Public Administration Case Studies

merce_a.pdf

Home >Government homework help >Public Administration Case Studies

Case Teaching Resources F R O M T H E E V A N S S C H O O L O F P U B L I C A F F A I R S

T h e E l e c t r o n i c H a l l w a y ®

Box 353060 · University of Washington · Seatt le WA 98195-3060 www.hallway.org

This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their support for this national curriculum development project. The case was prepared under the supervision of Jonathan Brock, by Judith Noble while a candidate for a Master’s Degree at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email [email protected], or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member’s Agreement (www.hallway.org).

PERMIT PROCESSING ON MERCER ISLAND (A)

The gravel crunched under City Manager Paul Lanspery's feet as he took his customary lunch time run near his office at Mercer Island City Hall. "We need to move forward on improving the City’s permit system," he thought. A consultant's report, addressing the inefficiencies in the permit processing system for building renovation and construction, would be waiting for him when he got back to the office. Lanspery had commissioned the study as a step toward resolving service delivery problems within the Community Development Department and the other units in the City responsible for land use regulation and enforcement. He wasn't worried that some unanticipated surprise would emerge from the report. The staff, City Council, and the development community were ready for some changes and knew what the problems were, in varying degrees. Time was his enemy. Ever since the media had vividly focused on property-owner- perceived inconsistency and arbitrary permit decision making, the City's image had suffered. Lanspery knew it would take a while to improve their systems and build the customer-oriented program so obviously needed. Meanwhile, employees were feeling ashamed of the way their work was being publicly ridiculed. The role of the City in protecting the public’s interest was not evident in the individual actions taken by permit administration employees. Erosion of the support Lanspery so carefully cultivated with the City Council, employees and the community since assuming his new job, was his major concern. Lanspery rounded the last grove of trees, eyeing the small office and retail buildings of the Mercer Island business core. They stood in stark contrast to the island’s elegant homes with lake views and high rise urban Seattle in the distance. "This has sure been a different ballgame from San Luis Obispo," thought Lanspery. He had tackled a different set of problems in his last job on the central California coast. Reconciling the tension between economic development and protection of the environment had been a moot point when it came, at least, to land use. With California’s economy on the decline, new construction at a standstill, and strict residential development quotas, the problems were in stark contrast to the development budget of Mercer Island. People on Mercer Island were a unique group. Preservation of the natural beauty of the Pacific Northwest was a high priority. The economy was healthy, with newcomers

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

moving in daily. Island citizens had very high expectations for an accessible and responsive local government. All the more reason why Lanspery had to resolve some of the permit processing problems, with seventy-three new homes, twelve business building projects, and two-hundred-fifty-five remodels anticipated for that year alone. Building activity was focused on second-generation homes which required either extensive renovation or demolition and new construction. These projects were sensitive given their impact on the physical and psychological environment for neighbors. These new homes frequently interrupted established drainage patterns, blocked views, or towered above existing homes. Lanspery felt his management philosophy of "continuous improvement," was consistent with the Mercer Island culture. Just as it sounded, continuous improvement was a simple, but effective means for government units and their employees to be continually challenged to improve operations and customer service. It was a dynamic, participative process, in keeping with Lanspery's commitment to high quality, efficient services. The task now was to continue implementation of this philosophy, sustain support from the key players, and quell the rumblings from the small, but vocal group generating bad press and threatening staff support, just as they were on the verge of change. A Suburban Enclave Growth management on Mercer Island is as complicated and controversial as it is in most Northwest communities. While being required to adhere to regional and state-wide policies affecting land use and development, the City also has to respond to the unique needs of its own geography and population. These factors give rise to multiple, sometimes conflicting, needs and expectations. Even though Mercer Island faced some of the same growth management problems with which all communities wrestled, Lanspery quickly learned about its unique history. Mercer Island was incorporated in 1960, but the entire six square mile island with its fourteen miles of shoreline was not annexed to the City until 1970 when, for the first time, a single governmental jurisdiction assumed responsibility for most government services on the Island including land use planning. The population of 21,000 had long been protective of its open space and scenic shoreline, offering relief from the more congested commercial areas of Seattle, Bellevue and Renton. The generally affluent residents enjoyed their island privacy, enhanced by the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, generous compared to Seattle's minimum of 5,000 square feet, and in specified neighborhoods, only 3,750. Construction on the now well-developed island reflected the previous split in jurisdictional authority for land use planning, with some areas regulated by the King County prior to incorporation and others by the City. Owners and City regulators now contended with non-conforming uses and structures when improving homes and commercial sites.

