Item K4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 16,2002
Bulk Item: Yes No )(
Division: Growth Management
Department: N/ A
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Presentation and acceptance by the BOCC of the report revIewmg the Growth Management
Division's permitting process by the firm of Maximus.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 2001, the BOCC approved a contract with the firm of Maximus to review and
evaluate the Growth Management Division's permitting system. Due to some problems with the loss
of a key project staff member and evaluating permit data, the report was several months late.
However, the consultant has completed the report to the satisfaction of the County Growth
Management Division, a copy of which is enclosed. The project manager for Maximus will brief the
BOCC on the report's findings and recommendations at the Commission's October 16, 2002,
meeting.
The Growth Management Division's response to the major recommendations contained in the report
is also enclosed. It should be noted that due to the delays in completing the report, the staff is
already moving forward on implelTIentation of many of the consultant's recommendations.
- PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: Approved Maximus contract on December 20,
2001.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of report.
TOTAL COST: N/ A
BUDGETED: Yes
No
N/A
COST TO COUNTY: N/ A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes N/ A No
AMOUNT PER MONTH N/ A YEAR
APPROVED BY: County Attorney N/ A
/ Risk Management N/ A
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION: Included
x
To follow
Not Required
AGENDA ITEM #:
/fr
DISPOSITION:
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
REVIEW OF PERMITTING
PROCESSES
MUS'
HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE-
Management Services Division
September 10, 2002
~.~.....
MAXIMUS
HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE~
September 10, 2002
Mr. Tim McGarry, Director
Growth Management Division
Monroe County, Florida
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon, Florida 33050
Dear Mr. McGarry:
MAXIMUS is pleased to submit to you this final report on our review of the Permitting
Processes of the Monroe County Growth Management Division.
This report includes a number of recommendations which we believe will enable the
County to improve its permitting processes. These recommendations include
streamlining the review process, enhancing the work environment, expanding
infoimation technology, and increasing customer service. In providing this report, we are
cognizant of the unique environment in which you operate and the unusual number and
types of regulatory restrictions which confront the Division and residents of the County.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for your involvement in,
and support of, this project. Everyone with whom we have had contact in this project has
approached the study in a professional manner, with a commitment to improving
customer service. While the report focuses on suggested changes, we do not want to lose
sight of the Division's desire to serve the public as best as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve Monroe County on this project. As always, we
stand ready to assist you in implementation of these recommendations. Should you have
any questions relating to implementation issues as they arise or wish to discuss
alternatives that you will confront as you undertake implementation, please do not
hesitate to call for comments and suggestions.
Kermeth R. My, Dir~or
MAXIMUS, me.
1100 LOGGER COURT, SUITE D-100 I RALEIGH. ~c 27609 : 91':U>76.ti042 i 919.878.8592 fAX I WWW.MAXIMUS.COM
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
REVIEW OF PERMITTING PROCESSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I Introduction 1
n Customer Service 4
1 Public Comments 4
2 MAXIMUS Interviews and Field Observations 5
3 Recommendations 8
ill Information Technology 12
1 Permit Management System 12
2 Geographic Information System 15
3 Recommendations 16
IV Review of the Permitting Process 21
1 Timeliness of Application Review 21
2 Review Process Steps 27
3 Analysis of Work Volume 29
4 Impact ofROGO 32
5 Role of Fire Inspections Review 34
6 Recommendations 35
V Conclusions 40
.-
._;'~-
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
REVIEW OF PERMITTING PROCESSES
I. INTRODUCTION
The Growth Management Division of Monroe County retained MAXlMUS to
conduct an operations review of the Division's permit management process. The purpose
of this report is to present the analysis which we undertook for that study, the project
team's observations and findings, and submit recommendations for improvement of the
process.
The scope of the engagement included the following:
. What steps can be taken to provide services as efficiently as possible given
Monroe County's unique situation involving geographic separation and
regulatory needs?
. Are staffing allocations in the Growth Management Division adequate to
handle existing and anticipated workloads? Do imbalances between
staffing and workload negatively impact services to applicants in terms of
timely decision making on land use and permit applications?
. What factors have contributed to high levels of staff turnover? How can
this be controlled and reduced? What are staff training and development
needs?
. Do internal methods and procedures negatively impact the efficiency and
effectiveness of staff in responding to the public, applicants, and the
Boards to which the Division provides staff support? This includes such
diverse systems and procedures as:
Whether or not clear performance objectives have been established
related to processing and reaching closure on various types of
permits? Are these objectives communicated to the public? Are
they employed to monitor internal performance?
MAXIMUS
Rf:UfNGOOVDIMDIf'_ru ..-.r
-
MM,. Coaly Gl'Od M-lIgement DIvDioIr
p~ Process Review
Sqtmlber 10,2001
P"g~ 1
Do existing automated or manual systems support monitoring the
status of various permit types through the review and decision
making process?
Does the Division's records management/filing system support
rapid and comprehensive retrieval of the development history for a
particular property?
Is the permit review and comment process involving other County
departments and state/federal agencies (Le., Public Works, Fire,
etc.) coordinated and managed in a fashion which expedites or
delays permit decision making?
· Are services responsive to public needs including such diverse
components as:
Adequacy of application instructions provided to the public to
facilitate submittal of complete applications.
Use of pre-submittal conferences to ensure applicants understand
requirements, and complex issues are identified early in the
application submittal and review process.
Processing time targets, and actual performance, as noted above.
In undertaking this study, the MAXlMUS project team conducted the following
activities:
· Interviewed all personnel within the Growth Management Division who
are involved in the permitting process.
· Interviewed other Departmental persormel who have indirect involvement
in the permitting process.
· Interviewed the County's Information Technology manager to gain further
understanding of technology support.
· Interviewed members of the Planning Commission who requested
interviews and members of the public who interact with the Division.
· Conducted focus group sessions with builders and developers and
representative citizens.
· Collected and reviewed data relating to actual work volume and
performance.
· Observed departmental persormel performing their routine work.
MAXIMUS
HELI'DiGGOVUNIIDfTSDYETIIE ~
MOIII'Oe ~ GI'tJWtlI MtIIUI6emert DIvIslmr
PermIttbIg Process RnWw
Septembu 10,2002
PlIg~ 3
This report discusses the key issues relating to the permitting function and
provides recommendations as appropriate. It is organized in the following fashion:
. Chapter One: Introduction and Summary, in which we provide this
general overview of the project.
. Chapter Two: Customer Service, in which we present our observations
and findings relative to the Division's customer service orientation.
. Chapter Three: Information Technology, in which we review the
technology systems used by the Division.
. Chapter Four: Permitting Processes, in which we review the permitting
process of the Division, including the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
processmg.
. Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implementation, in which we summarize
the recommendations provided in this report and suggest an
implementation plan based on relative priority.
MAXIMUS
HEJ,;,INGGOVaNI1IENT~'f7IE ,."U-
MIHfI'tJe ~ GTOWIII MaqemeM DivisiD"
PerrrUttJq Procas Review
Septembo 10.2002
PlIg~ -I
II. CUSTOMER SERVICE
The MAXIMUS project team reviewed customer service from several different
points of view. We interviewed persons who interact with the Division on a regular
basis; we interviewed persons who oversee the work of the Division, both internally and
externally; and we observed the Division's interaction with customers on site.
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS
During the course of the engagement, the MAXIMUS project team interacted
with persons external to the operations of the Division. This included two members of
the Planning Co~ssioD: several representatives of the building and development
industry, and general public. This interaction occurred in both personal interviews as
well as focus group session.
Principal comments coming from the external review include the following:
· There was concern over lengthy turnaround times for receiving comments
on plans. Applicants received no communication during that time which
would indicate what the problems were. Then, they must start the process
over again after making changes. Respondents acknowledged that the
general process in Florida is increasingly complex, but they felt that the
County's performance was less adequate than other counties.
· There is no commitment on the part of review staff as to how long it will
take to make comments, just, "We'll get back to you."
· There appeared to be no ownership of applications, such as an individual
who had responsibility for making certain that the application was
reviewed in a timely fashion and serving as a single point of interface with
a given applicant.
· Respondents were concerned that compensation levels probably has
contributed to the high turnover. Some respondents speculated that the
formation of permitting functions in municipalities within Monroe County
MAXIMUS
HEJ..#ING GOVUNJlENT SEJlVE TH~ 'DNU-
~
MtIIII"H C"",. Gtmf1III MtlIIlIgt!lMlft DMsltnt
PennJltbrg Process Review
Sqtmtbn 10.2002
PlIg~ 5
may be creating greater competition for qualified staff and that those
jurisdictions are paying better than the County.
. The respondents indicated a general belief that the permitting function
lacked consistent direction from management Indicative of this were
perceptions that policies and interpretations were not uniformly provided
to all process participants, relying more on word-of-mouth.
. The Division does not routinely provided builders, developers, and other
interested parties with copies of rule changes and/or interpretations. The
materials available for public dissemination were essentially reprints of
ordinances and were not very clear or regularly updated.
. The linear nature of the County makes access to the Division's offices
time consuming. The respondents strongly encouraged use of electronic
media to provide greater access to Departmental information and
applications.
. The respondents indicated a common perception that the staff took more
of a regulatory approach to permit review, that is, that staff seemed to be
more inclined to find reasons why an application was not acceptable than
to find a way to make it acceptable.
. Record-keeping is perceived as a problem of the Division. Respondents
felt that there was constant problems in locating information in a timely
fashion
. The respondents believed that the Division should be more aggressive in
dealing with the State of Florida, serving more as an advocate of
applicants than is currently the case.
. Participants expressed concern about the County's ROGO policies. Since
those are outside the scope of the study, the MAXIMUS project team
passed those to Division management for future consideration.
2. MAXIMUS INTERVIEWS AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS
While interpretations about what might be causing the performance issues, the
observations of the external interviews and focus groups are consistent with those of the
MAXIMUS project team. Our observations and findings from our internal review
include the following:
. There does not appear to be ownership of applications. Our interviews
and field review indicated that staff simply take work in the order in which
it is received. Little attempt to identify more complex applications that
MAXI MUS
H~ING GO~"Dff SEIlVE7lU rEDrIL-
MtnII'Oe Cotuuy G""",. MfllllIgemett DividDII
p~ Proca.t Rniew
September 10.2002
Page 6
will require greater work and introduce client meetings to resolve potential
issues in front The Division's policy is to complete reviews before any
contact is made with applicants. This is in response to a perceived
dichotomy that some applicants want on-going feedback and others want
to get response all at once, so the Division has chosen the latter approach.
· Customer service staff appear to be overloaded on calls and paperwork.
