Members of the HBA’s Government Affairs Committee and members from the development community met recently with City of Springfield Deputy Manager Fred Marty regarding his charge to reengineer the development/redevelopment process for the city. Marty reviewed the Collabortive Community Development document with the group which outlines the proposed development philosophy. (Download CCD – see attached so you can upload for download:) Marty explained though that for the words and concepts of the CCD to be understood and practiced by the staff, it must be paired with the necessary cultural, organizational, technological, customer service training and leadership components.
Members present shared that communication is perhaps the primary obstacle in the process. As well, the suggestion was made that having a staff person responsible for “shepherding” a project through the process, rather than it moving from department to department in isolation, could definitely expedite the process and improve quality control. Marty shared that changes he has already proposed to improve the process include setting timetables and monitoring them on a continuous basis – plus, that data will be tied to staff performance evaluations. Marty is also placing emphasis on improving communication by beefing up the pre-application communication process and on the administrative review meetings at completion.
Marty listened to both specific anecdotal information as well as questions from the group and asked members to contact him in his function as a type of customer ombudsman while changes are implemented, probably starting in early March. To follow up, Marty provided additional specific answers to questions following the meeting including:
- Is BDS capable of issuing permits on line? Response: Testing is in progress by BDS w/two pilot firms; may have bugs out by March 1st.
- Will BDS reject plans if incomplete? Response: We aim to try. Difficulty is how to tell upon desk review the level of plan incompleteness. Clearly, we intend to reject if plans are found to be “inaccurate.” We will correspond firmly with the design consultant to point out dissatisfaction with incomplete and inaccurate plans. Correspondence will be directed to the respective designer, developer and owner. We will also notify the tenant if the plan is for a commercial infill project.
- “Opening the hood” on issues of disagreement. Response: We will be happy to meet with concerned developers when a planning issue varies from statute, ordinance or code, and if common-sense guidance was not applied.
- Can we assign a “facilitator” for every project to track plans though the process? Response: We believe this may be doable already but may have an issue with final plat matters since the process is fairly diversified. Analysis is underway.
- Number of inspections required. Response: We recognize the need to be consistent; BDS has this for action.
- Can the City establish a “portal” for developers to email questions? Response: We are researching if this is possible, perhaps using the County website with an address that will route query to an in-box where a knowledgeable monitor can send it to the appropriate expert and obtain a responsive, informed reply. It’s difficult to anticipate the volume we might expect from such a program. We don’t want to create unrealistic expectations by users; the dilemma is to be able to ensure messages don’t build-up without a response, or that this innovative communication method becomes a distraction to other expected tasks to meet review timelines. Staffing could be an issue. We may want to discuss this with the development community at a DIIG meeting.
- Who has authority to approve landscape escrow options at selected times of the year? Inspector consistency is important. Response: BDS is working on a policy to provide more clear guidance.
- Can the City establish a “portal” for developers to email questions? Response: We are researching if this is possible, perhaps using the County website with an address that will route query to an in-box where a knowledgeable monitor can send it to the appropriate expert and obtain a responsive, informed reply. It’s difficult to anticipate the volume we might expect from such a program. We don’t want to create unrealistic expectations by users; the dilemma is to be able to ensure messages don’t build-up without a response, or that this innovative communication method becomes a distraction to other expected tasks to meet review timelines. Staffing could be an issue. We may want to discuss this with the development community at a DIIG meeting.
- Who has authority to approve landscape escrow options at selected times of the year? Inspector consistency is important. Response: BDS is working on a policy to provide more clear guidance.
- Can the City establish a “portal” for developers to email questions? Response: We are researching if this is possible, perhaps using the County website with an address that will route query to an in-box where a knowledgeable monitor can send it to the appropriate expert and obtain a responsive, informed reply. It’s difficult to anticipate the volume we might expect from such a program. We don’t want to create unrealistic expectations by users; the dilemma is to be able to ensure messages don’t build-up without a response, or that this innovative communication method becomes a distraction to other expected tasks to meet review timelines. Staffing could be an issue. We may want to discuss this with the development community at a DIIG meeting.
- Who has authority to approve landscape escrow options at selected times of the year? Inspector consistency is important. Response: BDS is working on a policy to provide more clear guidance.
If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact Information & Education Committee Chair & HBA President Matt Bailey, or HBA Government Affairs Specialist Jennifer McClure.