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

Most of the eight-hundred buildable lots remaining on the island were on steep slopes or had special soil conditions previously considered unbuildable. These lots were now at a premium and innovations in technology and engineering made construction a real possibility. Northwest weather patterns guided restrictions on construction since the fall rains made the steep slopes vulnerable to slides. By ordinance, construction sites had to be winterized by October 1st, new construction was prohibited after that date, and construction begun during the summer had to be sufficiently advanced to have roof drains hooked into the drainage system. The construction season resumed in April. "Mercer Island typically has been a difficult place to build due to soils, slide potential, steep slopes, etc. These conditions require a competent Building Department staff to administer the permit process and review drawings and watch construction," commented a residential architect in response to a survey by the Mercer Island Chamber of Commerce. The City also regulated a myriad of small building and land use projects, accounting for over 70% of the 1,300 permits issued each year. These projects consisted of mechanical permits for furnace piping, plumbing permits for lawn sprinkler systems and hot tub installation, and electrical permits for fire and security alarms. They formed a revenue source for the City, though many were completed illegally, without permits. The health and safety protection, ensured by properly regulated construction, was weakened or lost in these cases. Land Use Players and Pressures Land use policies on Mercer Island were guided by the Mayor, City Council, and the Mercer Island City Manager who, in turn, oversaw actual implementation by the Department of Community Development and other City departments including Maintenance, Engineering, and Public Safety. Over the years, both the policies and their implementation had become trigger points for controversy. Island growth, squeezing space-loving residents together, had polarized neighbors, citizens and developers, and the public at large against the City, all questioning enforcement and interpretation of codes and regulations. The City Council had heard numerous challenges to restrictions in maximum lot coverage and residential building height from citizens fearing the loss of those qualities which had lured them to island life in the first place. City Council appointees on several citizen Boards and Commissions also played roles in implementing land use policy. The Planning Commission made recommendations on general land use issues and the Design Commission suggested policy on the aesthetics of public and commercial projects. The Building Board of Appeals acted as a quasi-judicial body, interpreting the technical language of the Building Code. A variety of legal decisions in Washington state had shifted the locus of responsibility for non-conformance to City building regulations and policies. Historically, builders were

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

held liable for non-conformance, but as they sometimes went out of business or could not respond to judgments, claimants sought recourse from the wealthier entities, the cities. The Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the liability of cities in such cases under a “deep pocket” thesis. This decision led to a more defensive stance through stricter regulation in Mercer Island, as it had in most other jurisdictions. Very recently court rulings had returned the burden for code compliance to builders, increasing the City’s flexibility in its relations with permit applicants. Applying for a Permit - Customers Run the Gauntlet Homeowners and business owners encountered a regulatory maze when applying for permits on Mercer Island. Securing approval to install even a water meter involved a visit to the Department of Community Development (DCD) for a legal description and determination of meter size; a trip to the Engineering and Finance Departments to pick up and pay for the permit; and, finally, the Maintenance Department to get the meter or make installation arrangements. Not surprisingly, many people completed small projects without permits. For larger projects, like new home construction, even more contact with the bureaucracy was required. Applicants were annoyed when they received contradictory information from different City departments. Nonetheless, many citizens tried to follow the rules. Frustrations for applicants, be they homeowners or developers, arose with the first phone call to DCD. Building or planning division secretaries handled initial questions about projects to the extent of their abilities, which varied considerably. The secretaries had neither the formal training nor the authority to decide on substantive matters, leading to confusion and inconsistent responses to some applicants. A new position of Permit Coordinator, reporting to the Director of DCD, had been created in recent years to improve front-line response to technical questions (See Attachment 1). On first contact with the City on a walk-in basis, the customer typically found an ample parking lot, a spacious lobby, and a larger counter area. One small corner of the counter was labeled “Building Permits, Zoning, Land Use.” Here the customer was also likely to speak with the Permit Coordinator. Secretaries referred callers to the Permit Coordinator for preliminary questions about technical requirements and other matters when necessary. The Permit Coordinator was also responsible for tracking permit applications and plans as they wended their way through the various divisions and departments, and served as a liaison to the customer for the duration of the plan review process. For more complicated projects, she arranged for a pre-application conference where representatives of key departments, responsible for subsequent review, discussed project details with applicants (See Attachments 2 and 3). If customers backed up at the counter, the division secretaries would help (See Attachment 4). When the applicant had questions beyond the knowledge of either the secretaries or the Permit Coordinator, other staff members would be called to the counter