During the MAXIMUS project team's work on-site, the customer
receiving areas where frequently packed with customers, and counter
personnel were attempting to work with those individuals, answer frequent
phone calls, and locate information for other staff. Indicative of this is
that in Marathon, the individual responsible for managing the counter
operations was almost constantly on the phone at the counter rather than
actually managing the work.
· The office environment, particularly in Marathon, is not conducive to
positive working relationships. There is little meeting space to meet with
applicants to review materials, so plans were often spread over the service
counter, disrupting other customers. The work areas are cluttered and give
the appearance, whether warranted or not, of significant disorganization.
· There is an critical dichotomy in perceived work capability. Specifically,
there is a perception that the plan review and inspection staff carmot rely
on counter staff to assist in any other fashion than to take calls and receive
documents. This consistently appeared in written materials, interviews,
and our observations. It is the impression of the MAXIMUS team that this
dichotomy is based on personal attitudes rather than actual performance or
capability .
· Our review of permit review processes indicate that the process is
unusually long. This relates both to the manner in which applications are
reviewed and the time imperatives that the ROGO process creates. We
will discuss these points in detail in the Chapter on the Permit Process.
· Employee turnover contributes to problems with customer service.
Customers expect the personnel to be conversant with the County's rules,
regulations, and procedures; given the previous turnover of the Division
and the complexity of the regulations, it is difficult to maintain the level of
knowledge that lends itself to quality customer service.
· Employee interviews indicate their belief that employee turnover is based
on several factors:
There is a general feeling that compensation for employees is too
low. The County has recently completed a pay study, which the
Division has implemented. It is too early to tell whether this has
had had any actual impact on reducing employee turnover;
however, it is clear that the pay plan has had little impact on
altering employee perceptions regarding pay equity.
MAXIMUS
HEUlNG~ENTSDlVE7JIE ~
--- ---- -.
- - - - --
..- -~~_.
~
MtIfU'Oe ~ GrowIIt MlllUlgellWllt DMsioft
hnrtIttbtg hocas RevIew
Sqtelftbn 10,2001
Page 7
Employees believe themselves to be in a high stress environment.
The work environment itself is conducive to work stress. Project
staff observed high noise levels with phones and employees
shouting to each other rather than walking through a maze of filing
ca.bin~ subtle messages of employee perceptions about roles, and
a general environment of clutter.
An additional issue that relates both to perceptions of customer service and
employee stress is the policy environment in which the Division operates. On the one
hand, the permitting function is, by its very nature, a regulatory and enforcement
obligation. As such, the Division is obligated to enforce the rules and regulations that
govern building and development. These rules include both the ordinances of Monroe
County and the laws and regulations of the federal and state governments. The other side
of the spectrum is customer service, being responsive to applicants and citizens. Where
the iules and regulations allow, the Division is expected to seek ways to help applicants
and citizens understand those rules and make the rules work to everyone's benefit. The
difficulty arises when there are different expectations about what should occur:
. There was general agreement in all interviews that the County is often
inconsistent in its ordinances and policy direction in how to enforce those
rules. While the County has strong enforcement language in its
ordinances, the public debate over how, or whether, to enforcement those
policies constantly pulls Division persormel in different directions.
. The external interviews and focus group sessions result in an expectation
that the Division is supposed to serve as an advocate for applicants before
state and federal regulatory bodies. This is a completely inappropriate role
for the Division to perform in that it blurs the regulatory responsibility of
the Division. While it is reasonable and appropriate for the Division to
assist applicants by providing regulatory and contact information to
applicants, it is the responsibility of applicants to represent their own
interests before state and federal regulatory bodies.
MAXIMUS
HELI"ING GOYEANIIIENT ssw: nu N'IOI'Lr
MOIII"De ~ G""",. MlI1ItlgelPlelll.DivlsUm
l'emUIIbrg Procas Jlniew
September 10,2002
PIIg~ 8
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the observations and findings presented above, the MAXIMUS project
team provides several recommendations for the improvement of customer service. With
the exception of the first recommendation, these recommendations can be implemented
with little or no cost to the Division.
Recommendation 1: The Division should develop a web-enabled capacity to provide
timely information and materials to the public and to provide for web-based
applications.
A critical work issue is the amount of time spent on telephone calls and at the
counter working with walk-in customers. This creates work queuing that can contribute
to perceptions about a lack of customer service and is conducive to errors. Often,
improved customer service can be created by reducing the amount of customer
interaction. A web-enabled strategy affords customers the opportunity to obtain
information and services in a consistent manner without taking excessive time. It reduces
the work load, and stress, on counter persormel. Since a web strategy is an optional use
by the customer, it does not have the de-personalized feel that automated voice
messaging systems have.
In the next chapter, on information technology, we will discuss the web strategy
issue in greater detail.
Recommendation 2: The Division needs to reduce the office clutter aggressively.
This relates particularly to the Marathon office environment.
The Division has already begun this effort through a program to digitize records.
This effort should be pursued somewhat differently, however. Currently, the Division is
digitizing its older records first. While this will reduce clutter by removing urmeeded
documents from the work area, it does little to improve work flow. Instead, the Division
MAXIM US
HE:LI"ING GOVE..a:NIIENT sart"E mE I'II1t/1nr
~
MtIIII'H CotutIy GrtnI1III M."lIgematt DMsImt
pt!lflllllbrg Procas Rniew
September 10,2001
PIIK~ 9
should digitize current information first This will have the same effect of removing
large volmnes of written material, and it would have the beneficial effect of bringing
more current information on-line. Having this information electronically available will
enable the staff to be more efficient in the use of their time and will further reduce work
clutter.
The timing of the digitization is important for the overall achievement of this
recommendation because the volume of materials is the greatest contributor to the
problem. Once the older material has been removed from the office area, there are
several means by which the Division can improve office space utilization. These include
consideration of a centralized filing area rather than having files spread throughout the
office area and a space study focusing on using clustered work cubicles.
Recommendation 3: In Marathon, the front counter area should be reconfigured
for more accommodating use.
During our field visits, the MAXlMUS project staff observed considerable
disorganization around the customer service counter, often with five to seven Division
personnel attempting to serve different customers. The Division can take several actions
to filinimi7.e this situation. Most importantly, the only Division personnel at the front
counter should be intake persormel, trained to answer questions of walk-in personnel,
take in applications, or notify other persormel that there is a customer that would like to
see the respective persormel. This should be accomplishable with no more than two
clerical staff at any given time. Second, telephone call taking should be assigned to a
trained support staff person who is stationed away from the work counter. Third, the
Office Manager should be working in the manager's office rather than at the front
MAXIMUS
HEllING GtJIVDMIIENr.saw-.... ~
MollTOe ~ Growt/I MtIIUIgellDlt Division
p~ Process Review
September 10,2002
Pag~ /0
counter, except as relief to one of the other counter personnel. Fourth, planning and
development staff should not be conducting client meetings at the counter. Two
alternatives should be considered. One is to set aside a customer working area where the
Division staff can meet with customers; the other is to discontinue the practice of having
planning staff at the counter to serve walk-in customers. While the concept is admirable
and the idea of having professional staff immediately available should be continued, the
Division could operate more efficiently if the planning staff were simply available to
meet with customers in the respective staff offices. This is particularly true for ROGO
staff: who should be relocated away from the front counter.
Once office space is freed by the removal of old records, the~ Division should
consider a realignment of the front counter to provide space in the customer lobby for
computer kiosks for direct customer access to the Division's electronic systems. This is
discussed further in the next chapter.
Recommendation 4: The counter staff should receive training sufficient to allow
them to be designated as permit technicians, with expanded capacity to review
applications for completeness and to issue immediate permits for applications that
do not require formal reviews.
The MAXlMUS project team observed the performance of the counter staff and
are of the opinion that these persormel could be a more effective part of the Division's
overall performance.
Generally, these individuals appear to have good basic
understanding of the permit requirements and processes but they are 'not empowered to
make any representations. If they were able to do so with confidence, that would
improve customer perceptions, provide information more promptly, and improve permit
issuance times. The Division should take advantage of training opportunities and provide
MAXIM US
H~INC COYDIII6D/TSDtrE7IIE ~
.,p
M"",. CtMaII)r G1t1WIII MIIII8gDlfaft Div&itm
PmrIJIIbtg Procas RnIew
SeptDItbB 10,2002
P8g~ 11
training sufficient to allow these individuals to be certified as permit technicians and
authorized to review and sign off on basic non-residential permits. This would sped
approval of routine permits, and it would help with employee retention in that the
certifications would justify improved compensation and provide more job satisfaction.
Recommendation S: The Division should involve its clients, including builders,
developers, and interested citizens, in its policy development processes whenever
possible.
The Growth Management Division is in the process of updating its building code
requirements. This relates to the implementation of new code standards by the State of
Florida. The new Florida code does not address various administrative processes,
requiring the Division to develop its own standards. While the draft of the process
standards is principally. a .restatement of current codes, this is the opportunity for the
Division to develop new 8dministrative practices and standards. The recommendations
of this report will assist in that. The experience of other jurisdictions has been that
regular dialogue between the Division and customers will improve the overall working
relationship and perceptions of customer service. Providing input on revised
administrative procedures is one means. Use of an advisory committee for regular
evaluation of performance and the discussion of repetitive work issues-whether they
relate to the work of the Division staff or to problems that seem recurring among builders
and developers-provides a means of identifying and resolving customer servIce
problems before they become unmanageable.
MAXIMUS
"ELlING GO'lUJV1IDiT SDlVE fIfE rwr~
MtHIrOe ~ GrowtII MII1I-gt!lllelt DIrisIoII
PenIIlttbJg hoass Review
september 10,2002
PlIgt12
III. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
In this chapter, we review the information technology used by the Growth
Management Division in the administration of the permitting process. There are two
elements to this issue. The first is the Division's current application tracking and
management network, and the other is the use of geographic information systems.
1. PERMIT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Growth Management Division's permit management system is a network
application developed by Pentamation, Inc. This system was installed approximately
three years ago, ~placing a mini-computer based application provided by H.T.E.
Because of internal dissatisfaction with the Pentamation system, the Division asked the
MAXIMUS project team to evaluate the feasibility of changing systems.
The Pentamation Encompass application operates on a Dell Power Edge Pentium
II network server that is physically located in Monroe County's Information Technology
Division offices in Key West, and the three Growth Management Division offices are
connected through shared T - I lines. At each Growth Management Office, the users have
desktop personal computers with shared printer capacity. The system uses a UNIX SCO
operating system that is dedicated to the Encompass application; this is the only UNIX
system operated by Monroe County.
