external review of permitting processes: phase three -...

External Review of Permitting Processes: Phase Three

Prepared by Kelly Johnston, MSOD

Clarity Consulting Partners

October 2016

1 External Review of Permitting Processes, Phase Three

October 2016

Executive Summary The Lewis County area is economically challenged

by unemployment, underemployment and

generational poverty. Community leaders and

community members are seeking ways to improve

the economic health of the area in order to

improve the overall quality of life. One possible

approach is to leverage the cheaper land and lower

development costs to encourage new businesses

to locate here. This benefits the community in

multiple ways – new jobs, additional tax revenue,

and construction acts as an economic kick-3starter

for a local economy.

A group of community leaders involved in

economic development views the permitting

processes of the three largest jurisdictions (Cities

of Centralia and Chehalis and Lewis County) as vital components to this work. When the lower

development costs are combined with a healthy and effective permitting system, it translates to

a competitive advantage for this area that can encourage businesses to invest in our area. As with

any process improvement effort, the voice of the customer is a key component to identifying

where to invest resources for improvement. This project, sponsored by five community

organizations, reviewed the customer experience from hundreds of customers, through focus

groups, interviews and a survey.

This report provides a summary of the customer feedback, and compares the current state to

phase two of this project, conducted in 2009.

This Is a (Mostly) Good News Story

Customer satisfaction with all three jurisdictions is high. The County is to be commended for their

improvement over the years in the area of customer satisfaction. Both Cities have sustained good

levels of customer satisfaction. Many people shared that they like working in Lewis County and

that they can build positive working relationships with the government representatives. They find

that the process and regulations here are less onerous than in other places. This report shares

many of these positive experiences, and the quantitative results from the survey reflect an overall

positive situation.

Here are some of the positive themes that emerged:

Major opportunities for encouraging new business exist and can be capitalized on.

There is a shared understanding of what a “business-friendly” process is: fair,

transparent, predictable and reasonable. No one had unreasonable expectations for

what the government agencies should be doing.

2

Customer service is high, and staff are accessible and willing to help – more so than

other areas.

Most projects get permitted fairly quickly, and faster than in other areas.

As with any review process, opportunities for improvement were also identified. A few of the

larger improvement themes that emerged include:

The UGA accountabilities are not always clear and hinder development.

On-line presence and function is seriously under-utilized.

Fractured relationships within the community are damaging progress.

Government leadership are missing opportunities to set clear vision and direction related

to economic development.

Predictable timelines are still not in place, and are critical to encouraging development.

Customers do not perceive that government agencies feel the same sense of urgency.

Commercial customers and developers feel that government employees often do not

understand their business context and the costly impact of delays, unclear decisions, and

variable interpretations of codes.

This report contains many recommendations for the government jurisdictions to consider. Some

of these recommendations are low hanging fruit – small and easy to implement. Others require

more of a commitment. We hope that all will be carefully considered.

A complete list of all recommendations is available at the end of this report.


October 2016

Contents

Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 1

Project Background and Purpose___________________________________________ 5

Project Purpose _____________________________________________________________ 5

Why Is This Important? The role of permitting in a local community’s economic health. ___ 5

Project Sponsors ____________________________________________________________ 7

Guiding Principles ___________________________________________________________ 7

Phases 1 and 2 ______________________________________________________________ 7

Phase 3 Project Scope ________________________________________________________ 7

About the Consultant ________________________________________________________ 8

Methodology __________________________________________________________ 9

“Voice of the Customer” ______________________________________________________ 9

Sources for Customer Input ____________________________________________________ 9

Government Perspective – Our Subject Matter Experts ____________________________ 11

General Findings _______________________________________________________ 12

Opportunity Knocks _________________________________________________________ 12

Rowing in the Same Direction _________________________________________________ 13

What is a “Business Friendly” Permitting Process? ________________________________ 17

Positives to Build On ________________________________________________________ 18

A Missing Link: Line of Sight to the Customer Context _____________________________ 19

UGA “Unclear Government Accountabilities?” ___________________________________ 20

The Land of Opportunity is On-Line ____________________________________________ 21

Customer Segments _________________________________________________________ 25

Jurisdictional Results ___________________________________________________ 26

Organization of This Section __________________________________________________ 26

City of Centralia ____________________________________________________________ 27

City of Chehalis ____________________________________________________________ 33

Lewis County ______________________________________________________________ 37

Building on Phase One and Two __________________________________________ 48

4

Closing Remarks _______________________________________________________ 51

Appendix A: Project Timeline _____________________________________________ 53

Appendix B: Example of a Simple Flow Chart for Customers ____________________ 54

Appendix C: Customer Satisfaction Survey __________________________________ 55


October 2016

Project Background and Purpose

Project Purpose

The purpose of this project is to strengthen local government permitting processes by exploring

the customer experience and providing recommendations based on the customer’s experience.

The three jurisdictions involved are the City of Centralia, City of Chehalis and Lewis County.

Why Is This Important? The role of permitting

in a local community’s economic health.

Construction of all kinds is one of the foundations of

local economic development. Commercial development

allows businesses to locate and grow in the community,

bringing jobs and dollars in. Residential development

kick starts the economic engine, bringing jobs and

dollars. Remodels and site preparation also feed the

local economy.

There are several resources that assess the economic

impact that development brings to a local community.

The Nevada Rural Housing Authority offered this

research-based assessment:

Economic Impacts of the Development of 100 Single Family Housing Units Based on an average metropolitan statistical area, and homes with an average construction value

of $145,372.

Jobs Supported

Wage and Salaries

Business Owners’ Income

Local Taxes

One Year Impact 253 $7,388,000 $2,670,000 $854,000

Annual Recurring Impact 76 $1,983,000 $416,000 $393,000

Source: Nevada Rural Housing Authority;

http://nvrural.org/sites/default/files/EconomicImpact_web.pdf

None of this work can be done without an effective permitting process.

•Construction-Related Jobs: contractors, realtors, lenders, site preparation, etc.

•One-Time Tax Revenue

•Annual Tax Revenue

Primary Benefits

•Construction Materials Suppliers

•Finishing and Furnishing Suppliers

•Lodging and Meals Providers

Secondary Benefits

•Tax Revenue for Schools

•Tax Revenue for Community Improvements

•Stronger Employment Base

Tertiary Benefits

Economic Benefits of

Construction and Development

6

Permitting is either the grease or the molasses for many kinds of economic development. We

asked focus group participants and interviewees what the value is of a healthy permitting process:

Permitting is one of the things different industries coming into the county look at. They look for

predictability and answers because time is money.

It is tremendously important. If we want to get our county anywhere near the state averages for

employment, we’ve got to be able to say, “Come to Lewis County with your good paying jobs and

we’ll do everything we can to make it possible.”

It’s huge. When we’re doing small projects, we can do the project quicker than the county can

permit. Sometimes we have to take a few days or a week off while we’re waiting for the permit.

It’s like dominos. A good permitting process gets the project on the tax roll faster, gets people

employed, helps businesses that sells the supplies.

If the process is broken, it becomes a timeline scenario for a contractor/developer. If you can’t get

your comments and info back, it costs more money – materials costs increase, ownership trying to

build is frustrated, they have employees they need to employ and it grows as an impact.

A healthy community, where things get done, draws business.

A permitting process that allows the work to proceed smoothly feeds a “virtuous reinforcing

loop.” It builds on itself, drawing in more and more business, all contributing to the health of the

community.

This project represents a commitment from the sponsoring organizations to our local community.

They understand the critical role permitting has, and offered their own resources to solicit

customer feedback and provide suggestions in order to ensure the process is as healthy as it

possibly could be. It was not driven by a particular event or concern, but by a belief in the value

of continuous improvement, helping the customer, and making our community attractive to new

business and development.

Permitting process is healthy

Investors choose the area

Development provides revenue

More people employed at better wages

Community resources increase -schools, infrastructure, quality of life


October 2016

As one interviewee said,

At my company, we do an annual 360 – don’t always hear things we want to hear, but it helps a

lot.

This project is an opportunity for the government agencies to hear what their customer’s thoughts

are on improving the process. They may not want to hear everything, but it can help a lot.

Project Sponsors

The project was sponsored by five local organizations:

Centralia-Chehalis Chamber of Commerce, represented by Alicia Bull

Industrial Park at Trans-Alta, represented by Allyn Roe

Olympia Master Builders, represented by Troy Nichols

Port of Centralia, represented by Kyle Heaton

Port of Chehalis, represented by Randy Mueller

Guiding Principles

The Steering Committee established a set of guiding principles for the project. These were used to keep focused on the core purpose of the project and to communicate intent to the government agencies involved and the community.

1. This effort is focused on data not personalities.

2. This is a check-up, intended to strengthen the health of our community.

3. We want to partner with our local jurisdictions in this process, seeking to include both inside and outside voices.

4. This is important to all of us, and we want to help the community understand how permitting processes contribute to the economic health of our community.