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

to give opinions. If the right staff were not available, the applicant was given the card of an appropriate person and told to call back later to get the question answered. It was then up to the applicant to persist until the necessary staff member was contacted. Neither the secretaries nor the Permit Coordinator had authority to make rulings if there were a gray area in a project. They might make comments based upon their experience, but other staff could overrule those opinions at a later time. Those who sought written clarification of building regulations also struck out since the available guidelines for typical projects were not prominently displayed. Even though the Permit Coordinator often mailed them to callers or handed them to walk-ins, they were confusing. DCD had been slowly revising them due to constant complaints about clarity. To add to the chaos, applicants faced delays when staff needed to refer to previous plans or project information since each of the departments responsible for land use and construction regulation kept their own files, turning counter staff into amateur sleuths. When initial confusion on the appropriate content of the application was overcome, both phone and walk-in applicants submitted detailed drawings needed to complete processing of the permit application. Frequently a customer’s headaches didn't end there. The counter person accepted the plans if they appeared to contain adequate information. However, "adequate" was an open question, due to inconsistencies in submission requirements and subsequent requests for required information resulting in delays as applicants scurried to supply the missing data. Delays were risky to applicants due to the “vesting” issue. Vesting occurred upon acceptance of “adequate” remodeling or building plans, meaning that all rules existing on that day governed the project. If an omission was later discovered in plans previously accepted, any new rules or changes to state or local laws would then apply to the project, potentially increasing project expenses. Costs could be incurred even in the absence of a pending rules change, since financing or the sale or lease of a piece of land were sometimes contingent on an active review of the planned project. Last minute details which forced delays could unravel months of business negotiations. Processing the Permit - An Interdepartmental Merry-Go-Round Plans which jumped the hurdles of the initial application and acceptance phase were then subject to review by several divisions and departments (See Attachment 5). The Permit Coordinator hand carried the plans through the review circuit, contacting the applicant if she heard of any problems. With over one hundred permits typically in active review at any one time, often an inquiry by the applicant was the only thing that alerted the Permit Coordinator that a plan was stuck somewhere and she would then jump-start the process. She also received the reviewed plans from each of the divisions and departments, manually logging their progress prior to their advance to the next reviewing unit.

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

The primary responsibility for building and development actions lay in the Department of Community Development, but three other departments also contributed regulatory functions. When a building permit for a new home was needed, the Community Development Department was responsible for the building itself. The Building Division checked plans for compliance with structural codes while the Planning Division of the Department looked at compliance with planning rules like set backs (the minimum distance from the lot line that a structure could be built). If planning issues were present, requiring deviations, variances or rezoning, the Planning Commission would have to review the plans or a hearing examiner might preside over a public hearing to rule on the requested exception to the rules. Notification of neighbors was then required prior to the hearing. The Maintenance Department was responsible for the connections from the structure to the roadway. It checked all plans for proper storm drainage and utility functions such as water and sewer lines. The Engineering Department also played a part in reviewing plans to confirm that existing infrastructure, such as water main and sewer lines, would adequately serve the proposed new structure. Engineering handled the design and review of capital improvement projects (CIP), such as buildings, parks, and roads. Sometimes private development plans languished in the Engineering Department if staff was overwhelmed with CIP work. Finally, the Public Safety Department was charged with ensuring compliance with the Fire Safety portion of the Uniform Building Code. The Fire Marshall verified that proximity to a fire hydrant with adequate flow was within code specifications or, if not, which was often the case, that an adequate sprinkler system was included in the plans. The sequential review process posed inter-departmental communication problems since requirements of one department sometimes impinged on another. For example, rerouting of a sewer line by the Maintenance Department might require Engineering to tear up a newly paved street. Since comments made by one group might only be seen by those departments which followed, the feedback loop was incomplete. Communication with the waiting applicant was similarly convoluted. The Permit Coordinator, reviewing departmental comments as the project circulated through the routing system, called the applicant if she detected a major problem. However, the applicant might be informed that Maintenance had approved the water system, only to later get a call that the Fire Marshall required installation of a sprinkler system. The water system would then have to conform to these new sprinkler requirements. For an anxious applicant, the review time of about eight weeks for a new single family home was a roller coaster ride. The process for review of permit applications for commercial and government buildings was similar to residential construction, with two additional steps. The Design Commission first approved aesthetic elements like landscaping, painting, and public face.