Interviews with system users indicated considerable dissatisfaction with the
Pentamation Encompass system. Key points of concern include:
· At the time of the implementation of Pentamation Encompass, the Growth
Management Division lost reporting capacity that it had in the past,
MAXIMUS
RDlING GO'VUIUtIDfTSBI'ft' I7IE ~
MtIIUtJe ~ Growdl MllllqetrraI Di11GioIr
p~ Procas RevieW
Septelffbn 10,2002
Ptlg~ 13
diminishing the Division's ability to monitor work performance and
provide statUS information to applicants and citizens.
. The initial user training provided by the Pentamation project team was
inadequate.
. The annual maintenance agreements provide for high maintenance fees.
. On a prior attempt to back-up data in order to upgrade to a newer version
of the Pentamation application, data were lost, requiring a substantial
effort to correct the problem. Most, but not all, of the data were ultimately
recaptured.
. Processing times on the Pentamation system are long.
. The system limits the type of reports that can be generated to those that are
programmed into the system; there is little or no ability to export data for
other analytical purposes.
. Division personnel are reluctant to use the system because they are not
confident that the data are correct.
The MAXlMUS project team reviewed the Pentamation Encompass application
in light of the Division's concerns about the system as well as our own experience with
Pentamation Encompass used by other clients. Our observations and findings relative to
the Department's concerns are as follows:
. When an organization changes its software applications, it can be expected
that the new application will have different functions and features than the
preceding system. Different reporting capacities should have been
planned for at the time of the change and desired reports should have been
developed at that time. Any system change now would have the same
effect if the County did not preplan its reporting needs. Obviously for a
fee, the Pentamation staff would be able to develop any specific reports
that the Division needed but did not currently have.
. The issue of user training is another implementation issue. While
adequate user training is important, the absence of training is not sufficient
justification to change systems. Rather, the Division should develop a
user training plan based on current needs and secure the appropriate
training. This would be an issue either with continuation of the
Pentamation system or with any new system.
. The project team reviewed the County's maintenance fees and have
determined that they are in line with industry standards. A potential issue
MAXIMUS
ROJ1INGc;ovuJtIIIDiT.suwrnm~
MOID'tIe ~ GrowtII MlllUl8t!IIU!IU Divisio"
p~ Procas JlevIn1
SeplellfMr 10,2002
Ptlg~ U
with both the fees and the user support, however, is that the County has
not upgraded its applications since the original installation. As a result, it
can expect to pay higher support fees as the vendor moves away from the
current system. We will discuss this further in this chapter.
· Interviews indicate that the problem with the upgrade related more to the
work activity of specific individuals at Pentamation than with a system
flaw. If this were a recurring problem, then certainly the Division would
be justified in considering a replacement system.
· Processing times relate to several factors. First, the Pentamation
application itself is several versions out of date at this time~ as such it uses
slower, less robust, algorithms for data processing. Newer applications
have enhanced processing capability designed to take advantage of
improvements in hardware technology. Second, the system server itself is
also several generations old and has less than one-third of the processing
capability of newer systems. Finally, because oflimited use of the system
by many of the employees of the Division, these employees have less of
an understanding of how to maximize system performance than might
otherwise be expected.
· Thisjs a crit~cal problem with the version of Pentamation Encompass that
is being used. The reports do require hard coding and are in a less than
user friendly format. This is a serious deficiency of the current version.
However, the most recent releases of Encompass now use the Microsoft
data exchange capabilities that easily allow a user to designate
applications such as Word, Excel, and Access as the basis for report
preparation and generation. There is also greater capacity for user
generated reports than previously existed.
· There are two dynamics to the reluctance of Division persormel to using
the Pentamation system. The first is the presence of the historic issues that
form. the judgment's of the employees. The initial problems incurred in
implementing the system. and the attempted upgrade, are such that the
employees have made the judgment that the application is inadequate.
· The second, and much more important, dynamic is the accurate use of the
system itself. In the course of reviewing data for the process review
discussion in the fourth chapter of this report, MAXlMUS project staff
downloaded many of the records stored in the Encompass System.
Specifically, we downloaded all single family residential permit
applications and sampled approximately a quarter of all other applications.
In reviewing the data. we determined that there were significant errors in
the entry of the data, particularly as it relates to processing times. There
were two problems. First, in many instances, staff did not input the data
relating to when reviews began and ended. Second, staff frequently
entered the data incorrectly, often switching the entry and exit dates of the
reviews. This indicated that staff appeared to be entering application
MAXIMUS
HELI'tNG GOt'D7IItIDrT.SDt'Z' mE ~
.~
M~ CDiutIy GrowdI MIIIIIIgIfIIIGt Dh1UiIRr
PennJttbrg Process Rmew
Septmlber 10.2002
Page 15
status information ex post facto, an observation that is supported by
anecdotal information from interviews. By manually reviewing all of the
records collected for the process analysis, we determined that 81 % of the
single family residential permit applications had data entry errors and 59<<'!cl
of the other permits had errors. If the data in the system are inaccurate, it
is a logical conclusion that any activity or status reporting based on those
data is also going to be inaccurate. It should be noted that the Division is
already undertaking steps necessary to correct this problem.
2. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
The second component part of the Division's information technology is its
Geographic Information System. This system is designed to capture data pertaining to
public infrastructure at any given location within the County.
The Geographic Information System (GIS) has been an on-going project in
Monroe County since 1988: It originally included the Property Appraiser, City Electric
and the Aqueduct Authority. These entities split from the system in the early 1990's.
In the late 1980's, a private company was retained to digitize the County's data, at
1 :200 scale. Interviews indicate that the project was not performed well; and, as a result
the overlays do not match up with the digital photos. Habitat and parcel layers were
skewed. For the past two years, this has been a work focus for the Division's sole GIS
stafIperson, and the problem has only been corrected early this year.
Currently, the GIS function in Growth Management primarily interacts with the
Property Appraiser. Little permitting information is in the GIS from the Growth
Management Division's operations. Present data files active on the GIS system include
the Property Appraisers Records, Highways and Rights-of-Way, Subdivision
information, and a variety of environmental data sets. GIS is currently developing a
zoning data layer.
MAXIMUS
HElIDIG c;ovUNltlEN'T savE' THE noru-
Mtmioe c....q GTtIWtlI MtllUlgetrlQt DIvisio"
hrmiItbtg Prot:as R~
SqJte1IIbn 10.2002
Page 16
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to have an effective permitting process, the Growth Management
Division needs to make a significant investment in its information technology
infrastructure.
The MAXIMUS project team makes several the following
recommendations relating to information technology. During the course of this project,
the MAXIMUS staff and the Division management have discussed these issues
thoroughly, and the Division has already begun the process of implementing each of the
following recommendations:
6: The Division should upgrade its current permit management system to the
latest version of Pentamation Encompass. The estimated cost of this
recommendation can be expected to range between $35,000 and $75,000. This
includes acquisition of the most current system, hardware upgrades, development of
integration applications, and user training.
System conversions are expensive, time consuming, and highly disruptive to an
organi7j:1tion. Justification for a conversion needs to be found in absolute deficiencies in
the capacity of the current system and the potentials for significant cost savings or
operational improvements. In the case of the Growth Management Division, those
compelling arguments do not exist.
While the current system is deficient, there are two causal factors, both within the
capacity of the Division to control. The first is the failure to implement the application
upgrades that have been made available. As a result, the Division is using older, less
capable technology than is available from the current vendor. Because the vendor has
moved on in the development of its product, it is less likely to continue support for the
older systems, resulting in continued operational problems and less reliable user
assistance. Second, our review of the data showed that a large portion of the reporting
MAXIMUS
HELI'fNG 0CWUNIIDfT$DR' 7HK I"UJI!f.r
.4:E:;"
M_roe COIIIIIJ' GrowIlt MlllUl6eme11t DWIsUm
PenrIiItl1I, Process RevieW
Septernbn 10,2002
Pa,~ 17
and accuracy issues relate to the inaccurate use of, and data entry into, the system by
Division personnel.
The state of the art in permit management systems is still behind many other
governmental applications, but it has progressed significantly just in the past three years.
Current industry best practices describe an effective permit management system that has
the following capacities:
. Efficient and effective data entry and tracking of information
. Either a graphical user interface (Gill) or, preferably, a web browser
based interface.
. User defined reporting capacity, with data export to common Office Suite
applications.
. Web-enabled capabilities for customer interface.
. Direct interface with GIS data, most commonly with the ESRI (Arc Info
applications) suite.
The most current version of the Pentamation Encompass system provides these
capacities, either directly or through the ability to develop integrated applications that can
be bolted on to the core application. The MAXIMUS project team believes that
upgrading to the latest version of Pentamation Encompass will provide the Division with
the information technology that it needs in the most cost effective and least disruptive
manner possible. Concurrent with the upgrade. the Division should also replace the
current server with a newer model.
Recommendation 7: The Division should develop, and implement, plans to provide
a full range of internet services within the next twenty-four months. The estimated
cost of this recommendation will depend upon the County's overall electronic
government strategy. U the Division were to implement an electronic government
program independently, the estimated cost would be approximately 550,000 to
580,000, assuming use of the Pentamation services.
MAXIMUS
HEUlNGOOV__J7f6raw<r
MOIII'tH! COIIIIty GrowtII MIIII1I6emat DIvisIoII
Pemdtllllg Process Review
Septembn 10.2001
PlIg~ 18
This recommendation connects Recommendation Seven, relating to upgraded
applications with Recommendation One, relating to improved customer service. It is the
understanding of the MAXIMUS project team that the County as an entity is evaluating
opportunities for providing web-based customer service; it would be appropriate for the
Growth Management Division to take a lead in this effort.
Increasingly, the state of the art in permit management is for a full range of web-
enabled services. This begins with having all rules, regulations, and applications
available on line, then enabling review status look-up on line, accessing of GIS
information, ordering inspections, and paying permit fees. Newer technology using
electronic signature systems would enable customers to submit applications via the
internet.
Pentamation has a vendor agreement with a third-party provider to develop an
electronic governance system, and it is rolling this capacity out to newer users. While the
capacity of this browser interface is still somewhat limited (such as not having the
capacity to process electronic signatures at this time), the key point is that Pentamation
can assist in the web-strategy.
As part of its public access strategy, once the new version of the Pentamation
software is in place and fully tested, the Division should begin making the data directly
available to customers via service kiosks placed in the Division's customer service areas.
These kiosks would enable customers to enter their own application information into the
system and to query project status. Both of these would reduce the work demand on
permitting staff and provide a greater sense of customer service.