5. We want to be proactive about our community’s growth.

6. We want to encourage the use of appropriate, legal flexibility to achieve effective and efficient permitting.

7. We believe consistency is important in the permitting process.

Phases 1 and 2

Similar efforts were conducted in 2007 and 2009. These reports are available at the Centralia-

Chehalis Chamber of Commerce website: http://chamberway.com/.

Phase 3 Project Scope

This project focused on the customer experience of the permitting processes in the three local

jurisdictions. It included permits related to building and land use. Customers who applied for

permits from 2012 – June 2016 were invited to participate.

8

The project did not include a review of processes in other jurisdictions for benchmarking

purposes, except for some limited research regarding on-line resources available in other

jurisdictions.

A project timeline is included in Appendix A.

About the Consultant

Kelly Johnston, with Clarity Consulting Partners, led the project. She also led the previous two

phases. She holds a master’s degree in organizational health and development.

She has worked extensively with local and state levels of government, both as a public servant

and as a consultant. Her areas of expertise include enterprise performance management,

performance measures, process improvement, executive team alignment, aligning organizational

structure to strategy, leadership development and change management.


October 2016

Methodology

“Voice of the Customer”

The term “voice of the customer” comes from lean/six sigma practices. The idea is that value is

defined by the customer, and processes are identified and then tightened to reduce waste. A

continuous improvement process is used until all waste has been eliminated.

The foundational principle is that value is defined by the customer. In order to understand how

the customer defines what is valuable, the voice of the customer must be sought out and utilized

on a routine basis. This project focused on hearing the voice of the customer in order to help

strengthen the processes involved.

A Note on Government

This project focused on the primary customer of the permitting system – landowners who were

interested in developing or improving their land for residential, commercial and industrial

purposes. Government has secondary and tertiary “customers” who represent other interests

government is designed to protect – like environmental, future owners of properties, communal

land use, etc. For this reason, there are steps in the permitting process that are non-value added

for the customer. At times, government will challenge the value of the customer perspective if it

does not represent all stakeholders. In our discussions with customers through this project, there

is a shared acceptance that the process includes elements of regulation and compliance that don’t

directly support their efforts, and they did not seek changes to the process that would exclude

other interests.

Sources for Customer Input

Interviews

We conducted seven interviews with individuals who were positioned to have unique insights into

the process. People interviewed included:

Customers currently working through the process on large projects that included both

land use and building permitting

Land use attorneys and planning professionals who work in this area and other counties

in the state

Focus Groups

21 people participated in six different focus groups. The focus groups were 90 minutes. Each

group was asked the same set of questions:

What is your experience with the permitting system and in which jurisdiction?

How would you describe the value of a healthy permitting process for our community?

What is working well?

What isn’t working well?

How clear is the path for the customer from application to issuance?

10

How timely is the process?

What change would you suggest that would make a significant different to the process?

What do you suggest we ask in the customer survey?

The focus groups included:

Customer Satisfaction Survey

A customer satisfaction survey was sent to all applicants in the three jurisdictions who applied for

a building or land use permit between January 2012-June 2016. We used three collection

methods: direct email link, web collector and hard copy surveys.

801 surveys were sent out, 36 returned as undeliverable or unusable. 130 total responses were

gathered for a 17% response rate. This is slightly lower but in line with previous efforts: phase one

overall response rate was 22%, and phase two was 21%.

Survey Response Rate

Email Hard Copy (includes

web collectors) Combined

Originally sent 203 598 801

undeliverable/returned 9 27 36

total # 194 571 765

Returned 76 54 130

Response rate 39% 9% 17%

2007 Overall: 22%

2009 Overall: 21%

Realtors and Lenders

Surveyors, Title Companies and

Engineers

General Contractors

Well Drillers and Septic Installers

Commissioners and Executives

East County


October 2016

Government Perspective – Our Subject Matter Experts

The Steering Committee sought several opportunities to include the perspective of people

working in the process – the government employees. At the start of the project, the consultant

met with the City Manager of Centralia, the City Manager of Chehalis, and the County

Commissioners and the Community Development Directors in all three jurisdictions to explain the

project, answer questions, respond to concerns and ask for their support.

Technical Advisory Group

A Technical Advisory Group, composed of representatives from each of the three jurisdictions,

met twice to review focus group inputs, survey design, and initial survey returns. Jurisdictions

were invited to send as many people as they wanted. Each jurisdiction chose to send one person.

Employee Survey

The Steering Committee selected to use an employee survey as one way to understand the

employee’s work environment and context. The Committee selected the Denison Organizational

Culture Survey (DOCS) for this purpose. The DOCS is used by more than 5,000 organizations world-

wide as a tool to evaluate organizational culture. This instrument uses normative scoring – results

are benchmarked against a global database comparing high and low performing organizations. It

is rooted in 25 years of research linking organizational culture and leadership practices to various

performance metrics.

The DOCS was used in Phase 2. It requires 10-12 minutes for an employee to complete, thus

minimizing disruption in the workplace.

The City of Centralia and Lewis County participated in the DOCS. The City of Chehalis elected not

to participate.

Observation, Interviews and Artifact Review

As described in the Guiding Principles, the Steering Committee sought to partner with the

government agencies throughout the process. In order to do this, we asked each government

agency, during our initial meeting, to let us know who we should talk to in the agency to learn

more, what documents and materials are provided to the customer that we could review to

understand the process, and what meetings might be appropriate to attend. We specifically asked

to attend the pre-submission meetings for each jurisdiction, and any other meetings that would

be helpful in understanding the process.

City of Chehalis and Lewis County provided information for attending their pre-submission

meetings. All jurisdictions directed us to resources on-line for review. Centralia provided a few

background documents. Beyond that, we were repeatedly told that the employees were too busy

to participate and would not be available for additional requests.

12

General Findings

Opportunity Knocks

The Lewis County area has the opportunity to attract

new and significant development. We have a

competitive advantage right now when compared to

multiple other counties. Developers are interested in

bringing their resources to the area and making an

investment in the area. They see many potential

benefits and opportunities in setting up their

businesses here. (See Sidebar: Opportunity Knocks in

Lewis County)

Several people mentioned their appreciation for the

sense of support and positive working relationships

they had – they have a perception that they can get

things “done on a handshake” and move quickly. This

is by no means universal. If it were, however, and the

Lewis County area developed a strong reputation for

being a great place to build, it is clear that money and

jobs would follow.

Cost Comparisons

Our area currently has lower costs for people

interested in land development and construction.

This is an advantage that can be capitalized on.

A comparison of costs between the City of Chehalis, Lewis County and Thurston County

demonstrates this advantage. The following table is not comprehensive, but offers a sampling of

different fees:

Chehalis (2015) Lewis County (2015) Thurston County (2016)

Boundary Line Adjustment $250 $575 $1,155

Pre-Submission Conference $0 $100/hour $1,043

Demolition Permit $28 $30.85 $145

Comprehensive Plan Amendment

$300 $2,500 $3,917

Impact Fees $0 $0 SFR Transportation: $1,936.00

SFR Parks: $1,157.00

Why people want to develop in

Lewis County:

Land is cheaper and available

Unemployment and

underemployment means there

is a willing and available

workforce.

Permitting fees are cheaper –

no impact fees, etc.

No gophers.

Proximity to I-5 and major

metropolitan areas.

Most people find the local

jurisdictions are reasonable to

work with.

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS IN LEWIS COUNTY


October 2016

However, the benefits are predicated on being able to get projects done faster and cheaper than

in other jurisdictions. Developers made it clear that when the permitting process is obstructive, it

raises their costs.

Business Costs of Difficult Permitting Processes

One developer said it clearly:

People come here because the costs are less than other places like King

[County]. If the costs go up due to delays, legal hoops, etc., then they’re

close to each other in cost. If a company has to make a decision about

where to locate (King, Tacoma, Fife) and the costs are similar, then they

won’t go to Lewis County because there is a transportation factor.

Rowing in the Same Direction

One professional explained that land use projects are based

on a three-legged stool: regulation, personality and politics.

The person went on to explain:

You only need two to win. Personality and politics can

sometimes stop a project that otherwise meets the code.

One of the more difficult aspects of this project has been to

understand the role of local leadership in creating an

environment for successful development and progress. While many people have had positive,

smooth experiences working with government employees at the counter, the larger political and

leadership context has created a situation where entities that could be working together for the

benefit of our community are often locked into conflict. People shared stories of when personality

and politics “won” and prevented projects from successfully moving forward.

Slow Permitting

•Employees and equipment idle

•Material Costs Increase

•Overall project delays due to missing seasonal "construction window"

•Contractors now on different job and not available

Unclear Decision-Making

•Expense of hiring legal counsel to clarify requirements

•Cost of attending additional review meetings

•Owner abandons project

Unclear Process

•Applications have to be re-submitted

•Work that could happen concurrently is delayed

Land Use

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Three-Legged+Stool+Clip+Art&view=detailv2&&id=79B5E289A3E7F552B7D745EC2FD3DAC7F8F32F72&selectedIndex=0&ccid=WIFqFu%2bi&simid=607999106360675655&thid=OIP.M58816a16efa256b18439da08a385584do0

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Three-Legged+Stool+Clip+Art&view=detailv2&&id=79B5E289A3E7F552B7D745EC2FD3DAC7F8F32F72&selectedIndex=0&ccid=WIFqFu%2bi&simid=607999106360675655&thid=OIP.M58816a16efa256b18439da08a385584do0

14

People who are outside the local community notice the

conflict, and experience some of the downsides to it. This hurts

the overall reputation of the area, and could cause people to

think twice about investing in projects here.