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

The Fire Marshall, in addition to checking the need for sprinkler systems, reviewed compliance with the fire resistant construction codes, which varied depending on intended building use. Appeals of Staff Determinations Sometimes the applicability of an ordinance to a specific project was subject to interpretation by staff and discussions with applicants led to an acceptable compromise. When informal discussion failed, applicants could challenge City decisions on code interpretation with the Building Board of Appeals or with the City Council. Applicants were often motivated to appeal when construction projects they saw as similar were thought to be exempted from the same requirements, or when the process and its requirements threatened the financial or conceptual health of the project. Despite additional costs and delays to their projects, applicant-initiated appeals were often worth the trouble. The Council, the final arbiter, favored the spirit over the letter of the law as well as the broader framework of land use policy over a narrow regulatory perspective. The Council appropriately considered additional policy goals, such as economic development and sensitivity to the electorate, in rendering decisions. Not surprisingly, applicants bringing appeals appreciated the Council's broader view more than their frustrating conflicts with the City staff over isolated segments of the process. The staff, however, felt betrayed by the policy makers when their decisions were overruled, undermining their public image and effectiveness. Inspectors And Inspections Once project plans were reviewed and approved, through either the regular or appeal processes, a permit was issued and actual construction legally began. At designated stages of the construction, between one and fifteen inspections were required. Applicants called a central number, 24 hours in advance, to request required inspections. An appropriate inspector, from either the Maintenance or Building Departments, was dispatched to the site (See Attachment 6). The prioritization process for inspecting buildings by the Maintenance Department inspectors was vague, sometimes slowing response time and delaying construction. For example, there was no clear agreement on whether phone requests for side sewer (those sewers which come out of a house and connect to street sewers) inspections took precedence over routinely scheduled storm drainage maintenance. Although inspections were conducted to verify that work was completed according to approved plans, sometimes the most current version of the plan was not available at the site. This problem stemmed from the multiple department review process in which no single set of plans contained all pertinent comments and revisions. Sometimes an inspector found no plans at all upon arrival at the job site.

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

In addition to problems caused by sequential review, applicant-initiated revisions to plans during the construction phases were not routinely rerouted for review by all departments. At times, an inspector detected a problem at the site which, though built according to plans, violated a code or regulation. Discrepancies from the plans could prompt a required change at any point in the process and some inspectors based decisions on regulatory intent while others stuck to the exact wording of the regulations in their determinations. Applicants blamed both the inspector and other City personnel when these inconsistencies resulted in costly delays in construction. Applicants had recourse through the appeal process for inspection determinations as they did during the permit application phase. In addition, just as line staff were annoyed by City Council reversals, inspectors resented reversals from the appeal process, feeling a lack of City support on one hand and applicant cynicism with contradictions in City enforcement on the other. Construction projects were "finaled" by a last inspection. Again, if accurate plans were not available, some regulated items might be missed, causing serious problems later on. In one case, the City was embroiled in a well publicized problem at a major development when new homeowners were inadvertently allowed to build rockeries and landscape inside a twenty foot easement which was supposed to be a public walkway. This easement had been a condition of the plat, intended to satisfy the concerns of nearby homeowners who felt the plat would interfere with common routes of travel. Inspectors had been out of the loop, leading to intervention by the City Council and the City Attorney to clear the easement after the fact. Other DCD Land Use Responsibilities In addition to regulation of construction, the City also monitored platting, the division and improvement of a large lot into two or more smaller ones for future construction. Developers were responsible for basic improvements like sewers, water, roads, and power, usually posting a bond to ensure completion. The City of Mercer Island became liable for the costs of completing utility improvements when developers failed to post bonds and went out of business midstream. As with the permit application and construction phases, several divisions within DCD regulated platting. City land use regulators also had regulatory responsibility for public improvement projects to roads, parks, or buildings. These too, though internally initiated, wended through multiple departments for approval and inspection. If publicly funded projects were delayed by a bureaucratic glitch, the taxpayer footed the bill. The City Council had the unwelcome duty of dealing with citizen displeasure over these occasional, but well publicized, budget overruns. Capital improvement projects created another dilemma for the staff since there were no guidelines for deciding between capital projects and ongoing regulatory work for homeowners or developers when workloads were heavy. Previous Attempts to Improve the System