MAXIMUS
IIDJ'fM':i GOVUItIlENT UftIE'TIIE ~
~-
MtIIIIOe CtHmIF GrtNIII MlI1Itlgmtelll DivisiMI
pemrJl/llrg PttH:Gs Ret1Iew
SeptmUJn 10,2002
Page 19
Recommendation 8: The Division should expand its GIS capacity. The estimated
cost for this recommendation is approximately $45-60,000 for an additional GIS
technician, based on minimum private sector values.
An effective link between a permit management system and GIS provides
potential for more effective review processes and greater customer service. This linkage
enables reviewers to see more quickly all potential infrastructure and environmental
issues relating to a given piece of property and evaluating any zoning or construction
code issues. Access to this information can greatly speed review processes, both by
being a review tool for the Division staff as well as enabling potential applicants to see
for themselves existing conditions and potential requirements. The newest version of
Pentamation Encompass has a fully integrated GIS linkage capacity that would enable
this level of information ,collection.
Considerations relevant to this recommendation include:
. GIS and the Property Appraiser currently dump information into a buffer
zone that allows each entity to update/populate the other's databases with
updated data periodically. The Permitting section should also integrate its
data into the cross buffer.
. Even without new data, the Division should begin creating essential data
layers in which showed those areas with municipal services, permit
requirements, cesspit credits, environmentally sensitive lands (including
those on the list for County purchase) and other valuable data.
. A goal of the Division should be to enable customers to have electronic
access to both the GIS and permit data. Even before implementing a web
based solution, the Division could begin by providing an appropriately
security controlled information kiosk for customer use.
. GIS is increasingly becoming a government wide asset. The Division
should take a lead in working with all impacted Divisions of the County to
develop a fully integrated, county-wide GIS system.
The level of activity described for the GIS applications will exceed the capacity of
the current staffing of the GIS Administrator and the Mapping Coordinator in the
MAXIMUS
HELlI/IiG covDNIIDfTsaYEntE n:orLr
MtRlroe CoIurIy Growtll MlIIIlIgerreJII DIvisItm
PD'lNiltbtg Procas Review
Sepmrtber 10.2002
PlIg~ 20
Planning Department The Division should consider adding an additional person to the
GIS function. This person should have specific skills in state-of-the-art geographic
information systems applications, particularly in the area of the use of data layering for
multiple purpose database administration. The Division is currently in the process of
cross-training staff in GIS management, and this effort should continue.
Recommendation 9: Tbe Division should establish a goal of being fully electronic
within three years.
There are three elements to this recommendation. The first is the upgrade of the
Division's permit management system. The second is expansion of the GIS capacity,
with coordination of all County functions. The third is current document management.
While the Pentamation Encompass system does have the capacity to manage electronic
documents directly, the new version allows linked object code structures that would
enable the Division to develop integration to electronic document management.
However, to do this, the Division needs to make certain that its current imaging project is
providing indexing that the Pentamation system will be able to use. If this is done, then a
three-year goal for full electronic capacity is achievable.
MAXIMUS
"EllING COVUNIIENTSDlUTfIE. ~
.~
M~ ~ Grt1WIII MIDUIgt!IIIi!IfI DWlsImr
PenNltbrg Procas Review
September 10,2002
PlIg~ 21
IV. REVIEW OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS
In this chapter, we review the Division's actual permitting process. This appears
to be the dominant issue for the Growth Management Division, and a source of most of
the internal and external concerns relating to performance and customer service. While
interview respondents suggested a variety of explanations for perceived shortcomings in
the timeliness of reviews, there was unanimous agreement that the review process was
too time consuming. This report has already discussed two contributing factors: the
customer service and application intake environment that requires considerable personal
interaction and the lack of sufficient technological support. In this chapter, we examine
specific work processes that also impact the timeliness of application review. These
include the review times themselves, steps in the review process, queuing for ROGO, and
inspection work load.
1. TIMELINESS OF APPLICATION REVIEW
Generally accepted industry standards in a normal plan review environment call
for the following levels of review performance:
. Residential construction plans - 30 calendar days (The revised Florida
Building Code requires this standard for single family residences,
exclusive of any zoning review.)
. Trades review (building, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing) - 1 to 3
days
. Simple applications (fences, patios, etc.) - 1 day or less.
It should be noted that the unique developmental situation in Monroe County will
have an impact on the timeliness of review, including:
MAXIMUS
HELlIMi COVDNJIDIr $DlVE 11IE"""""'"
M~ CoImI;y GI'tIWIlI MlllUlgt!lllQt Division
PemrJtting Process Review
SqtetrlMr /0.2002
Ptlg~ 22
· The most significant of these is the requirement for a biological review,
something that is not common for most local governments. Assuming that
Monroe County processes the same number of residential applications as
most jurisdictions, relative to staffing, it would be expected that this
biological review would add some time to the overall review process.
This is particularly the case for residential construction plans as well as
some trades and simple applications.
· County ordinance assigns responsibility for compliance review of zoning
bulk and set back regulations (other than environmental setbacks) to the
plan review staff; this is more typically performed by plarming staff in
other jurisdictions.
· A third unique situation is that the vast majority of construction is done
within a floodplain, also requiring additional review that is not common in
other governments.
· Residential construction in most jurisdictions is based on tract
development using common building plans with variation in elevations.
This typically enables speedier plan review since the approval of one plan
can be used for multiple projects. However, in Monroe County, most
residenti~ c.onstruction is custom construction on an in-fill basis with a
high number of owner-builders (35%).
As part of the engagement, the MAXIMUS project team collected data from the
Division's permit management system to evaluate the Division's performance relative to
these standards. The data we collected included all new single family residential
construction permits that were in the Encompass system. and an original sample of four
hundred permits of various types of a non-residential nature. The samples were drawn
by randomly selecting groups of permits by type number and date range. We did not rely
on system reports, but rather downloaded the actual records.
As we have discussed earlier, our review of the permit data indicates problems
with data entry and reporting of the review processes. To evaluate the impact of this
issue on the overall utility of the system data for analysis. we reviewed seven applications
which appeared to have excessively long review periods. The following table shows the
results of the review of the cases:
MAXlMUS
HEl-'1NG GOVUNl#D.T SfJI'R'ntE I'mr~
MtllIIW 0HuIIy GI't1WtIr MII1I4eme111 DivIsion
PennJttbrg Prouss Review
Permit Type
01100058 ~ODEST
07
01101536 07
01101614 MODEST
07
01101704 07
0110]763 MODEST
07
01101762 07
01]00348
Fint
Date
1/1/01
5/1/01
5/4/01
5/10/01
5/14/01
5/14/0 I
212/01
Last
Date
11/26/0 I
1/29/02
1/23/02
1/3/02
1/23/02
1/23/02
12/12/01
Total
Days
325
268
September 10,2001
Pllg~ 13
Explanation
256
This was actually approved on 3/1/01.
however there were revisions submitted on
later dates. (Incidentally. the Office was
closed on 1/1/01, so it isn't clear how this date
20t inDUt).
The file indicates that the Asst. Building
Official (ABO) actually signed off on 6/28/01.
Revisions began coming in later. and Revision
"D" was approved on 7/30/02. The permit
went into ROGO on 6/28/01.
eBO signed off on 5/18/01. and sat in ROGO
till 1/23/02.
ABO signed off on 8/1/01. On 1/3/02 it was
sent to Plantation Key for issuance of permit.
It was in ROGO from 5/10/01 to 1/3/02.
eBO signed off on 6m01. Sat in ROGO till
1/23/02.
This was not subject to ROGO - replacing a
mobile home with a single family home. ABO
signed off on 6/28/01. Revisions A. B. e and
D came after original approval. Revision D
was actually approved on 4/3/02 (which would
have shown up on the report we have if the
report had been run after 4/3/02). Revisions
were for placing amp on pool system and on
downstairs stOra2e area
This was a 9 \Dlit Affordable Housing permit.
On 2/8/01. the ABO realized there was no
landscaping plan submitted. but the Biologist
apparently sent this on to Planning. Plans
Examiner. and for plumbing. electrical
inspections. On 5/17/01. the Planning Dept.
signed off and sent it back to the Biologist,
who signed off on 6/14/01, although the
project team could find no evidence of a
landscaping plan having ever been submitted.
233
249
249
310
Further. it was noted at the rather late date of
11/20/01 that there was no sewage treatment
plant submitted, so there was a memo sent to
the builder on 11/20/0 1 noting this fact.
Plumbing. Electrical and Mechanical
inspections were performed and signed off on
6/29/01. Plans Examiner signed off on
7/10/01. then waited for site work application
to be submitted, which actually occurred on
11/19/01.
MAXIMUS
HD.J#n<<I GOVUllIlOiT SDtVE fHE ~
MtNfroe Ctnurty GI'UWtII MtllUlgDlfSlt Divisio"
Pemdttillg Proc5.s Rniew
September 10.2002
Page 24
It appears that almost all of the cases that were reviewed had a similar explanation
for the apparently long approval times. The explanations all seem to be rooted in the
reporting of the uLast Date", which the software package (pentamation) always interprets
as the last date of any type of activity. For instance, it is clear that either the CBO or
ABO signed off on most of the above applications within a reasonable amount of time,
which would no doubt have been reported as such had the report we looked at been run
shortly after this approval event. The problem arises when there are revisions to the
approved set of plans. Revision A, for instance, if approved five months after the original
set of plans, will cause the Pentamation system to report that the "approval process" was
at least six months long (assuming a 30 day approval process for the original set of
plans.) Another event which triggers the "lengthy" approval times as reported in
Pentamation is when the permit goes into ROGO. This date is input into the system by
Building staff, and again shows up in the "Last Date" column.
The only one of the samples that caused any concern about internal processing
procedure was Permit Number 01100348. There appeared to be two failures in the
process. The first was when the Biologist noted the absence of a landscaping plan, and
sent the application on for approval anyway, with no evidence of such a plan having ever
been submitted. The second was when the staff noticed about 9 months into the process
that there was no sewage treatment plan submitted.
It is necessary, then, to make corrections to the data samples based on the
apparent errors in data entry. The most common error was a reversal of the review dates,
with a reviewer placing the start date in the close-out field and the end of review date in
the starting field. When those errors were apparent, the MAXIMUS project staff
MAXIMUS
HElliNG C#OVUJllIIDfT SEln'E TIlE I'EDrI.Z.