One focus group discussed the loss of some business for the

area because of a lack of collaboration:

We lost a huge industrial project for that reason – the cities

wouldn’t work together, process was difficult, we lost tens of

millions of dollars – gone. We need trained staff that will work

together.

It is insulting to the businesses to be treated this way by their

government.

A focus group member sees that things may be starting to shift.

Several key organizations (this project’s Steering Committee is

an example) are meeting together and communicating. Not our town vs. your town – they get

together and provide free expertise to one another. If you have a strong permitting process, and

people who talk back and forth and communicate, and not so many articles in the Chonicle –

potential employers look at this.

Given the “three-legged stool” concept, leadership has the opportunity to set the tone for how

politics, regulations and personalities will work together to strengthen the local community. It is

not enough to say that they want to work together, they must actually be respectful, open and

inviting, and provide the follow-through that allows things to happen. When that is in place, it

gives customers a sense of confidence, and a greater patience to work through the inevitable

issues in a process. One customer said it well:

Leadership and climate. Leadership promotes a climate of service. If the expectations of the staff

is on service and focuses on service and delivery, you will see a definite change in the attitudes and

type of engagement. This leads to better perceptions and customers can deal better with bumps

in the process because they believe that overall it works.

Was this Project an Example or an Outlier?

The Steering Committee felt it would be instructive to include a brief mention regarding the

experience of leading this particular project. It was unnecessarily difficult, and the question

emerged: Was the experience with this project a microcosm of the overall process and

environment, or an outlier and not representative of the larger system?

This project represented an opportunity for business leaders and government representatives to

work together to strengthen the permitting process. Business leaders provided the funding and

customer perspective. Government representatives were repeatedly provided opportunities to

be involved and provide information and expertise. Several government leaders expressed public

They [people in the Lewis County

area] suffer from what constantly

seems to be a little bit of a turf war

going on. Not unique to the area,

but certainly worse there…. Set

common goals, get people to go out

and execute it, and achieve those

goals. Instead of saying I won’t do

that because the other group is

doing it.

- Individual with experience in

several jurisdictions


October 2016

support for the effort and an interest in partnering closely on the project. In some cases, it went

very smoothly. Information was provided in a timely manner, meetings were generally friendly

and open. In many cases, however, it did not.

Here are a few examples of the difficulties experienced in completing the project:

- Agencies did the “bare minimum” to respond to requests, in some instances being what

seemed as purposefully unclear regarding a request.

- Comments that discounted the project and the value of customer feedback, particularly

related to the survey.

- Public statements about leveraging resources between this effort and a similar one

funded by the County were not followed up on with contact information and access.

- Requests for information were delayed.

- Repeated statements that employees were “too busy” to participate and that this took

time away from their customers. Concurrently, however, the County held an internal

review process that consisted of five full days of meeting times for some employees.

- A County Commissioner exhibited hostile and aggressive behavior.

- Blame for the challenges related to economic development was repeatedly placed on

outside organizations.

While the above comments are subjective, one lens through which the experience could be

evaluated is by the responsiveness of each jurisdiction to requests for support and help with the

project. Here is a recount of that process, as of October 7, 2016.

City of Centralia

Original Request Original Request Date Date Received Duration App. # of follow-

ups required

Single Point of Contact 7/11/16 7/11/16 1 day 0

Names for Denison 7/11/16 7/22/16 11 days 1

Permit Applicants with Email

Addresses

7/11/16 7/11 with no

emails; 8/18 final

38 days 2

Names of People for TAG 7/11/16 7/11/16 1 day 0

Info on meetings to observe,

other materials to review

7/11/16 7/11/16 – told to

look on-line

1

16

City of Chehalis

Lewis County

Request Original

Request Date Date Received Duration

App. # of follow-

ups required

Single Point of Contact 8/1/16 Not provided 68 days

Names for Denison 7/18/16 9/14/16 59 days 13


Addresses

7/18/16 8/18/16 32 days 9

Names of People to participate

in TAG

7/18/16 8/3/16? 14 days 5

Info on mtgs to observe, other

materials to review

7/18/16 9/19: ask

consultant to

attend staff mtg

64 days Several times

reiterated

availability

Impact WA info 7/18/16 9/26/16 – received

report, but no

charter, scope or

additional info

81 days* 11

Offer to Meet with Impact WA

consultant

7/18/16 Not provided 81 days >11

East County Focus Group 6/10/16 8/17/16 68 to schedule/

104 to hold

5

EDC Info 8/24/16 9/16/16 23 days 3

*County offered to provide Impact WA charter info on 10/7/16. At that point, it was too late to be

used, so we told the County it was no longer needed.

Original Request Original

Request Date Date Received Duration

App. # of follow-ups

required

Single Point of Contact 7/12/16 7/12/16 1 day 0

Names for Denison 7/12/16 7/27/16 (not

participating)

15 days 3


Addresses

7/12/16 7/28/16 16 days 5 – worked on format

and email addresses

Names of People to participate

in TAG

7/12/16 7/27/16 15 days 3

Info on mtgs to observe, other

materials to review

7/12/16 7/27/16 – told to

look on-line

15 days 3


October 2016

It is possible that this particular project is not representative of the common experience. In fact,

many customers were exceedingly positive about their experience. The sense of discomfort,

however, with community stakeholders gathering customer input to provide feedback and

suggestions to the local jurisdictions, was very high in this case.

Recommendation 1: Elected officials and appointed leaders demonstrate in words and actions

their interest in and support for customer input. Increase responsiveness to requests from

stakeholder groups.

What is a “Business Friendly” Permitting Process?

Over the course of the project, we asked multiple people for the definition of a business-friendly

process. On this topic, people of all perspectives shared the same understanding of a business-

friendly process.

A business friendly process is:

Government agencies often say that they want to be respectful, responsive and right. This is

exactly what businesses want from their government as well. There is an opportunity for both

sides of the counter to work together. One interviewee remembered a previous time when the

government planner was a part of the sales team. The planner would meet with potential

developers to learn about the project and provide feedback on what would be required to

successfully complete the project.

Not trying to harpoon government employees or anything like that. It just could be so much better.

I want them to be more than just regulators. I want them to be part of the development team.

Want them to be excited about doing something very positive for their community.

One person suggested that a flow chart that shows how the

government entity gets paid (tracing back to development)

might be helpful.

Predictable Timelines

A key element of a business-friendly process is that it is

predictable. People want to know how long the permitting

process will take so they can plan accordingly. The Cities do

not publish any timelines for potential customers. One

professional felt strongly that there should be an

Fair Reasonable Predictable Transparent

The companies we’re

working with, their bosses

want definite answers about

timelines. They need dates.

18

expectation that government be able to state the typical timeframes and stick to it. All the

professionals who provided input to this project understood that there are exceptions to the

process – sometimes timelines can’t be met. But, they feel it is very reasonable for government

to share what normal timelines are and generally meet those timelines. The feedback shows that

most customers are satisfied with how long things take. They just want that information shared.

No accountability – no timeline, no way to track where you are. Think about your computer and

when you’re loading. When you see it moving, you’re kind of calm. When it stops moving, you

start freaking out.

I want to be fair to everyone involved – don’t want to set a timeline that is impossible. Definitely

think there have to be times that are attractive to the developer. But, it has to be a firm date. We

need to be able to say it will be permitted by September 1, and then have it ready by Sept. 1.

Recommendation 2: Provide employees with a visual depiction of how development provides

their funding source to help with line of sight between their daily work and funding.

Recommendation 3: Both Cities publish expected timelines for routine processes.

Positives to Build On

Accessibility

Customers talked about the ability to call people, walk into

the office and speak to someone, and get a human with

needed information. While there is some concern about

availability due to vacations, training, etc. (discussed later),

there is a sense that the people on the other side of the

counter are accessible and want to help.

I like the accessibility of all of them. As frustrated as we all

are, people are a phone call away.

Down here, they talk to you, communicate with you and let you know if something doesn’t go

right. With code, varies from jurisdiction, it is gray enough that it is open to interpretation. We

have to educate each other and they will listen to that and over time you learn what works and

what doesn’t.

I can run down to the office and

ask someone to talk. The

accessibility is unique –

developers in other counties say

this doesn’t happen.


October 2016

Timeliness

Timelines are not provided, nor is there an expressed commitment to meet certain timelines. This

hurts opportunities with businesses that need clear timelines in order to invest significant dollars

in a project. Timeliness, however, is a strength. Most customers felt that things got done here

faster than in other areas. This is something to capitalize on.