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

The City Council had known that the quality of permit processing was, at best, uneven. Other departments involved in land use regulation, like Engineering and Maintenance, viewed DCD, the primary point of contact for the public, as having veto power over them. Relations between staff were strained as each group protected their turf, focusing on their own roles in the permitting process instead of the customer’s overall experience. A few years back, the Council had combined DCD’s Building and Planning Divisions. Management realized that building officials thought planners had their heads in the clouds, unaware of the realities of the construction world. Conversely, planners perceived building officials as narrowly focused on technical details without regard for precedent, or for long term and cumulative impacts. Distrust between the two disciplines persisted despite the reorganization. "Over the years we've tried to troubleshoot the difficult permits," said Jerry Bacon, DCD Director. A technical review committee was formed, prior to creation of the Permit Coordinator position, convening staff from the Building, Engineering, Public Safety, and Maintenance Divisions and others as needed. It was hoped that the pitfalls of sequential review would be overcome for the more complicated projects through this committee structure. Despite good intentions, "the chemistry of the group was all wrong." Several members wouldn't or couldn’t participate. "Typically we would have a meeting and get no response from these people. A week later we would get a memo saying: I want such and such a change in the project." The addition of the technical review committee actually built in more problems as applicants were notified that the committee had met, requesting certain changes, only to receive a request for different changes a week later. "Sometimes the people who came to the meeting did not have the authority to sign off on a project," said Phil Keightly, Engineering Department Director. In addition, agreements reached by the committee were later vetoed by others detecting a previously unnoticed problem. The technical review meetings were replaced by a routing system, overseen by the Permit Coordinator. In frustration, Chief Planner Rohrback sometimes sent memos saying: "If I don't hear from you by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday I will assume you have no objections to the plans." The Planner's office assumed ever more responsibility for plan approval by default, sometimes circumventing other departments. "They [the planners] knew everything so they just decided, but the customer would then make end-runs," explained Keightly.” An applicant, unhappy with the initial decision, might successfully appeal to the Department whose authority had been circumvented.”

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

The City Council’s Perspective While these organizational efforts to improve the land use regulation system were being tested, the Council continued to hear informal and formal appeals to staff land use and construction decisions. While volume was not overwhelming (perhaps one or two a month), the themes sounded like a broken record: Lack of coordination between departments: The city instituted too many change

orders, some appearing as late as the inspection phase. As Keightly described, "One developer of good repute wouldn't [submit a fixed] bid on construction on Mercer Island but only worked on a time and materials basis. The builder felt that city requirements were often poorly communicated until projects were well under way."

An architect working on the island remembered one aborted project. "We thought all

the bases were covered. We met with the Building Official, the owner's structural engineer, soils engineer, architect, contractor and the owner and then made some changes. The project was submitted - all details checked with Rohrbach, the Chief Planner. But the drawings were rejected by the City Engineer who wasn't even represented in the meeting with Rohrbach. The owner abandoned that project."

Differential application of standards: Fred Jarrett, a City Councilmember, summed

up the problem. "The need for consistency is the biggest message from the City Council."

Jarrett didn't want to deal with any more appeals like the case where a permit was

required for changing a cedar roof to tile for one home but not for another. Failure to complete inspections: Inspectors, excluded from the plans review

process, had to read the plans on-site. But if they weren’t available, critical issues would be missed.