MIIII1'Oe C'oIIaq GnnvtII MlIIIlI8emert DivIskm
petJlll/tl1lg Proct!S& llnlew
Sqlenabn 10.2002
Pllge 25
corrected those dates. Where there was an apparent error, based on an internal
inconsistency in information, that the project staff could not specifically identify, we
dropped that record from the sample. Finally, there were those records that showed such
long processing times that there was clearly a starting error or some other external factor
causing the excessive processing time, as discussed above. We applied differing
screening methodologies to residential applications, from which we were working with a
universe of all applications in the system, and to other applications, which were based on
a sample.
For residential applications, we fIrst dropped from the analysis all records that
indicated over 300 days of review time. From the remaining group, we determined that
the median numbet of processing days was 28 days; this means that for the total of all
applications in the sample, there was an equal number of applications processed in under
33 days as there were over 33 days. The standard deviation of the sample was 68 days.
The project staff made the determination that any application which exceeded the median
by more than one standard deviation probably had either an uncorrectable data entry error
or had some specific situation in the development review that made it a unique condition,
as we determined in our direct case review. By applying these two tests, we reduced the
total sample of residential permits to 130.
Our sample of non-residential permits had a large gap between the majority of the
applications and a few with excessively implied processing times. The gap break
appeared at 100 days. so we determined that any application in excess of one hundred
days was either subject to data entry error or had a unique circumstance. This reduced
our sample to 278 applications.
MAXIMUS
HE.lIING GOVUN"'DfT SDQ'1JIE nDI"U-
---.. ___ _ -~-- -=-.c:"'=-"--::::L:_
MtRfI'Oe CfHIIIIy GrtnI1III MII1IIIgf!IIIf!I DlrisiD"
p~ Procas llniew
SqJIDrIbn 10,2001
Page 16
Having thus cleaned the data samples we calculated the review times by type of
office for residential applications and non-residential applications. The results of that
review are shown in the table below:
Plan Review Time By Type of Permit and Office
LowerlMiddle Upper Keys Total
Keys Office Office
Residential Permits
Number in Sample 97 33 130
Median Processing Davs 24 55 28
Average Processing Days 26.8 52.5 34.8
Number Over 30 Days 23 21 44
Percentage Over 30 Days 0.24 0.64 0.34
Other Permits
Number in Sample 129 149 278
Median Processing Days 7 4 6
Average Processing Days 10.7 9.5 10
Number Over 7 Days 47 49 96
Percenmge Over 7 Days 0.36 0.33 0.35
The data m the table above indicate the following pertaining to residential
applications:
· The bulk of applications are processed in the Marathon office for the
Lower and Middle Keys; in fact only 12 of the original total of residential
permits was identified as being in the Lower Keys.
· There was a significant difference in processing time for applications in
the two offices based on both median processing time and average
processing time. Manual review of the raw data indicat~s that much of the
difference relates to time under review of the Assistant Building Official;
since the ABO position in the Upper Keys Office has been vacant for
some time, this would appear to be a primary factor in this substantial
difference. Also, the difference in permit load between residential and
non-residential applications, to be discussed below, may also be impacting
this difference.
· The median processing time of 28 days overall and 24 days for Middle
Keys, and the average processing time of 26.8 days for Middle Keys is
MAXIMUS
H~/NG GOVUJIIMENTSQlVETIIE ~
~
M~ CoIuIIy Growtll MtIIUI8emen1 DMsImt
perJlllllbrg Process Review
September 10,2002
Page 27
consistent with a 30-day performance goal. A review of individual cases
indicated that the biology review was requiring an average of 7.2 days for
review (5.0 days in the MiddlelLower Keys and 10.9 for Upper Keys).
This was consistent with our expectations regarding the impact of the
biology review on overall review time.
. However, the Permitting Process still is requiring more time than should
be expected, even when adjusted for biology review. With a standard of
30 days for review, it should be expected that the vast majority of reviews
would occur well within the 30 day window. A count of applications
requiring more than 35 days of review (the standard of 30 days plus
allowing five days for biology review) showed that 34 percent of all
applications were still requiring more than 35 days, including 64 percent
in the Upper Keys Office.
The data in the table indicate the following pertaining to non-residential permits.
. A slight majority of the applications being processed are received in the
Upper Keys Office.
. Median processing time for all application is 6 days, and the average
proc~ssing time is 10 days. While the average time for the Upper Keys
Office is.. ro.ughly 90 percent of the Middle Keys time, the median
processing time is slightly above half.
. Both offices, however, are consistently requiring more than seven days for
review of at least a third of the applications. This is considerably longer
than the one to three days more typically expected by industry standards
for review of non-residential applications.
There are three possible explanatory factors for this level of performance. One is
the impact of the review process itself, and the second is workload demand. The third
possibility is the potential impact of the ROGO process on the building permit
application process. In the next three sections of this chapter, we review those factors to
determine their impact on review times.
2. REVIEW PROCESS STEPS
During the project team's interviews with staff involved in the plan review
process, the Division staff described a linear review process. This means that the
Division would take in an application, and the staff would review the application
MAXIMUS
IfEl.rrNG~ENTSDNEntE~
MDIII'Oe CotatIy Growdl MlIIUIgDflDlt DIvisio"
Penrdtdng Process RnJew
September 10,2002
Pag~ 28
individually. The intake staff would place the application in a review queue. The first
person in the queue would take the application and conduct his or her review, placing
comments on the application. That person would place the application in the next
physical queue slot for review. The second review person would review the application,
replace it in the queue, and so on until the review was complete. Upon completion of the
review the Assistant Building Official would contact the applicant either to notify the
applicant of approval or to discuss any comments that the applicant needs to address.
While there was agreement that the review process was linear, there was less
agreement about any established order. There was general agreement that biology review
was early in the process and that signoff of the Assistant Building Official was the last
step of the process. '
During the staff review of the permit data, we observed that there seemed to be
some variation in the review order from that described above. To test that observation,
we selected eight residential applications. We made the selection by first ordering the
applications by length of review time and then randomly selecting applications based on
a distribution of review time. The review order is presented in the table below:
Review Order of Eight Randomly Selected Residential Permit Applications
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MAR- MAR- MAR- BIO] BIO I EXAM] ELECT MAR-
BLDG BLDG BLDG BLDG
BIO I BIO I BIO] BI02 PLUMB PLUMB PLUMB BIO I
EXAM I PLAN BI02 ELECT MECH ELECT EXAM ] EXAM I
ABO PLUMB EXAM I EXAM ] EXAM ] MECH BIO I FEMA
ELECT ELECT ELECT ABa EXAM 2 EXAM 2 BI02 PLUMB
PLUMB FEMA PLUMB BI02 BIO] EXAM 2 ELECT
PLAN EXAM ] FEMA ABa BI02 BI03 ABO
EXAM 2 ABO EXAM 3 FEMA EXAM 2
ABO FEMA MECH
COORD ABO
ABa
MAXIMUS
HElJ'nvG GOVUNJlENT SDlVE TIlE rm,u*
~
MtRUOe eo.. GrrnnII MtIIUIgeJllSlt DIrisImr
PennJttbrg Procas Rniew
September 10,2002
PIIg~29
This sample clearly shows that even the generally described review order is not
followed in any regular fashion. lbis lack of orderly process is explanatory of the
significant queue times described in the previous section of this chapter. One possible
justification for not using an established review order could be work volume. If the
Division staff have work volumes that detract from the review process, then it might be
that the Division is using a random order procedure as a means of off-setting other work
demands. In the next section of this report, we evaluate that possibility.
3. ANALYSIS OF WORK VOLUME
There are two components to an analysis of staffing and work volume~ The first
is the ratio of plan review staff to the number of building permits issued, and the other is
the relative work volume of inspection staff. This latter item is particularly relevant to
the discussion since the Division's inspection personnel also perform plan review.
The following table presents the work activity of the Growth Management
Division relative to permits and inspections for the past three calendar years:
Permit and Inspections Activity
Calendar Years 1999-2001
Permits Issued
Residential All Others Total Inspections
ear Permits
Lower Middle Upper Total Lower Middle Upper Total
1999 98 24 173 295 2723 1892 2576 7191 7486
2000 50 4 79 133 1777 444 2754 4975 5108 20,955
2001 117 16 102 235 1658 251 2443 4352 4587 16,497
Points relevant to this work volume table include:
. The noticeable drop in permit activity may be due to several factors,
including data errors that occurred during the failed upgrade effort. The
MAXIMUS
HEUING GlJVUNMENT SDW~nu rliDl'Lr
MDIIIfIe eo""". Grt1WIlI MtIIUlg~ Divmtm
Penftittbrg Proctss Review
SqJtmrber 10,2001
Pag~30
drop in permit and inspection activity between 1999 and 2001 relates in
great part to the incorporations that have occurred in Monroe County and
the attendant reduction in work activity. In addition, in 2000, the State
reduced the number of allowable ROGO applications and Nutrient
Reduction Credits.
· The inspection activity is actually reported on a fiscal year basis. The
inspections for 2000 actually reports activity for the 1999-2000 fiscal year,
and the 2001 activity reports inspections for the 2000-2001 fiscal year.
· Inspections are not reported by Office since the inspection data was
generated by inspector rather than by Office key. Because some
inspectors work in two or three of the Office zones, it was not possible to
break out actual activity from the data generated. It would be possible to
generate inspection data by Office through a report generated by
individual permit activity.
The Division staffs the plan review and inspections activities with the following
personnel:
Plan Review and Inspection Staff'
Lower Keys Upper Keys Total
Sr. Assistant Building Official .50 1 1.50
Plans Examiner 1 1 2
Buildin2 Inspector 1 1 2
Electrical Inspector .50* 1 1.50
Plumbing & Mechanical Inspector 1 1 2
Flood Plain Administrator 1
Biologist (in Planning Dept) 2 1 3
* The Senior Assistant Building Official also serves as the electrical inspector for
the Lower Keys
Staff interviews indicate that the Plans Examiners work full time on plans review,
and the individual inspectors perform plan review on a partial basis, dividing time
between plans review and inspections. The distribution of time depends on the
experience of the individual inspector and current work load. For the purpose of this
analysis, we assume that the distribution of work will be 25% to 33% of time is spent on
plan review and the remaining time is devoted to inspections activity. This break-out is
MAXIMUS
HEUIJfiG GOVEViItlOiTS6In'E7WE ~
r-"
f .
.~
MIIIU'De CoIUIIy GI'Off1III MtlllIIgetrrellt DlrisiDa
Pt!lflllttbrg PrtIc:ess Review
September 10.2002
PIIge 31
derived from interviews in which staff indicated their normal work efforts. Based on this
distribution, the Division has a range of between 3.60 to 4.15 full time equivalent
employees performing plans review and a range of 4.35 to 4.90 full time equivalents
conducting inspections. We have excluded the biology staff since their inspection
activity is not reported in the Division's permit tracking system.