Did a project in Boise and we had a permit in 4 months. Same building in City of Olympia took 2

years. Here it would take maybe 4-5 months.

In Lewis County it takes 2-3 weeks to get a septic install permit. In Thurston, I’ve been waiting 8

months.

Desire for Customer to Succeed

Most customers felt that the government representatives

wanted them to succeed. There wasn’t a majority who felt

they had to fight the system to get anything done, although

a few people have had that experience.

One customer said:

The past few years when I do projects in Thurston County it

feels I am not wanted, I'm doing something wrong. It seems that they don't want to give me a

permit. In Lewis County and surrounding cities the permit process is much more pleasant.

A Missing Link: Line of Sight to the Customer Context

Customers want government to understand them. Several times, customers dealing with all three

jurisdictions expressed a desire for government to have a better sense of their business needs

and the impact poor permitting processes have on them. Government revenue is generated

through various taxes and fees. The fees for the permitting process are paid by customers who

are required to get permits. Unlike business, however, government does not operate in a

competitive environment where all revenue is uncertain and dependent on customers. Many

businesses looking to expand must manage cash flow and projects that take a long time to come

to fruition delay revenue generation while incurring increasing costs. For these reasons, the

private sector usually operates with a strong sense of urgency that isn’t always appreciated or

understood by government.

One customer, who had an overall positive experience, shared:

I think they would want to understand a little more about the business the customer is in. They

should want to know and provide the opportunity to learn what the person is doing, how many

jobs they provide, what their plans are. I think they should find out a little more about the client in

the meeting. I’m excited about our business and I wanted to portray that.

As a contractor, I feel that the City

of Centralia and City of Chehalis

want me to succeed. I feel in this

area people want me to grow and

prosper while doing business.

20

Several people discussed the impact of delays on their work. For some, delays meant that they

had to leave equipment sitting idle. Other people moved equipment so it could be used

elsewhere, which incurred costs. Others indicated that they had to wait weeks for a meeting,

which translated to unproductive wait time for their project.

Overall, there is a sense that the people who site inspections, like building inspectors, are helpful

and easier to work with than the people in the offices. One reason for that may be the connection

built when the government representative is on site with the customer and knows the project

well.

All customers interviewed respect the role of government in the development process. They

simply want government to respect and support the role of business.

Recommendation 4: Employees who mainly work in the office make a conscious effort to ask

about the individual’s business and express support and appreciation for their willingness to

invest in Lewis County. When obstacles are identified, take the time to ask the applicant about

the impact and express a desire to help them stay successful and profitable.

UGA “Unclear Government Accountabilities?”

The Urban Growth Act (UGA) required counties to

identify growth areas over a period of time. Areas

identified as part of the urban growth area would

eventually be annexed into the neighboring city. In

the Lewis County area, mostly this means that land

is expected to be annexed into the City of Centralia

or the City of Chehalis.

When a project goes through the permitting

process, it must adhere to the relevant codes and regulations. Projects in the urban growth area,

then, start in the Lewis County jurisdiction, and once annexed, would be in one of the city’s

jurisdiction. At times, the codes and regulations are different. This can lead to confusion for the

customer, who wants to understand which codes apply to the project.

At times, jurisdictions will enter into inter-local agreements, which identify whose policies apply,

which set of codes are applicable, and who has permitting authority. At the time of this project,

an inter-local agreement related to the UGA between the City of Chehalis and Lewis County

ended. In customer interviews, this came as a surprise and there was quite a bit of confusion

regarding what would happen to projects in process. As one person said, “the inter-local ended

on Friday, and there was no plan for what to do on Monday.” There is also a perception that even

when an inter-local is in place, at times jurisdictions will change the rules midstream. One

customer specifically asked for the permitting authority over water to be clarified – indicated that

they don’t know which forms to fill out in order to get that process completed.

The agreement that didn’t get

renewed was a fiasco. When you

can’t get the city, county and

commission to all work together, you

might as well hang it up.


October 2016

In addition, inter-locals are renewed, revised and replaced over time. In our community, several

versions have existed over the last several years. While most people say it has been working

reasonably well, they also point to unclear accountabilities and inconsistent information that

make it harder to work through the permitting process.

Recommendation 5: Bring together a joint planning group that works to harmonize the UGA

codes.

Recommendation 6: City of Centralia and Lewis County update their inter-local agreement for

the UGA to have one document that includes all the current info in one place.

Recommendation 7: City of Chehalis and Lewis County create a new inter-local agreement for

permitting with the UGA.

The Land of Opportunity is On-Line

Interviews, focus groups and customer survey

responses all shared a desire for improved access on-

line. The Technical Advisory Group also indicated that

this would be welcome and useful for their internal

processes as well. Currently, the internet as a resource

is severely underutilized.

Customers cannot:

Submit permits

Pay permit fees

See permit status

Review parcels, zoning, history

(See table on next page.)

The Technical Advisory Group indicated that they would be interested in increasing on-line tools

for customers. They also said that most of their customers prefer to come to the government

office to conduct business. Some felt that customers bundled the trips to the government office

with other errands and appreciated the opportunity to do so. In talking with east county

customers, they indicated that they would prefer to be able to submit information on-line, as it

saves them significant time and money. The trip in to handle the permitting can mean a full day

away from the job site, depending on where they are working.

They all suffer with accessibility

issues: things that are available and

searchable online.

-Professional with experience in

several counties.

22

On-Line Tools and Resources by Jurisdiction

Centralia Chehalis County

Names and Contact Info

Listed?

Names not found,

but contact info for

departments is

available.

Yes. Yes.

Applications on line? Yes, for community

dev dept. Public

works no. Checklists

provided too.

Yes for building

and planning.

Includes some

samples.

Yes

Timeliness expectations

provided?

No. No Yes – for permits – 2-

4 weeks, with a

caveat for peak bldg.

season. Under FAQs

Flow chart provided? No No. No

Business hours listed? No Yes.

On-line submittal

allowed?

No No. For Burn Permits.

On-Line status of permit No Development

Review Committee

minutes posted.

No

Ability to look up

parcels and see zoning

or history?

No No No


October 2016

The majority of customers in the customer survey also indicated they would like to have better

on-line tools:

In addition, for customers considering investing in Lewis County, the on-line presence is a place

to identify the jurisdiction as business-friendly: fair, predictable, reasonable and transparent.

Several jurisdictions outside of Lewis County use their on-line presence to state their purpose,

philosophy and desire to support customers – both private landowners and commercial.

Both customers and the leaders in the jurisdictions identified staffing

levels as a significant concern. Staffing levels were reduced during the

recession, and often have not been restored at a proportional rate to

the increase in permitting as the economy improves. On-line tools can

reduce the workload for employees doing intake and working with

customers at the counter, and can also help customers be better

informed and better prepared which smooths the process for all.

Could we get archives on line? Then we wouldn’t have to spend the permit techs’ time to look for

this. We could do it ourselves and get our client on their way.

Some minimal research was done to identify on-line resources available in other jurisdictions.

Jefferson County, Washington, has several resources on-line, including a strong customer

service “brand.” See Appendix B for an example of a flow chart they provide on-line to

give an overview of the process.

City of Tacoma includes timeliness expectations, and a great deal of permitting activity

can be done on-line.

66.3%

63.3%

68.4%

57.1%

60.2%

Submit all permitapplications

Pay permit fees View submittedapplications and

supportingdocuments

Research new andhistorical permit

records

Access Lewis CountyPATS/Regional GISincluding zoning,critical areas and

shorelines

I would like to be able to do the following on-line:

Source: Permit Customer Satisfaction Survey, September

One customer said:

This all needs to be online,

get with the times!

24

City of Kirkland has their parcel maps available online. Customers can click on a parcel,

and see the history and current status.

City of Kirkland joined forces with several other jurisdictions to develop an on-line permitting

process that allows for applications to be submitted, status checks and fees paid. Could the City

of Centralia, City of Chehalis and Lewis County join together to fund a similar option for this

area?

Recommendation 8: Fund technology improvements to provide capability for submitting permit

applications and paying fees.

Recommendations 9: Use website to establish a business-friendly presence and welcome new

investments in the community.

Recommendation 10: Until permits can be submitted and paid online, provide an after hours

drop box so applicants don’t have to wait for business hours to get things submitted.


October 2016

Customer Segments

There are several different customer segments that apply for permits. Currently, the process is

the same for all applicants, except that a pre-submission meeting is utilized with some more

complex projects. It could be helpful to explore how to optimize the experience for each customer

segment.

Customer Type Description Unique Needs Possible Aids

Professionals with

routine projects

Usually contractors,

engineers, etc. who

work for private

landowners to do

routine site prep and

construction.

They know the

system and what is

needed. They need in

and out, updates

when regulations

change

Ability to opt-in to

some kind of

quarterly update of

policy and code

changes.

One-Time Users Usually private

landowners wanting

to improve their

single family

residence or a small

business.

