped
off and are subsequently
processed alongside major
projects.
Getting answers by phone is a
serious challenge.
On average, "Single Family / New
Construction" plans undergo
about 10 Reworks at the City.
Structural reviews of plans have
been taking particularly long.
Too many physical visits to the
City are required to pull certain
permits.
O Utilize Structural Consultants: Smaller projects are currently being sent
to outside structural consultants who are returning reviews within 5 days
(down from almost 30 days). This was implemented in August 2016
O Homeowner / Small Business Owner Tracks: Establish a task force to
deal with homeowners and small business owners. (INFORMATION)
Retrain 311 Staff: Staff was trained in July, 2016.
C. Improve 311 Knowledge -Base: Improve quality of the content provided
to 311 Call Takers. Consider enhanced usage of 311 KB by City Staff to
support and standardize customer service.
O Building Phone Bank: New Phone system and dedicated Building staff
assigned to handle calls. This includes "Tier 2" calls transferred by 311.
311 currently handles inspector scheduling and a number of "Tier 1" calls,
but often transfers more complex calls to City personnel. (RECLASSIFY / 2
PERSON PHONE BANK - PLANNING ZONING)
O Quality Design Professionals: Reinforce the importance of quality
architects and engineers.
O Utilize Structural Consultants: This was implemented in august 2016.
Structural Review times have been reduced from 25 to 5 days.
O Building Phone Bank: Users stated that they often had to come in person
because they were unable to reach someone by phone. The
aforementioned phone bank will alleviate these scenarios.
O Better awareness of iBuild functionality: iBuild has powerful
functionality that improves real-time transparency of the process, but
new users often don't know how to find it within the system. Better
guidance and education on the website will help get customers to the
information they need.
15
Status updates during the plan
review process are difficult to
obtain and understand -
Specifically for new users of the
process.
There is no mechanism to track
customer satisfaction on an
ongoing basis.
"Special" Planning and Zoning
processes (waivers, warrants) are
not tracked within the iBuild
system, making it particularly
difficult for customer and staff to
track progress during this phase.
There is constant commotion on
the fourth floor and it often feels
chaotic.
uild Enhancements : Certain fields that have been readily available to
staff regarding the status of plans were made public in Fall 2016
0
Symposium: A Symposium will be held Summer 2017 to inform design
professionals about the actions resulting from this report, features within
iBuild, and best practices to streamline plan reviews. The City will also use
this opportunity to gather additional feedback.
O iBuild Usability: iBuild has powerful features, but some are difficult for
users to find. Revisit iBuild application's user interface to make it easier
for users to find functionality.
C' Reviewer Comments: Work with plan reviewers and IT to standardize
reviewer commentary within iBuild. Explore the possibility of drop -
downs for most common issues.
O Implement Customer Feedback Strategy: The building department is
currently working to create a series of customer surveys to evaluate
service on the 4th floor and on the field. The data will be used to track
progress of changes and create more targeted solutions on an ongoing
basis.
O "iPlan" Tracking: IT is currently working with Planning and Zoning to
develop new tracking functionality within the iBuild system, creating
additional visibility and data for plans that require a "special process".
O Text Notifications: After each discipline is finished, the customer is
notified by text. The customer does not need to be present. He/she can
continue doing business elsewhere in the building or off -site. This will
reduce traffic and "chaos" on the floor. IT has conducted preliminary
research on SMS service providers.
16
Tree Permits create significant
delays to the start of construction.
The hours of operation for certain
sections are inconvenient for
some customers.
Some projects are held up
because contractors have hold on
a different project.
Targets and Timelines for Plan
Reviews are not clear.
There aren't enough resources to
keep up with demand.
Ability to combine and explore
zoning, permitting, GIS data in a
one -stop -shop environment is
limited. (Internal & External)
O Physical Layout of the Floor: The departments have been exploring
potential scenarios to re -arrange floor layout. However, this is costly and
dependent on a number of other factors.
O Create a Concurrent (not Dependent) process for Tree Permits: Tree
permits/mitigation are often required for finalization of a building project,
but tree permits should not hold building permits if they do not occur
within the footprint of construction.
Open Permit Counter Operations during lunch.
f` Provide public access to contractor "open permits" database and
provide alerts when "holds" go into effect.
Work with Strategic Planning Team to solidify targets/goals: the
department has been working closely with the City Manager's Strategic
Planning Team to establish measures and targets that the department can
use for ongoing process improvement and share with stakeholders.
O Resource Allocation: The City will consider short, medium, and long
term options including engagement of consultants and hiring additional
staff.
Explore options to create consolidated views of permitting and
zoning related data. This effort should include actions to make
databases more usable by both internal stuff and the public.
Permitting Forms are repetitive Conduct a full review of permitting forms and find ways to
and confusing.
consolidate, standardize, and digitize.
17
Some customers perceive that
their problem is with 'Building,"
but issues with the process often
touch other departments
(Planning, Zoning, Public Works).
Ongoing Process Improvement and Education: Implementation of
process improvement and ongoing education will help alleviate concerns
by the public.
Note to Reader: This is a living document and is subject to revision as more data is received and evaluated. The Administration will
continue to share updates as progress is made and additional findings are discovered.
18