A New City Manager -- A New Approach When Paul Lanspery became City Manager of Mercer Island, he realized that the existing permit process was at odds with his continuous improvement and efficient customer service philosophy. He had introduced the concept at department head meetings, followed by a two day director's retreat, a first in island governance. Managers were encouraged to reconsider departmental missions and objectives and set new strategies to meet them. He asked departments to link specific goals with budget objectives for the next fiscal year, a new experience for the group. Lanspery stressed that some of these objectives should address issues of continuous improvement. Shortly thereafter, Lanspery invited the City Council on a retreat at which he described the continuous improvement approach in the context of Mercer Island City government

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

as a whole. Intrigued, the City Council decided to test the continuous improvement model in DCD as a spearhead for improving City government. They allocated funds for an outside evaluation of needed improvements to DCD. According to Rich Conrad, Assistant City Manager, "The Community Development Department had the highest potential for day to day conflict because of its regulatory role and high private financial stakes." If successful change could be made there, it might be a touchstone for other city departments. Lanspery felt that long-lasting change must come from the staff itself. He launched them on a path of self evaluation and self determination and hired a consultant to perform a management audit of the Department. Susan and Peter Glaser of Glaser and Associates, well known in the Northwest for their work with small cities, were selected for the job. They focused primarily on working with staff, developers, and others to identify broad issues and suggest a process for problem resolution. Mark Meadows - A Minor Nuisance or Major Crisis? The Glaser firm jumped right in on a Monday morning, interviewing stakeholders in land use and development regulation as a first step in their audit. A publicity crisis erupted on Tuesday. Mark Meadows, a thirty year old newcomer to the Island, purchased property to build a three-bedroom home for his family. Like most of the undeveloped lots, his was on the proverbial steep Mercer Island-type slope. His contractor drew up plans for the house which Meadows presented to the City to begin the permit process. They were both surprised when the plans were rejected. The plans were revised, resubmitted, and rejected a second time. The Planning Commission, in conjunction with DCD, had developed strict guidelines circumscribing building on the Island’s steep slopes some years earlier. Though tighter than those in nearby cities, most developers figured them out and successfully addressed the rules during the permit process. Others, mystified by the rules, tried to save time by securing material to study prior to preparing an application, but comprehensive information was unavailable. DCD relied on “advisory” guidelines which were subject to interpretation or even waiver, at their discretion. To counter Mr. Meadows assertion that the City was discriminating against him because of his choice of contractor, the City submitted his plans to the International Conference of Building Officials, a professional organization, which also found substantial difficulties with the plans. Mr. Meadows chose to argue publicly and in the press. He camped out on his land, bringing in a bathtub and a clothesline as visual assaults on the people traveling by. After several months, Mr. Meadows submitted an acceptable application. Gaining his building permit, however, did not end his frustration with the permitting process. He hired men from a local day-labor source to picket City Hall and the Mayor’s home. He took out advertisements in the local newspaper soliciting other horror stories about

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

dealings with the Community Development Department. He claimed about two hundred people had responded to his advertisement. They formed a group called Very Concerned Citizens of Mercer Island. One person who joined Mr. Meadows group of aggrieved citizens later recanted, saying he had been frustrated when he was required to do $10,000 worth of soils engineering before he could get his permit. Later when his land slid but his house didn't, he felt less angry. Staff were anxious. They were subjected to harassment as they passed through the picket lines and faced direct hits from the public as the front line workers. The Seattle papers picked up the Meadows story and the reporter who interviewed staff was, in their view, obnoxious and sensational in his approach. The silence from the City, Mayor, and senior managers after the story broke, left staff out on a limb. Despite adverse and widespread publicity from the Meadows incident, Lanspery regularly informed the Council about what was actually happening in the Department. The Council kept hands-off while he implemented his management plan. Lanspery appreciated the support of the Council. "I try to keep the Council informed of the institutional health [of the City]. Maybe if this were my ninth year on the job, they would have been less patient." Lanspery had worked hard at establishing good relations with the Council. His weekly reports were complete, factual and clear in anticipating future issues and problems. In addition, his interactions with Councilmembers at the retreat had been well received. He had approached them as a facilitator, supported their development of an organized approach to land use policy and regulation, but did not interfere with their policy-making role. They viewed him as a partner, committed to improving City government. An additional outfall of Mr. Meadows protest solidified the Council's support. As a direct result of the publicity garnered by Meadows, the Chamber of Commerce did their own survey of professionals involved in construction and land use. The results of that survey turned up general satisfaction with the City: certainly not enthusiasm, but a general feeling among the professionals that Mercer Island's procedures were about what they were used to in other jurisdictions. Despite the uproar from the Meadows incident, Lanspery's continuous improvement program in DCD advanced. The consultants completed interviews with staff and citizens involved in land use and development issues. “The Glaser Report,” (See Attachment 7) recommending an action plan to improve building and land development functions, was eagerly awaited by staff, who by this time, were open to almost any change to the status quo.