Clear direction and

help understanding

what is needed to be

successful.

Option for 1:1

coaching through the

process – could have

a fee associated.

Flow chart showing

what permits must

be consecutive and

what can be

completed

concurrently.

Developers with

complex, large

projects

Savvy and often

impatient investors

who put a premium

on efficiency and

predictability.

Clear timeline,

accurate, timely

decisions on land use

regulatory decisions.

Option for an

expedited process

with an internal

project manager to

champion the

project.

26

Jurisdictional Results

Organization of This Section

The jurisdictions asked for their results to be reported separately. So, this section is organized by

jurisdiction. Within each jurisdictional section, the report provides customer feedback on the

following:

1. Quality of Information Provided

2. Timeliness of the Process

3. Overall Environment

4. Staff-Customer Interactions

A few notes on the survey:

Most of the survey questions used a 1-5 Likert scale with some form of strongly agree, agree,

neutral, disagree, strongly disagree as answer responses. For ease of reading and processing

information, the strongly agree and agree responses were grouped together, as were the strongly

disagree and disagree responses. Neutral responses were not included. So, the graphs will show

the % of respondents who agreed and disagreed with the statements. Because the neutral

responses aren’t included in the charts, the percentages don’t add up to 100%.

In addition, Centralia and Lewis County participated in the Denison Organizational Culture Survey,

so those results are also included.


October 2016

City of Centralia

Who Answered the Survey?

29 people responded to the survey who applied

for permits with the City of Centralia. 92

invitations were sent out, and we are unable to

determine which of the non-deliverable surveys

were for Centralia applicants, so the survey had

at least a 32% response rate.

Of the respondents, almost half are

professionals working in the field. 38% were

private landowners.

Note: Due to the small number of respondents,

sometimes a small percentage (e.g., 5%) results

from a single person’s response.

The majority completed a new residential

project, closely followed by those working on

new commercial/industrial projects.

Centralia Criterion 1: Quality of Information

We asked focus group members and survey

respondents about the quality of information.

The questions covered whether the process was

understandable, whether the verbal and written

information was helpful and clear and showed

how to maneuver through the system.

Overall, this is a strong area for Centralia. In

Phase Two, Centralia’s results for these

questions were in the 64% - 69% range, and they

are comparable. The verbal information results

were lower at 57%.

Comments included:

The city should provide all technical information in writing, no verbal.

The only areas that I feel need a better written checklist is the city light department. They don't

have step by step instructions.... it always falls through the cracks.

Professional48%

Private Landowner

38%Other14%

Field of Work

Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia

19%

21%

7%

67%

57%

78%

Written Information

Verbal Information

Understandable Process

Centralia's Information Was Helpful and Clear

% Agree % Disagree


0 5 10 15

Other (please specify)

Shop/Out Building (new)

Land Division

Utilities (water, sewer,…

Remodel to existing structure

Commercial/Industrial (new)

Residential (new)

Type of Project Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia

28

Centralia is very good to work with. I have worked with Mason Co, Thurston Co, Grays Harbor Co

and the city of Oakville. Centralia is the best to work with. They work with you to solve problems

when they come up.

Until recently working with departments at the city (Centralia) has been professional. However,

over the past several years, responses have been slow, inconsistent, combative, and often times

obstructive. The stormwater, streets and ADA areas in particular.

I felt unwelcome and indifference, as though I had to apologize for taking up their time.

The City of Centralia seemed less than helpful at times. There seems to be too many regulations

that make building and expanding in the City overly expensive and burdening. [Building] staff are

a phenomenal resource for this community.

I have been doing it for 30 yrs and it has been very positive.

Centralia is working well as it is today.

Overall, the customer response in this area is positive. There were no specific suggestions made

to improve the quality of information.

Criterion 2: Timeliness of the Process

Most customers ate satisfied with

the timeliness of the process in

Centralia. Some expressed concern

at how growth could affect that –

they see that staff is doing well but

at capacity. They wonder if there is

capacity to grow in volume and

keep current turn-around times.

The results from phase two and

phase three for reasonable time

are exactly the same – 64%. The

predictability score went down 10

points, but is still up overall from

phase one.

I find the permitting process in

Centralia to be a little more

streamlined and quicker.

The City jurisdictions have had a lot

of changes, and I’m still impressed

with their timeliness.

18%

14%

64%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Reasonable Time

Predictable Time

Centralia's Time Required to Permit

% Agree % DisagreeSource: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Less than 2weeks

2-4 weeks 5-12 weeks 90 - 120days

More than120 days

Centralia Time to PermitSource: 2016

Permit Customer Survey; Centralia


October 2016

Centralia is in jeopardy if their volume triples. Wouldn’t take a lot of growth for them to bog down

completely.

I don't regularly incur delays. If I do have a delay it is most likely due to the agency needing

additional information or plan review comments. Delays of this type should be expected.

Again, no specific recommendation. If not already happening, Centralia may find it useful,

however, to include some forecasting models for permit volume when it prepares its staffing

allocation during the budget process.

Criterion 3: Staff-Customer Interaction

All City departments improved their customer satisfaction scores from Phase 2 Phase 3. The

overall sentiment from customers is very positive. As one customer stated:

Customer service meets the mark. Provides much help to the customer.

Survey respondents shared:

Centralia, it took a lot of effort on my part, I didn't get the support I would have expected.

They are trying their best to help me through the change of what I am submitting.

Application for short plat was approved but when the City Planner left Centralia the incoming

planner did not agree with approval. We sought legal advice and did eventually receive

approval.

5%

15%

13%

15%

13%

14%

5%

8%

86%

81%

57%

85%

83%

76%

89%

80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

OVERALL KNOWLEDGABLE AND PROFESSIONAL

PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION

FIND ALTERNATIVES THAT WORK

INTERACTIONS WITH RFA POSITIVE

INTERACTIONS WITH PLANNING POSITIVE

INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC WORKS POSITIVE

INTERACTIONS WITH BUILDING POSITIVE

COULD MAKE DECISIONS

Centralia Staff-Customer Interaction

% Agree % Disagree


30

It is painful to deal with ADA, stormwater, electrical, and street departments. We cringe when

consulting them is necessary.

City of Centralia Staff are helpful, knowledgeable and easy to work with.

Centralia needs to learn costumer service, you can feel the bad attitude.

We have been working with the City of Centralia for 30 yrs and they have been very supportive

and excellent to work with.

City of Centralia staff is friendly and easy to work with. Even though we had a few hiccups along

the way we are very pleased with our interactions.

Centralia WA staff were great.

The survey did ask if anyone had exceeded their expectations. Several great comments emerged,

highlighting the good work of staff. They included:

Hillary Hoke at the City of Centralia is exceptional.

The building inspector LG is great to work with. Sarah is also good to work with.

Centralia community development office is helpful.

Yes, Jan the city engineer and LG the now departed building inspector. They took the time and

were professional.

Everyone is trying to help me through change in what is needed.

Several people noted the exceptional experience they had when LG Nelson was the building

inspector. Centralia recently hired a new building inspector, and customers are assuming that

relationship will be positive, but acknowledge some concern due to the unknown.


October 2016

Centralia Criterion 4: Overall Environment

Most respondents felt that the

system for permitting buildings

was working well. There is

some room for improvement

in the land use/development

system, although there were

more neutrals for this category

– very few disagrees. There

were a few concerns shared

that the City doesn’t always

have the correct answer for

some more complicated land

use and development projects.

Given the low volume of these

types of projects, staff don’t

have routine, frequent

exposure to these issues,

making it harder.

The results in this category are very similar to phase two.

Consistency in Centralia [is good]. What was told to the client at the free development review

committee ended up being dependable. Not a lot of curve balls after the fact.

City of Centralia wants to be business friendly, but they don’t always provide that clear, cogent,

quick response.

Centralia is the best. I deal with public works and planning. Applications are simple. You submit

it, goes through the site plan review, everyone shows up. I can do a minimal amount of work as

far as site design and the client can get a good feel of what it will take to do this work without

spending a ton of money on it.

21%

8%

4%

35%

67%

76%

52%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Business-Friendly

Building Permit SystemDesigned Well

Land Use/Development SystemDesigned Well

Regularly Incure CostsDue to Delays

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF CENTRALIA'S SYSTEM

% Agree % DisagreeSource: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Centralia

32

Centralia’s Denison Results

As mentioned under methodology, the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) is a tool to

assess organizational culture. Responses have been scientifically linked to higher organizational

performance on a variety of performance measures.

11 employees took the DOCS. The

results are shown to the left.

Generally speaking, more color

on the chart indicates stronger

organizational culture. Results

are shown as percentiles

against a normative

benchmark.

For Centralia, there is some

slippage between the

Phase Two results and the

Phase Three results. As we

have seen above with the

customer results, Centralia is

performing well overall. The

lower results under mission,

however, are similar to the

comments under General Findings

regarding the critical role of leadership

in establishing direction, goals and vision.

There is an opportunity for Centralia to clarify and strengthen employees’ line of sight to

organizational goals, strategic direction and intent and provide a strong vision for the City in this

community.