Applying this distribution of work activity to the work volume reported in the
preceding table, we can compare the Division's plan review and inspections staffing to
national standards, as shown in the table below:
Comparison of Staffmg and Work Load to National Standards
, Monroe
Standard National County
Residential Buildinll; Permits Per Plan Check Staff* 750-900 118
Total Permits Per Plan Check Staff 1250-1500 1162-1340
Total Permits Per T ion Staff 850-1000 984-1109
Inspections Per Permit Staff 4000-4250 3367-3792
Ratio of Inspections to Permits 5-6 3.42
* This metric uses only single family residential construction and full time plans
exammers.
Based on the comparative staffmg table, the MAXIMUS project team draws the
following observations:
. Monroe County's ratio of plan check staff to residential permits is
significantly below the national standard. Even allowing substantial
margin for the unique work environment of the Division and considering
that plans that are rejected are not included in the Division's plan
application counts. this ratio is well below normal.
. The County's ratio of total permits to plan check staff is at the low range
of the national standard.
. The County ratio of permits to inspection staff is at, or slightly above, the
high range of the national standard. This indicates that the Division is
issuing more permits per inspector than is expected according to the
national standard range.
MAXIMUS
Rt:lJ'I1IG~DiTSD""ET1IE ,.S;WU-
"",-
MOIITtJe CtHurq GI'UWtII MtllUlgement DivGlo"
Pemdltbrg Process Review
September 10,2002
PlIge 32
· While the Division's average number of inspections per permit staff is
slightly below the national standard, this is could be primarily considered
a function of the County's geography. Given the linear nature of the
County, limited roadway capacity, it is to be expected that inspectors
would be less able to conduct a larger number of inspections than would
occur in a more compact area.
· The relatively low number of inspections per permit can be explained by
several influencing conditions. It may be a factor of the low mnnber of
residential construction permits relative to the total number of permits
issued since a typical new residential construction typically requires
twelve to fifteen inspections. A second factor is the low number of
commercial permits; typically, commercial permits usually require an
above average number of inspections per permit.
This analysis indicates that the Division needs to address the productivity of the
plan review process. With the relatively low number of applications per plan review
staff, it would be expected that the turn around of applications would be faster than that
determined earlier in the staff. Conversely, with a turn around time that is reasonably
consistent with the earlier calculations, the project team would have expected a higher
ratio of applications to review staff.
The Division should apply a more detailed time management review of the work
activity of the plan review staff to determine whether there are personal time
management and productivity issues that need to be addressed.
4. THE IMPACT OF ROGO
Monroe County originated its Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) in 1992 as an
attempt to establish an equitable method for allocating scarce, buildable space to those
wishing to establish residential structures in the County. In addition to compliance with
the State of Florida's growth management requirements, a further underlying reason for
its establishment of the ordinance was to facilitate the evacuation of the Keys through
restricting the number of residents using the roadways during (primarily hurricane-
MAXIMUS
H~I1tiGGOVUNtl6NT~TltE~
r:-:
~.~~
. -,
MtIIIIOe Coaly GrmvtII MlIIIlIgement DIvIsitm
PenrlittbrK hoces$llniew
Septmrber 10,2002
P"Ke jj
related) emergencies. In 1992, the first year of the ordinance, the County allocated 255
lots under ROGO. Presently, the County is averaging approximately 128 to 133 per
year.
The ROGO process in the first four to five years was that plans were rated
according to established criteria, similar to the scoring system in effect today, and issued
either an approval or denial based on the raw score. Today, the process has been
complicated significantly by the overlay of other rating factors, such as land dedication
credits, affordable housing credits, modest housing credits, and others. Further, the State
has determined that there are a limited number of cesspit credits available for residents,
which has made the process even more complex, because staff must place residents on
the cesspit credit list even' after they gravitate to the "front of the line" based on their
ROGO score.
Administration of the ROGO process is split between the Lower and Upper Keys
offices. Both Upper and Lower Key staff are re-inputting all of the RaGa scores
completed by the Biologist and Building Department, to maintain a single,
comprehensive file on all applications. The Upper Keys staffs effort ends early in the
process, after which the Middle Keys staff takes over, performing all of the related
administrative and clerical functions. The Middle Keys staff, in addition to performing
the routine scoring of applications, is sending out letters, maintaining the cesspit credit
list, advertising, and filing all of the applications, plans, and comments from each of the
agencies involved in plan review. The Upper Keys staff, on the other hand, does none of
this.
MAXIMUS
HElJING GOVUNMENT~Enu I"EDI'Ue
MOIII'Oe eo.. Grt1WIII MtIIUIgemeat DMsiort
PermJttbtg Process Review
SqllDIIber 10.2002
Pag~ 34
Under the ROGO process, each quarter the ROGO list is compiled by staff based
on existing applications. lhis typically occurs around the 10th to the 14th of January,
April, July, and October. The Division's policy is that building permit applications must
be submitted to the Building Department no later than thirty working days prior to the
ROGO deadline for consideration. Interviews with Division staff anecdotally describe a
situation in which there is a rush of applications to meet the deadline and staff is under
strong pressure to accept additional applications during this time period; the staff
responds by postponing other pending applications in order to process the residential
permits that are subject to the ROGO process. Staff almost unanimously described a
sense of urgent pressure coming from applicants and other interested parties to complete
reviews in time.
A review of permit processing times provides statistical support for this issue. A
count of residential applications show that 49% of all the applications are submitted
within a 35-day window preceding preparation of the ROGO list. The sample of non-
residential applications did not contain enough applications in the pre-ROGO window to
draw statistical inferences; however, a visual examination of the sample indicates a
probability that non-residential applications filed within 35 days of the ROGO deadline
took longer to process than those filed outside of that time window.
Thus, it would appear that the ROGO process has an adverse impact on the
Division's timely review of construction permits in Monroe County.
5. ROLE OF FIRE INSPECTIONS REVIEW
The table in Section 2 of this chapter presents the various review staff there were
involved in the review of residential applications. A significant gap in this table is the
MAXIMUS
HEU'I1tIG 00VSJIJIDiTSD't'K THE I"UJI1'I.z-
r:
':~
M~ eo..q GrtnfftII MtIIUI6e1rW!11t DI11islD"
Pemtitting Procas ReviW
September 10,2001
Pag~ 35
absence of review traCking by staff who are not in the Growth Management Division,
particularly the County'S Public Works staff and Fire Inspections. Given that these
reviews are not tracked, it is not possible to determine the impact that any potential delay
in those divisions might have on the overall process. For an effective monitoring of the
permit review process, both the Public Works Department and Fire Marshall should have
access to the permit review applications and should maintain review information to the
same standard as the Growth Management Division persormel.
There is an additional aspect to the Fire review. Previously, the Growth
Management Division used to courier plans to the Fire Marshall's Office; but a recent
change in process has the Assistant Fire Marshalls picking up application upon notice
they are ready. The Assistant Fire Marshall staff indicate their belief that this has
improved the review process. They also advise that the work of the plan reviewer to
screen obvious errors has also been an improvement in the overall work process.
In the past, the Fire Marshall's Office has been a cost center within the Growth
Management Division, although the Office itself is currently in the process of moving
from the Public Safety Division to the Fire Department. It is not uncommon for fire
inspection services to be part of a comprehensive planning and development function,
particularly coordinated with plan review for both building plans and development
review, as well as code enforcement and inspection.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the MAXIMUS project team's review of the Division's permitting
process, we believe that several changes in that process can result in a much more timely,
MAXI MUS
HEJJING GOVUJIt/llDtT.f.EII1'E fJlE ~
- ~
Mo1ll'De COIUItF GrowdI MlIIUIg~ DIvi.doII
PemUttiIrg Prot:as Review
September 10,2002
Pag~36
effective, and customer friendly management of permit applications.
These
recommendations include the following:
Recommendation 10: The Division should further evaluate the productive time
used by staff for plan review and adjust staffing and work assignments accordingl~'.
The analytical data available to the MAXlMUS project team indicates that the
plan review function may not be sufficiently productive, based on the low ratio of plan
reviews to permanent review staff and the number of applications that are not reviewed
within a thirty-day standard. However, the adequacy of the permit data is such that this
conclusion is subject to some intetpretation. Before realigning the plan review function,
the Division should institute a time management system to track precisely the work
activity of the plan reviewers and to implement changes based on the information
provided from the time management system. If the time management system supports a
conclusion that plan review time is not efficiently used, then the Division should consider
reassignment of permit process work to make the reviewers more productive or to adjust
plan review staffing.
Recommendation 11: The Division should implement a new application review
process that is concurrent rather than linear.
While the active review times themselves need some improvement, the most
significant problem in the plan review process is the waiting time in the queue when
there is no active review. Elimination of that wait queue would almost instantly reduce
the processing time by two-thirds. Under a concurrent process, all applications would be
distributed to plan reviewers upon receipt. The reviewers would be allotted a specific
length of time for review. All comments would be prepared by the reviewers. For all
residential construction applications, new commercial construction, or other complex
MAXIMUS
HElJIINGGOVUNMDiTSDn'Z'7HE ,.~
-'-~.
r
MtJlllrHCtHIIrq GTtIWIII MIIIUIg"" DIt1Isioll
PemrJIIiIIg PrDa!ss Rniew
September 10.2001
Page 37
applications, the reviewers would meet to discuss the application review and prepare a
common response to applicants. A designated lead staff person-most probably the plan
reviewer-would communicate with the applicant and resolve any difference.
Outside of the Upper Key ABO sign-off, the longest review time was 10.9 days
for biology review. Assuming that the ABO timing can be reduced by filling the position
and minimi'7.'ing ABO review requirements by designating responsibility to the plans
reviewer, this would indicate that the plan review timing should consist of one to three
days of entry processing, ten days for review, and a week for response communications
with the applicant. This would provide a review standard of twenty days.
Entry processing is a key point to this processing. Given the recommendations
for an electronic environment, it is essential that all applications are digitized and
transmitted for review electronically. Eventually, the Division should require applicants
to submit all materials electronically; however, until that is achieved, the Division will
need to have the capacity to digitize hard copy applications. That is the reason for the
one to three day processing time on the front of the recommended process.
Recommendation 12: The Division should amend its application deadlines to
require all applications to be med, and determined to be complete, no later than 45
days in advance of a ROGO deadline. Further, applications should be reviewed in a
first come fU'St served basis without regard for the ROGO deadline.