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

The Audit Report Lanspery was fairly sure the consultants would see a need for change. As he finished his lunch time run, he tried to envision a process for change which would result in resolution of the chronic problems which Mercer Island's Department of Community Development had endured. He needed to defuse, if not stop, the public criticism evoked from the Meadows incident and sustain the carefully cultivated support from the City Council and department directors. The staff and building inspectors needed reassurance that the City was behind them and valued their roles in providing important services to the community. "Change, even positive change, takes time and creates stress," thought Lanspery. "How can I keep all these groups together long enough to complete the work necessary to provide quality service, not just a band aid?” Later that afternoon, as Lanspery thumbed through the consultant’s report he tried to define for himself what the real problems were and what alternatives were available to him.

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

Moments of Truth in Information Gathering

Can I find the phone number? Does a real person answer without a long wait? Can I find the right address? Can I find the right room? Is there anyone at the counter or desk? How long do I have to wait? Is there a comfortable place to wait if I have to wait? Is the person who talks to me friendly and pleasant? Do they know what they are talking about? If they can’t answer my question, is someone else available? If someone else is not immediately available, how easy will it be to contact them later? Can staff find the information they need from their internal files? Is there written material I can take home? Is the written material understandable and correct? Is there a way for me to make sure I have asked all the right questions? Do I have all the information I need?

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

Moments of Truth in Submitting an Application

Can I find the right address? Can I find the right room? Is there anyone at the counter or desk? How long do I have to wait? Is there a comfortable place to wait if I have to wait? Is the person who talks to me friendly and pleasant? Do they remember me? Are they familiar with my project if I’ve been in before? Do I have all the information they need? Are they helpful if I have forgotten something? Do they surprise me with any new requirements now? Can they tell me how long it will be before I get my permit?

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

Moments of Truth in Application Review

Do I get a call asking for more information? Do they surprise me with any new requirements? When I call to ask about the status of my permit, can they find it? Do I get consistent information about the review? Can they tell me how long it will be before I get my permit?

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

Moments of Truth in Inspections Do I know when I need an inspector? Do I know how to get an inspector? Can I get an inspector when I need one? Does the inspector seem to know my project? Does the inspector know what to inspect? Is the inspector telling me things which contradict the last inspector? Is the inspector telling me things which contradict any other staff I have talked to? Do they surprise me with any new requirements?

Permit Processing on Mercer Island (A)

Attachment 7 Summary of Glaser Report Findings

Performance of Human Systems 1. There is a lack of coordination and accountability among the key development

departments. 2. Distrust and confusion fosters area loyalty, not cross functional assistance. 3. Disagreement about enforcement authority impedes the process. 4. Unclear, unwritten, or nonexistent standards generate feelings of unfairness,

subversion of the process, and a general sense of futility. 5. Backup for key positions is thin. 6. Implicit distinctions between “men’s work” and “women’s work” is robbing the

organization of a potential resource. 7. Poor attitudes are more disturbing than time delays in the eyes of developers. 8. The performance mapping process is not emphasizing informal feedback or inter-

departmental cooperation. Performance of Technical Systems 1. Standard operating procedures are often unwritten and implementation is

inconsistent. 2. Regulators do not have easy access to needed documentation. 3. The process needs more up-front assistance. 4. The current regulatory process is not user-friendly, is not flexible, and creates

replication of work. 5. Plans get stuck in the process. 6. Coordination issues can cause completed work to be redone. 7. Some planners would like to assume more responsibility and reduce work for

customers. 8. Perceived political pressures create time constraints inhibiting thorough work

processes. 9. CIP and regulation demands seem to be having a debilitating effect on one another. 10. Codes, rules, laws need to be re-examined and refined. 11. Data processing resources and data collection are insufficient to support requirements

of the Development Services Function.