Recommendation 11: City Leadership and Management clarify strategic direction for the City

and provide clear goals for City employees to align to. Include in this effort clear statements

about the City’s goals related to supporting business and economic development in the local

community.


October 2016

City of Chehalis


30 people responded to the survey who

applied for permits with the City of Chehalis.

147 invitations were sent out, and we are

unable to determine which of the non-

deliverable surveys were for Chehalis

applicants, so the survey had at least a 20%

response rate.

Note: Due to the small number of respondents,

sometimes a 4% or 6% results from one

person’s response.

Of the respondents, 43% were private

landowners. The other category included a

significant number of retirees.

The majority of respondents completed a new

residential project or a remodel to an existing

structure. Only a small portion worked on land

division or commercial/industrial projects.

Chehalis Criterion 1: Quality of Information

We asked focus group members and survey

respondents about the quality of information.

The questions covered whether the process

was understandable, whether the verbal and

written information was helpful and clear and

showed how to maneuver through the system.

Chehalis has exceptional results in this area.

Comments included:

The permit office does not work with the City

Manager or the Public Works office. This is a big issue when 2-3 different agencies have no idea

what you're doing and why?

City of Chehalis was very helpful and pleasant to work with.

Chehalis has exceptional customer service! They were extremely helpful and made the process

less stressful. I knew I could always contact them if I had questions and they were always very

helpful.

Professional27%

Private Landowner

43%

Other30%

Field of Work

Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14



Land Division


Utilities (water, sewer, electrical)


Residential (new)

Type of Project Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis

11%

4%

0%

78%

84%

92%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Written Information

Verbal Information


Chehalis Information Was Clear and Helpful

% Agree % Disagree


34

Employees in the Chehalis permitting office very helpful and courteous!

Overall, the customer response in this area is positive. There were no specific suggestions made

to improve the quality of information.

Criterion 2: Timeliness of the Process

Chehalis customers reported it

taking less than 4 weeks for most

projects to get permitted. Based

on the type of project, Chehalis is

working with less complicated

and more straightforward

projects, so shorter turn-around

time is expected. Overall,

however, customers felt that the

time required to get a permit was

both predictable and reasonable.

The results are slightly lower than

phase two results, but still very

positive.

There are no recommendations

for improving Chehalis’s

timeliness.

8%

11%

85%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reasonable Time

Predictable Time

Chehalis Timeliness

% Agree % DisagreeSource: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Less than 2weeks

2-4 weeks 5-12 weeks 90 - 120days

More than120 days

Chehalis Time to PermitSource: 2016

Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis


October 2016

Chehalis Criterion 3: Staff-Customer Interaction

Clearly, Chehalis is doing many things right in terms of customer service. The results are

comparable to Phase Two, which indicates Chehalis is sustaining high levels of customer service.

We applaud Chehalis for its excellent work.

Chehalis seems to be real friendly and helpful in meetings. They give you a lot of information on

the codes.

Chehalis has exceptional customer service! They were extremely helpful and made the process

less stressful. I knew I could always contact them if I had questions and they were always very

helpful.

4%

4%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

77%

88%

65%

83%

90%

84%

89%

88%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%




INTERACTIONS WITH CHEHALIS FIRE POSITIVE





Chehalis Staff-Customer Interaction

% Agree % DisagreeSource: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; Chehalis

36

Chehalis Criterion 4: Overall Environment

Overall, customers report being satisfied with the permitting process in Chehalis. The results are

also lower here than in Phase Two.

There is concern regarding the amount of staff turnover that has occurred in Chehalis. Customers

know that a great deal of historical knowledge has left the agency, and are wondering what will

happen over time. Generally, people are optimistic and hopeful that the changes will settle down

and things will remain smooth with the City. Many people elected not to comment on Chehalis’s

processes because

of the changes.

Chehalis is in such a

state of flux. Unfair

to judge Chehalis

right now.

Chehalis has now

gone through a full

flush out. Is the

system in place to

work in the absence

of key individuals?

Recommendation 12: City of Chehalis: As new staff come on board, ensure that they are fully

trained and informed regarding the vision and expectation the City has for a strong permitting

process.

Chehalis’s Denison Results

Chehalis chose not to participate in the Denison Organizational Culture Survey.

4%

4%

0%

45%

67%

85%

75%

27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Business-Friendly



Regularly Incur Costs Due to Delays

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF CHEHALIS'S SYSTEM

% Agree % Disagree



October 2016

Lewis County


102 people responded to the survey who

applied for permits with Lewis County.

567 invitations were sent out, and we are

unable to determine which of the non-

deliverable surveys were for County

applicants, so the survey had at least an

18% response rate.

Almost 2/3 of the respondents were

private landowners. This increases the

number of one-time users with little

experience with the process that are

County customers. Generally, these folks

are more likely to find the process

challenging.

The majority of respondents completed a

new residential project. Only a small

portion worked on land division projects.

Projects that take place in the County

have a few differentiators from projects

within city limits.

Generally, utilities are not in

place and must be included as

part of the project.

Distance between the project site

and the County offices can be

significantly greater.

Some projects will take place

within the UGA, which was

addressed under General

Findings.

County Criterion 1: Quality of Information

We asked focus group members and

survey respondents about the quality of

information. The questions covered whether the process was understandable, whether the verbal

and written information was helpful and clear and showed how to maneuver through the system.

Professional26%

Private Landowner

64%

Other10%

Field of Work

Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Land Division





Utilities (water, sewer, electrical)

Residential (new)

Type of Project Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County

13%

6%

4%

71%

77%

84%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Written Information

Verbal Information


County Information Was Clear and Helpful

% Agree % Disagree

Source: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County

38

Survey respondents have overall favorable results. The

majority of respondents indicated that the information

provided was clear, helpful and understandable. These

results are an improvement over the phase two results.

Not only are the % agree ratings higher, but the %

disagrees are lower by more than half. The County has

made great improvements with the quality of their

information.

A few opportunities for improvement related to improvement did come up in the survey

comments, focus group meetings and interviews.

Visual Depiction of the Process

In every phase of this project, customers have asked for a flow chart, step-by-step process or

some kind of visual picture of the process. In Phase Two, the project included development of a

flow chart of the process provided to the County for their use with customers. It does not appear

that anything like that is currently available. Jefferson County provides a high-level flow chart, see

Appendix B for an example. In addition, Thurston County has an on-line interactive version of a

step-by-step process – when the customer clicks on a step, several sub-process steps are

provided.

Customer comments regarding this include:

The permit process is very confusing. Need to make a step-by-step process that actually makes

sense.

A process of what needs to be done in what order/sequence.

Received conflicting advice on how to start and how to expedite the process.

Was unclear of the instructions. Had to submit 3 times.

Still have no flow charts – no true sense of a consumer walking through the door. Customers

can’t figure out the path.

Recommendation 13: County provide a flow chart or written step-by-step process for land and

building permitting. Make available on-line and hard copy.

I like the pre-sub at Lewis County. The

pre-sub conference has no fee and you

can advise your clients to attend with

minimal prep and cost. Gives good

info. I like that, want to see it stay and

want to see it stay free. Thurston

County charges $1,000 for that now.


October 2016

Code Changes

Professionals want to adhere to the required code. Overall, they work with good intent to follow

the codes and do the work the right way the first time. Some of the professionals shared the

frustration that codes will change, they don’t know about it, and they end up having to redo

work because on inspection they find out it wasn’t done to the new code. This is frustrating and

expensive. They asked for some kind of notification process to let them know when codes

change. This issue was surfaced in phase two of the project as well.

Recommendation 14: All three jurisdictions should develop a notification process that allows

professionals to sign up for code change notifications.

Legal Lot Determination Procedure

A tax parcel may or may not be recorded as a legal lot. Tax parcels get created – legally – for

different reasons, and they aren’t always recorded as a legal lot. The legal lot determination

process may vary between jurisdictions, as it is a local government ordinance derived from state

statute. Generally, the legal lot determination is handled by the planning department for a

jurisdiction.

This process was a topic for focus group members. They indicated that the County needs to have

a clearer legal lot determination procedure that is coordinated between the planning department,

treasurer and auditor.

Recommendation 15: County create a process map for legal lot determinations. Share broadly

with professionals who support clients through the process.

Coordination and Clarity between County Departments and Offices

The County structure includes various departments that report to the County Commissioners and

Offices led by independently elected officials. Customers working through the process find it

confusing to move between these areas and are frustrated when they receive conflicting

information. In addition, they don’t always know who they are dealing with in various

interactions. While it is clear to employees working within the system, a customer may not realize

that s/he is talking to two different departments in the same interaction or building.

Lewis County - application sat for a week because a form was missing. 1: staff said they would add

the form. 2: review staff did not tell office the application was on hold. Office staff just found the

file sitting around.

Centralized permit center for County seems like a good idea but the reality is a little confusing.

FOR EXAMPLE: to get a Health Dept. permit, first take the permit sign-off sheet to permit center.