As discussed in our observations regarding the ROGa process, the statistics
relating to the impact of the quarterly RaGa deadlines indicate that the process is having
an adverse impact on the Division's timely processing of building permits. It is
reasonable to expect that, if the Division, modifies the process to eliminate the time
pressure caused by ROGa, then overall productivity should increase. Two steps will
MAXIMUS
HEI-'IHG oovu:NtU:NT SEIt'E TIlE 1"E/JII"Ir
Monroe COllnty Growth Management Division
Permitting Process Review
September 10,2002
Page 38
reduce this pressure. The first is to reqwre that applications be submitted, and
determined to be complete, no later than 45 working days before the deadline in order to
afford more time for review and problem resolution. To reduce pressure on staff to
accept applications within this review process, this deadline should be incorporated into
the County's Code of Ordinances rather than being an operational policy. Second, the
Division's policy should be that applications will be considered on a first come basis
only, and this should policy should be strictly adhered to. This will reduce the overall
review time for permits since preceding applications would not be placed on hold to
comply with the ROGO deadline.
Recommendation 13: Administration of the ROGO process should be assigned to a
single individual ~or planning review, with administrative processes performed by
support staff.' .
The work load volume indicates that a single planner should reasonably be able to
perform the professional review of ROGO applications received by the Department. 1bis
would provide a standard review process for the Division and establish a single point of
planner contact for applicants. This process can be further improved by eliminating
duplicate application information, using the Pentamation Encompass System for all
tracking of information. Administrative functions, such as preparing formal notice,
mailings, etc., should be assigned to the Division's support staff. Consistent with the
information technology recommendations in the preceding chapter, this process should be
web-enabled, so that applicants can get all pertinent information and file applications via
the internet. This would create additional time for the ROGO review staff to evaluate
applications and meet with applicants to resolve problems.
MAXIMUS
HELPII'riG GOVEANItlUoT SEIlVE THE ,.EO'U-
MtJIIIOe CoIIIfIy GTUWtII MlIIIlIgelrlt!llt DivisIoII
PD1rIitting Proct!ss RevW
Septmlber 10,2001
Ptlg~ 39
Recommendation 14: Monroe County should consider whether it is more
appropriate to assign the Fire Manhall's Office to the Growth Management
Division.
As noted earlier in this Chapter, the Fire Marshall's office is an integral part of the
plan review process, and it is common for fire inspections to be part of a broader
planning and development management function. This has been recognized by the
County as a cost center of the Division. While there may be other functions of the Fire
Marshall's Office that would more effectively be assigned to the Fire Department, we
would suggest that the County consider those functions in conjunction with the
importance of the Office in the overall context of its role in planning, development, and
permitting.
MAXIMUS
HEl.J#/NG GOVUNItIDlT SD'VE'771~ /#E.D#'I..r
~
MOIIt'Oe CDIIIII.1 GI'OWtII MtIIUJ6t!1M1f1 Divisio.
p~ Procas Ilniew
September 10,2002
PlIg~ 40
v. CONCLUSIONS
In snmmary, the MAXIMUS project team makes the following recommendations
to improve the permitting process of the Monroe County Growth Management Division:
1. The Division should develop a web-enabled capacity to provide timely
information and materials to the public and to provide for web-based
applications.
2. The Division needs to reduce the office clutter aggressively. This relates
particularly to the Marathon office environment.
3. In Marathon, the front counter area should be reconfigured for more
accommodating use.
4. The counter staff should receive training sufficient to allow them to be
designated as permit technicians, with expanded capacity to review
applications for completeness and to issue immediate permits for
applications that do not require formal reviews.
5. The Division should involve its clients, including builders, developers, and
interested citizens, in its policy development processes whenever possible.
6. The Division should upgrade its current permit management system to the
latest version of Pentamation Encompass. The estimated cost of this
recommendation can be expected to range between $35,000 and $75,000.
This includes acquisition of the most current system, hardware upgrades,
development of integration applications, and user training.
7. The Division should develop, and implement, plans to provide a full range
of internet services within the next twenty-four months. The estimated
cost of this recommendation will depend upon the County's overall
electronic government strategy. If the Division were to implement an
electronic government program independently, the estimated cost would
be approximately $50,000 to $80.000, assuming use of the Pentamation
services.
8. The Division should expand its GIS capacity. The estimated cost for this
recommendation is approximately $45-60,000 for an additional GIS
technician, based on minimum private sector values.
9. The Division should establish a goal of being fully electronic within three
years.
10. The Division should further evaluate the productive time used by staff for
plan review and adjust staffing accordingly.
MAXIMUS
HElJ'1NG GOVUNIIENT.sDl'E ~ ,."U-
MtIIII'H C'oIuUy GnnvtII M",,",emmt DivisIo"
Penrdtlbr, Process Review
SeptDJlbn 10,2002
PlIg~ 41
11. The Division should implement a new application review process that is
concurrent rather than linear.
12. The Division should amend its application deadlines to require all
applications to be filed, and determined to be complete, no later than 45
days in advance of. a ROGO deadline. Further, applications should be
reviewed in a first come first served basis without regard for the ROGO
deadline.
13. Administration of the ROGO process should be assigned to a single
individual for planning review, with administrative processes performed
by support staff.
14. Monroe County should consider whether it is more appropriate to assign
the Fire Marshall's Office to the Growth Management Division.
By and large, these recommendations will not be overly expensive to implement.
Key cost factors will up the system upgrades for both software and hardware
improvements and for the additional GIS staffing. The imaging of the files is an already
budgeted, on-going item; however, the Division should accelerate the process in order to
improve the office environment. Costs for reorganizing the office environment will
depend on how the Division goes about realignment of the work area and will depend on
the County's facilities staff ability to develop a revised office arrangement within internal
resources.
There are other factors which the Division will need to factor into the
implementation of these recommendations. These include work organization, internal
communications, employee training, and the Division's work materials.
The key to implementation of these recommendations is the organization and flow
of work. The permit staff are comfortable with the linear review process, and it will take
strong leadership from the Division, and particularly permit, management personnel to
convert from a linear review process to a concurrent review process. Management will
MAXIMUS
HELI'fNG GOVUJIItIENT.sDt"I: TIlE ~
~
'.....
MOIII'Oe 0HDtt.1 Gtr1WtII MlIIIlIgt!lllelll DivtJitm
pDfflittblg Prot:as Review
Septembn 10.2002
Pllge 42
need to monitor work flow on a regular basis and intervene when necessary to assure that
the new procedures are quickly ingrained. This will include scheduling joint review
meetings on applications, making certain that the staff reviews are completed, and
conducting the review sessions on schedule.
Internal communications will be important to effecting these changes. A regular
observation from internal and external interviews was that staff were not regularly
apprised, in writing, of process procedures and afforded the opportunity to feed back on
suggested changes. This type of communication will be important as the Division
upgrades the software and enhances its management capabilities. Both the changes in
State regulations and internal administrative ordinances as well as the introduction of
electronic management 'of applications and materials will also require more
communication as the permit staff develops operating procedures around the new
methodologies. To this end, the permit staff should consider instituting bi-weekly staff
meetings to review work activity and procedures, followed by written materials to
institutionalize the changes.
The upgrade in technology, changes in State regulations and county ordinances,
the concurrent review process, and the recommendation for expanding the role of counter
persormel to serve as permit technicians, will require expanded training of permit staff.
This training will also be important as a retention tool, assuming .that the change in
compensation in the past year has been proving effective. Each employee in the permit
process should have the opportunity to receive regular and on-going training in key areas
such as customer service (as fundamental as phone etiquette), understanding principal
business processes, and skills upgrades.
MAXIMUS
HEllING GOVEVlIlDiT SE.In'T TffE ~
MOIU'tIe Cmurty GrowtII MIIIII6KDIII!IIt Divisio"
PDfllillbt6 Ptocas Revin1
September 10,2001
PlIg~ 43
Finally, the Division's work materials should be modernized as a means of
improving customer communications. The materials currently in use by the permit staff
are principally little more than print-outs of current ordinance requirements, and they are
separated so that an applicant may not know whether he or she has everything that is
needed. Once the Division has completed implementation of the upgraded permit
management system and brought its application processes on-line, the Division should
then develop an integrated application package that is available both in hard copy and on-
line. This package should include a basic swnmary of the various permits, processes, and
requirements, referring potential applicants to ordinances for details. It should also
include a check-otI list that an applicant can use to determine what applications are
needed for what kind of process and what the order of the applications is. Finally, the
package should include one set of all relevant application forms.
With these changes, the Division's implementation of the recommendations
included in this study can be expected to proceed smoothly, with an attendance
improvement in processing times, processing accuracy, and customer satisfaction. It will
also enable the Growth Management Division to report its activities in a correct and more
timely fashion.
MAXIMUS
HE.l.IING GOVEANliENT SMVE TIlE ''-D'LE-
September 27,2002
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION'S RESPONSE
TO MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF
MAXIMUS REPORT ON PERMITTING SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION #1:
The Division should develop a web-enabled capacity to provide timely information and
materials to the public and to provide web-based applications.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation. The County has already ordered
a web interface module for its permitting system, which will allow the status of a permit
to be accessed and permitting to be done via the internet.
RECOMMENDATION #2:
The Division needs to reduce the office clutter aggressively. This relates particularly to
the Marathon office environment.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation. A major problem is the physical
arrangement and space occupied by permitting records that create undue clutter and
hamper efficient office operations. Approximately 18 percent of the physical records
have already been converted to a digital media format. The cost for conversion of all
permitting records is a lengthy process and will cost upwards of $1.5 million. The
Division is working with Technical Services to determine how best to accomplish this
task to reduce its costs and the turn-around time for digitizing of records that must
presently be out-sourced for conversion.
Another issue has to do with the digitizing of new permit files. The County has ordered a
large, high-resolution scanner that will allow building plans to be digitized; however this
will require the assignment of manpower, development of a file management system and
training of staff to perform reviews on a CRT.
The Division will evaluate the location of the central filing system in conjunction with
needed changes in the front counter operations (see Recommendation #3) at the Marathon
office.
RECOMMENDATION #3
In Marathon, the front counter should be reconfigured for more accommodating use.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation. In response to the
recommendation, the Division will proceed with organizational and operational changes
by: 1) placing only intake personnel at front counter; 2) designating an trained support
Page 1 of6
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Pennitting Management\response-maximus.doc
September 27,2002
staff individual( s) for handling phone calls away from the front desk; 3) stationing the
Permitting Coordinator in her office rather than front counter; 4) directing planning and
environmental staff to handle customers in their office or designated conference room;
and, 5) providing suitable space for customer kiosks. The Building Official in
cooperation with the Planning Director have been directed to prepare a space and
management plan for implementation these changes within the next 60 days.