Wait 1-2 weeks for sign-offs from various departments (with or without actual Health Dept

application? Not clear.) Then get a call to "come pick it up" and hand carry to Health Dept. and

hand them sign off sheet and check so they can begin their permit review...And of course they are

in different buildings in Chehalis. Really?! These things can't happen in parallel? Have to physically

play courier to convey paper from one department to another? Time to re-engineer the process!

40

Wasn’t clear who was in charge [of the pre-sub meeting]. Who was the highest person in the

room? With ten people I don’t know, an overview would be helpful.

Recommendation 16: County provide an org chart at the pre-sub meeting so customers know

who they’re working with.

Recommendation 17: County remind staff that customers aren’t always clear on roles within

the County system. Train staff to provide warm handoffs and continue to clarify roles with

customers. Keep organizational charts on hand to show customers.

County Criterion 2: Timeliness of the Process

As discussed earlier, the

timeliness of a process is a

critical component for

supporting new development.

Over the course of the three

phases, the County has shown

steady improvement in

timeliness. From Phase One to

Phase Three, agreement that the

process is predictable has gone

from 40% to 60%. And, in Phase

One, 55% of customers agreed

that the timeline was

reasonable. This time, 74%

agreed. The County is to be

commended for their work in

improving these areas.

For the majority of permits, the

actual time to get a permit is

under 12 weeks. Some permits

fall into the longer time range,

however, these could be

processes that require more

time.

15%

17%

74%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Reasonable Time

Predictable Time

County Timeliness

% Agree % DisagreeSource: 2016 Permit Customer Survey; County

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Less than 2weeks

2-4 weeks 5-12 weeks 90 - 120 days More than120 days

County Time to PermitSource: 2016 Permit

Customer Survey; County


October 2016

Even with these positive results, there are a few places of improvement for the County.

Staff Availability – Meeting Gridlock

Multiple times and with several different

types of customers, people mentioned

the challenge of getting answers and

getting projects moved forward due to

staff unavailability. They were told staff

were in meetings, and/or a key meeting couldn’t happen for a long period of time due to staff

availability.

Trying to have plans revised and every time I try to submit new plans the person I need to talk to

is in a meeting. I fail to see how any work gets done when he is always in a meeting! And I am told

he will call but we don't hear back.

A different customer described requesting a pre-sub meeting, having to wait 6 weeks, and then

learning information at that meeting that caused further delays:

Feel like it is slow. Pre-Sub Meeting – I got on the list to attend the meeting almost six weeks

before. I waited a long time for that meeting. We wanted to build in October before the rain

started and before concrete gets more expensive (Nov. 1). I wanted to submit an app as early as

possible. I knew if I submitted an incomplete app it would stall the process. When we went to get

on the schedule for the pre-sub meeting, I was dismayed that I had to wait so long because I knew

this meeting would give me the info I needed to submit a complete app.

This issue relates to the previous comments under General Findings about government not

relating to the business context. Private sector working on a project experiences every delay as

an unnecessary cost. Delays of six weeks can compound costs in multiple ways.

Staffing Levels

Customers are concerned about the staffing levels and the potential for turn-over. There were

two identified reasons:

Staffing levels were cut during the recession and not adequately restored

The lack of staffing redundancy leads to delays when staff are out on vacation or at

training

Some comments included:

I think Lewis County Community Development is doing pretty well. I think they’re understaffed

dramatically.

If I were to grade Lewis County, I’d give them a solid 7. We could bump that up 1-2 points if they

had more people.

County has definitely gotten to a point where we’re seeing it slow down. The mud is thickening.

Told we have to wait six weeks for a meeting.

Nobody has a six week backlog.

42

Funding for inspection staff seemed to be a problem.

In addition, customers talked about the increase in local work. Many professionals during the

focus groups talked about business picking up, and higher volumes of work. They are feeling the

pressure and see that staff are crunched too. There was a definite sense of compassion for the

workload staff experience. Two areas specifically mentioned were septic inspection and planning.

One customer asked if monument preservation funds could be used to fund additional staff.

Recommendation 18: County develop a staffing allocation model based on permit volume to

be used for forecasting needed staffing levels in the next budget cycle. This needs to be done

proactively so the County isn’t caught short with higher volume.

Recommendation 19: County mitigate the lack of redundancy by cross-training or developing

an inter-local agreement to support key roles when staff members are out of office.

County Criterion 3: Staff-Customer Interaction

The customer survey response to interactions with County staff is overall positive. Consistently,

2 out of every 3 people indicate a positive experience with the county. These results are

consistent with Phase Two. In some cases slightly better, in some slightly worse, but overall

holding steady. The Building Department, however, has made noticeable improvement, up to

82% satisfied from 69% in Phase Two.

The majority of customer comments were positive, reflecting the quantitative results. There

were only a few comments that reflected angry, extremely dissatisfied customers. Again, this is

a marked improvement from previous phases. Phase One customers were angrier. Currently,

there are still varied experiences with customers, but it would be unrealistic to expect 100%

6%

5%

9%

15%

14%

9%

8%

8%

67%

78%

67%

63%

67%

71%

82%

73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%




INTERACTIONS WITH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL …





County Staff-Customer Interactions



October 2016

satisfaction. The County has worked to improve their interactions with customers and should

continue.

A few examples of comments about the overall experience include:

Don't be rude or treat people like they are an inconvenience for you.

Not all of us are contractors.

Lewis County office staff gets A+.

If I had questions, the people in the Lewis County permit office were

VERY helpful.

Site plan too close to slope. Suggested geo test for feasibility or move house plan back and file

new site plan showing changes. Very helpful.

Extremely slow, they act as if I am a burden when I come in to get a permit, they consistently

have terrible and unfriendly attitudes which in turn puts me in a bad mood.

Everybody was very helpful. We were rebuilding after a house fire and could not have had nicer

people to deal with. Thank you!

The people in the office have been very helpful both on the phone and in person.

Lewis County Staff was exceptional when I obtained my building permit, septic design, etc.

Lewis County personnel worked to make building a good experience.

Lewis County Staff are helpful, knowledgeable and easy to work with.

Inspectors were knowledgeable and friendly.

The Lewis County permit office was great - one of the few aspects of building that WASN'T an

issue!

Excellent experience. Everyone was knowledgeable, courteous and helpful.

Counter people were sincere about trying to help you get thru the application and permit

process. At the end of the day that is what is most important. Being there to help.

Permit Center

The interactions with permit techs at the counter came up several times in the process. Overall,

most people expressed satisfaction. There were several comments, however, from people that

they felt they were treated as an inconvenience, minimal effort was put in to helping, and at times

people were rude. There were enough descriptions of this type of experience from several

different people and groups to warrant mentioning it. It would appear as if the experience of the

customer at the counter could be more consistently positive.

Lewis County staff

was phenomenal.

44

As noted above, many comments were positive. A few that point to concerns include:

They need to be more friendly and they usually act like they are doing you a favor or you are an

inconvenience.

[If I was] A customer going into the County, I would walk out. Maybe it isn’t their job to be warm

and fuzzy, but shoot, just a help would be nice. I took a customer in and I was so embarrassed by

how they were treated.

One person was told, “We really hate it when you ___ [type of professional] come in here.

Recommendation 20: Improve consistency of customer experience at the counter.

We did ask if anyone exceeded expectations, and several people were mentioned:

Mike Watilo - professional and helpful

TARA MOOON - Permits! She is very professional and an asset to your company!

Kurt and Fred were very helpful.

Nancy Kaiser in Health Dept. - procured faxed signature missing from permit sign-off sheet.

Very helpful.

Bob Deacon. Field inspector. He is very knowledgeable of construction.

Pat Winters was very helpful in Lewis County Electrical Dept.

Doyle Sanford, easy to work with, knowledgeable, level headed, great attitude

Bev Granger


October 2016

County Criterion 4: Overall Environment

The County has improved in

making their process more

business-friendly. In fact,

71% in Phase Three agree

that it is, while only 50% did

in Phase Two.

The responses to incurring

costs due to delays are very

consistent with Phase Two:

about 1 in 4 customers felt

they did.

Land Use and Development Process

The Land Use and Development process appears that it could benefit from continued efforts to

improve it. Several people said they were concerned because there hasn’t been a lot of

development in the past and wondered if the process will be streamlined and ready for

developers when they do come.

Some people also indicated that the

complexity and uniqueness of each project,

combined with the lower number of these

types of projects, can make it difficult for staff

to have experience with the variety of

decisions they must make related to code

interpretation. For large, complex projects, it may be helpful for the County to proactively identify

a process that will expedite those sticking points by utilizing outside expertise or providing an

internal project manager.

The County has an opportunity to work closely with the development community to set policies

and design processes that will make the land use and development system more effective. This

includes work on realistic timelines and proactive handling of complex projects.

Recommendation 21: County set a strategic priority related to development. Engage the local

development community in designing processes that will be attractive to outside investors.