RECOMMENDATION #4
The counter staff should receive training sufficient to allow them to be designated as
permit technicians with expanded capacity to review applications for completeness and to
issue immediate permits for applications that do not require formal reviews.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation. The Building Department has
contacted the Southern Building Code Congress International to provide a permit
technician training and certification program for all front-counter and administrative
persormel. This program will be supplemented by an in-house training and certification
program for all permitting persormel in the Division to be developed by Division staff
with outside technical assistance. These education and training programs will be partially
supported by increased the current $1.00 education fee on every permit to $2.00.
RECOMMENDATION'#S'
The Division should involve its clients, including builders, developers, and interested
citizens, in its policy development processes whenever possible.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation.. Although the Division has
routinely held workshops on the drafting of new regulations and procedures and has
utilized informal advisory committees, no formal customer input structure exists to
provide for continuing involvement and evaluation of the permitting system by its
customers. The Division intends to establish a formal customer advisory committee
within the next couple of months that will provide such input and feedback to the
Division on a continuing basis. The committee will consist of contractors, developers,
agents, and general public.
RECOMMENDATION #6
The Division should upgrade its current permit management system to the latest version
of Pentamation Encompass. The estimated cost of this recommendation can be expected
to range between $35,000 and $75,000. This includes acquisition of the most current
system, hardware upgrades, development of integration applications, and user training.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation. With the assistance of
Technical Services, the Division has recently purchased necessary hardware and software
upgrades for the permitting system. It is anticipated that installation of these upgrades
and staff training will occur over the next three months.
Page 2 of6
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Permitting Management\response-maximus.doc
September 27,2002
RECOMMENDATION #7
The Division should develop and implement plans to provide a full range of internet
services within the next twenty-four months. The estimated cost of this recommendation
will depend on the County's overall electronic government strategy. If the Division were
to implement an electronic government program independently, the estimated cost would
be approximately $50,000 to $80,000, assuming use of Pen tam at ion services.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation. With the assistance of
Technical Services, the Division has purchased a module from Pentamation that will
eventually allow use of internet for permitting services. Over the next 6 months, the
Division intends to install module for obtaining status on permits. It will then proceed
with the assistance of Technical Services and input from a permitting advisory board (see
Recommendation #5) to install an initial small-scale on-line permitting process for most
over-the-counter type of permits within 6 to 8 months. This on-line permitting system
will eventually be expanded to include more types of permits.
RECOMMENDATION #8
The Division should expand its GIS capacity. The estimated costs for this
recommendation is approximately $45-60,000 for an additional GIS technician, based on
minimum private sector vahies.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation. The staff will request the
reclassification and upgrading of the Mapping Coordinator position to require a planning
degree and technical background in GIS. In addition, planners, biologists, and other
Division persorme1 are receiving training in GIS.
RECOMMENDATION #9
The Division should establish a goal of being fully electronic within three years.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation in concept, except that
achieving it within three years is probably too optimistic. As previously noted, the
Division has already purchased hardware and software to upgrade its permitting system.
Working with Technical Services it will implement overtime a electronic document
management system that will be linked to the permitting system. A software module has
been purchased which will linked the permitting records system to the GIS. To
successfully institute an electronic permitting system will also requiring staff training and
purchase of additional hardware and software, which will be coordinated in conjunction
with Technical Services. These required actions to implement a fully electronic
permitting system as well as gaining customer acceptance will make this goal difficult to
achieve within three years.
Page 3 of6
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Pennitting Management\response-maximus.doc
September 27,2002
RECOMMENDATION #10
The Division should further evaluate the productive time used by staff for plan review
and adjust staffing and work assignments accordingly.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation. Shifts in permitting workloads
between the two primary permitting offices of the Division, the changes in the Building
Code, and the new Chapter 55, Florida Statutes, allowing privatized plans review and
inspections (will become effective October 1,2002) necessitate a management review of
the productivity of staff to ensure staff resources are efficiently and effectively allocated
and to pinpoint needed overall changes in persormel requirements. Upgrades to the
permitting system are needed to be installed to enable supervisory staff to conduct such
an in-depth management study of productivity on plans review and inspections. The
current system is unable to provide this information in a meaningful manner.
RECOMMENDATION #11
The Division should implement a new application review process that is concurrent rather
than linear.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation with certain reservations and
modifications. For 'pemiits 'that require some sort of plans or site plan review (not of an
over-the-counter orwa1k-thru nature), the permit review times in the Division need to be
improved as has been adequately pointed out in the report. Yet to move forward with a
full concurrent review process at this time when the permitting system is not completely
electronic would be difficult and may cause other internal problems due to the necessity
of having sign-off on numerous sets of plans and physical distance between offices.
Except for ROGO, NROGO, and privatized plans review (see response to
Recommendation #12), the Division will institute a review process that will follow dual
concurrent parallel tracks: (1) compliance with land development regulations including
floodplain regulations and, if a commercial property, reviews by the County Engineer for
compliance with stormwater management regulations and the Fire Marshal for
compliance with fire, life, and safety codes; and, (2) compliance with building and
technical codes. This process will be coordinated by the respective Assistant Building
Official and Permitting Coordinator at the two main permitting offices.
Until a truly electronic permitting system is established, which would also have to
include the County Engineer and Fire Marshal, the Division believes that changes
proposed by staff coupled with those in response to Recommendation #12 will make
marked improvements to review times.
RECOMMENDATION #12
The Division should amend its application deadlines to require all applications to be filed,
and determined to be complete, no later than 45 days in advance of a ROGO deadline.
Page 4 of6
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Permitting Management\response-maximus.doc
September 27,2002
Further, applications should be reviewed in a first come first served basis without regard
for the ROGO deadline.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendations with minor modifications.
Currently, the Division policy is that no building permit application for ROGO can be
guaranteed to be approved for acceptance into ROGO, if the building permit application
is not received within 30 working days of the ROGO deadline. This internal policy has
done little to reduce the negative and disruptive effects to the permitting process, as
outlined in the consultant's report.
The Division recommends that no ROGO or NROGO building permit application be
taken into the building permit system until it has first received compliance approval with
the floodplain and other land development regulations and, if applicable, for multi-family
and commercial development, review and approval by the Fire Marshal and County
Engineer. [In addition, the Division recommends that a similar procedure be followed for
privatized plans review.] Any issues related to non-compliance with the land
development and floodplain regulations, and other non-building codes would have to be
resolved prior to intake of the building permit application by the Building Department.
The compliance review phase would be coordinated by the respective Island Planning
Team Director at the two main permitting offices.
Upon approval for 20mpliarice with zoning and other non-building codes, the building
permit application would then be taken into the building permit system; however, any
ROGO building permit application would have to be in the system 30 working days prior
to the ROGO application deadline date to be eligible to enter ROGO. These time
deadlines are to be codified in the Land Development Regulations rather than instituted
by policy to eliminate the pressure and stress placed on persormel and the disruptions to
the permitting system. The building permit review process will be coordinated by the
respective Assistant Building Official and Permitting Coordinator at the two main
permitting offices.
RECOMMENDATION #13
Administration of the ROGO process should be assigned to a single individual for
planning review, with administrative processes performed by support staff.
Division Response: Concur with this recommendation with a few minor revisions. The
Planning and Environmental Resources Department is assigning duties for noticing,
mailings, and other administrative functions to clerical staff. Building permit
applications that require a ROGO allocation award will by be reviewed and scored for
ROGO for by Planning and Environmental Department and Building Department staffs
during compliance and building permit application reviews and approvals. The
Pentamation Tracking System will be modified to include ROGO.
Page 5 of6
\\GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Permitting Management\response-maximus.doc
September 27, 2002
RECOMMENDATION #14
Monroe County should consider whether it is more appropriate to assIgn the Fire
Marshal's Office to the Growth Management Division
Division Response: Do not concur with this recommendation at this time. Although the
assignment of the Fire Marshal to the Growth Management Division would have a
beneficial impact on the review time for commercial permits, the Division believes it may
be a little premature to make this reorganization at this time. The staff intends to work
with the Fire Marshal's and the County Engineer's offices on measures to improve the
review process. Eventually, it may be desirable toinc1ude both the County Engineer and
Fire Marshal in the computer permitting system.
Page 6 of6
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Permitting Management\response-maximus.doc
Oct 11 02 10: 15a
Growth Mgt
{305J28S-2854
p. 1
Growth Mamll'erru::nl Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX (305) 289-2536
Roard of County ConllnissjQ!!~r!;
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, DisC 3
Mayor Pro Tcm Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1
COITIl11. Berl Jimenez, Dist. 4
COlllIll, Murray E, Nelson, Dist. 5
Cornrn. George Neugent, Dist. 2
VIA FACSIMILE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Timothy]. McGarry, AICP, Directo~
Growth Management Division
DATE:
October 11, 2002
SUBJECT:
Attachment to Agenda Item K3 - October II, 2002
Enclosed please find an update regarding the Habitat Conservation Plan (Agenda Item K3) for your
reviE!w. Please attach this document to your K3 agenda packet for the upcoming BOCC meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact me directly at 289-2517.
cc: lames Roberts, County Administrator
Danny Kolhage, County Clerk
leg
H :1,A,dministrative\ Working Folders\Gardncr-Collecn\Collccn\bocc stuff\mcmo to bocc HCP 10 1602,doc
Oct 11 02 10: 15a
Growth Mgt
(305)289-2854
p.2
Planning and Environmental Resource~
K. Madene Conaway, Director
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Vuice: (305) 289-2500
FA.'{: (305) 289-2536
County of Monroe
~...''fI''
.. ... (l:....IL.
16
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dis!. 3
Mayor Pro Tem Dixie Spehar, Dlst, 1
Comm, Bel'ljimenez, Dish'iet 4
Comm. Murray Nelson, Dis!. 5
Comm, Georze Neu,gent, Dis\. 2
October 3, 2002
FROM:
Board of County Commissioners
K. Marlene Conaway, Director~ ,
Planning and Environmental R~~
TO:
SUBJECT:
Habitat Conservation Plan Agenda Item - Big Pine Key and No Name Keys
The consultants have attempted to schedule a meeting of the coordinating committee for the Her
for Big Pine and No Name Keys as directed by the Board. They have been unable to get the
committee all together before mid November for this mccting. Both local citizens on the committee
have suggested the item be continued until the December meeting in Marathon. The BOCC at the
September meeting continued the issue until a timc cCltain at the October meeting in Key West.
The Board's approval is required before the permit application (HCP) can be submitted to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service for a permit to allow some limited construction and road improvements
on Big Pine Key.