Specific Issues

A few specific concerns were mentioned by customers. They included:

10%

8%

9%

42%

71%

74%

56%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Business-Friendly



Regularly Incur Costs Due to Delays

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF COUNTY'S SYSTEM


I believe our core will get developed by outside

money and they’re going to want to be dirt

ready in six months.

46

Trouble with road approach requirements being unreasonable. Applying a standard that

makes sense in one situation, but is excessive in another.

Multiple CARL reviews, with each one having an additional cost. Is there a way to

proactively help the customer identify everything that will require a review at the start of

the process?

Setbacks in the east county excessive for the property.

Benefits of Lewis County

Many people indicated that they work in several geographic areas, and prefer Lewis County. They

find the staff helpful and accessible, and are able to build positive working relationships.

We thought the process went very smoothly. This was the 3rd house we built. Everyone was

excellent to work with. Hats off to Lewis County!!

Lewis County has less governmental negative issues than other counties in which we have built.

Procedures worked for us and we are thankful for the good people who handle these challenging

issues.

Contrary, Lewis County seems to have a clear direction that they are there to serve the public and

help land owners do what they're wanting to do with their project, without extremely costly

regulations and road blocks.

Having worked with both Pierce and King counties in the past, Lewis County actually tried to help

rather than hinder the process.

I'm very glad I live in Lewis County and not

Thurston.

Please do not let your staff get the

mentality that developers are bad guys

trying anything to get around the rules.

Most land developers and builders just

want to know what needs done one time

and that what there told is what is

expected. Do not let this happen in Lewis

County because it can happen and is hard to reverse.

Leadership Structure

The County is structured with three independently elected Commissioners leading multiple

county departments. County department heads report to all three commissioners. This creates a

dynamic situation for department heads, as they must constantly be meeting the expectations of

three different people. When the Commissioners aren’t aligned, as they weren’t for this project,

department heads have to sort out the best path forward and thread the needle between differing

expectations.

LEADERSHIP DIRECTION

Hire someone in permitting or county

executive role that their goal is to make

Lewis County a better place to live and

develop good paying jobs. That person

would have the ability to install that

ideology in his or her staff.


October 2016

In many situations, because of this structure, a single point of accountability or a person with full

decision-making authority is not identified. This creates delays and frustration for everyone.

People in the community actively want to build on the positive aspects of permitting in Lewis

County. There is almost universal agreement that this area has a strong competitive advantage,

and wants to build on it. They also feel there needs to be strong leadership who will set a clear

vision for growing jobs in Lewis County and working collaboratively with other local partners.

Along with the vision, they want leaders who will set expectations for county employees, so

employees know clearly that they can and should work effectively with customers to generate

growth for the area.

Our local community faces significant hurdles with low income and generational poverty.

Ensuring that businesses can invest here and bring new jobs is a critical part of the solution.

County Denison Results

As mentioned under methodology, the Denison

Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) is a

tool to assess organizational culture.

Responses have been scientifically linked

to higher organizational performance on a

variety of performance measures.

17 employees took the DOCS. The

results are shown to the left. Generally

speaking, more color on the chart

indicates stronger organizational culture.

Results are shown as percentiles against a

normative benchmark.

For Lewis County, there is some slippage

between the Phase Two results and the Phase

Three results. The top half of the Denison shows

an external focus – connecting to customers. These

are also both low for the County. Strategic Direction and Intent, along with Creating Change, are

the two lowest areas. Both of these connect to the discussion above on leadership structure and

land use/development processes. There has been some growth in scores for consistency, and

notably, organizational learning has improved significantly.

Again, the County Commissioners would be well-served to set clear strategic direction and intent

for employees. Combined with increased change capability would lead to improved results

regarding growth for our community.

48

Building on Phase One and Two Phase One and Two of this report used similar methodology and reviewed similar aspects of the

process. Here is a brief overview of the status of various criteri and recommendations between

Phase Two and Three.

Customer Survey Criteria Results between Phase Two and Three

All percentages reflect % agree from each survey. Differences of 5 points either way are shaded.

Centralia Chehalis County

2 3 2 3 2 3

Written Information 57% 67% 87% 78% 55% 71%

Verbal Information 64% 57% 79% 84% 61% 77%

Accurate Information 80% 88% 94% 88% 66% 78%

Staff Interactions 79% 77% 94% 77% 64% 67%

Time Reasonable 64% 64% 95% 85% 65% 74%

Costs Due to Delays 27% 22% 0% 27% 23% 24%

Time Predictable 64% 54% 81% 74% 45% 60%

Business-Friendly 57% 67% 83% 67% 50% 71%

Phase Two Recommendation Status

1 Leverage the slowdown in permitting to make

meaningful improvements to the process.

In progress. Clear that the

system in all three jurisdictions

is improving.

2 County Commissioners and City Managers act quickly

to understand customer requirements and set clear

expectations for employee performance for senior

management.

Based on Denison, not done.

3 If the software system is essential for tracking

progress, the County should make it a priority to

resolve the conflicts with the permitting software so

that it can go live in the near future.

On-line permit status not

available. Some performance

data may be available, but

repeatedly told that it was

difficult to ge information.

4 All three jurisdictions should immediately identify key

performance measures for their process, with a

Unclear. When asked for

information on the process,


October 2016


particular emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency

measures.

was not provided any

performance measures.

5 All three jurisdictions should set targets for

performance related to the key performance

measures and use those to help answer the question,

“Is the process getting better, worse or staying the

same?”

Not implemented.

6 Given that the County’s primary customer base are

infrequent users of the permitting system, the County

should continue to develop a process that serves

individuals with little to no previous experience with

permitting.

Customer sat has improved. No

new tools to help first time

users have been implemented.

7 Both the City of Centralia and Lewis County should

review the recommendations from Phase One and

provide a report to their chain of command and the

Task Force regarding what recommendations have

been implemented and why.

Nothing shared with the Task

Force.

8 All three jurisdictions should review and implement

the recommendations from the Denison

Organizational Cultural Survey.

Denison results were lower, so

unlikely this took place.

9 All three jurisdictions should develop “big-picture”

informational items and make available at the counter

and on-line.

Some have been added.

10 Centralia and Lewis County should continue to refine

and improve their checklists for customers. This is less

needed with Chehalis, due to its unique approach to

intake.

Checklists have been merged

with the application.

Customers have varying

opinions on their effectiveness.

11 The County Commissioners should immediately

address the challenges in communication and

collaboration between Environmental Health and

Community Development. An expert, external

facilitator would be very helpful in facilitating this

dialogue.

Seems to have improved.

50


12 All three jurisdictions continue to make more

information on-line. Fillable forms should be the first

priority.

Not completed.

13 Lewis County Commissioners should set performance

expectations for customer satisfaction and periodically

measure satisfaction to determine if departments are

reaching these targets.

Either not done, or not publicly

available.

14 Centralia should explore why customers were less

satisfied.

Customer satisfaction has

improved.

15 Lewis County should set targets for the time it takes to

complete the process and let customers know what

the target is. In addition, the permitting software,

when implemented, will provide the data for to know

if those targets are met.

Not completed.

16 All three jurisdictions should continue to make

improving communication with the customer a

priority. This will likely make a significant difference in

reducing project delays.

Communication appears to

have improved.

17 The County Commissioners should require that

Community Development, Environmental Health and

Public Works work together to refine the flow chart of

the current permitting process.

Some internal process

improvement efforts have

taken place.

18 Centralia should explore potential reasons for the

lower satisfaction levels regarding the process being

business friendly.

Improved in this area.

19 The Lewis County Community Development Director

should make an effort to improve consistency in the

department, especially among inspectors.

Appears to have improved.

20 All three jurisdictions should develop an e-mail

notification line, allowing individuals to sign up for

code change notification.

Not implemented.


October 2016

Closing Remarks There has been a great deal of anxiety expressed on the part of government regarding this project

and the intentions behind it. We hope the report speaks for itself as a reflection of the intent of

the sponsoring organizations to put their “money where their mouth is” and make an investment

in supporting the on-going improvement of the permitting process as a way to strengthen the

local economy.

The project found that the permitting processes are doing well overall. The last ten years have

seen a great deal of improvement, and the jurisdictions should be commended. We also have an

opportunity going forward to support economic growth and development, and this report

highlights some areas that could be strengthened. The more that government can partner with

their external stakeholder groups, the more successful the entire community will be.

Compilation of Recommendations

All of the recommendations throughout the report are compiled here.

Recommendation 1: All jurisdictions: Elected officials and appointed leaders demonstrate in

words and actions their interest in and support for customer input. Increase responsiveness to

requests from stakeholder groups.

Recommendation 2: All jurisdictions: Provide employees with a visual depiction of how

development provides their funding source to help with line of sight between their daily work and

funding.

Recommendation 3: Both Cities publish expected timelines for routine processes.

Recommendation 4: All jurisdictions: Employees who mainly work in the office make a conscious

effort to ask about the individual’s business and express support and appreciation for their

willingness to invest in Lewis County. When obstacles are identified, take the time to ask the

applicant about the impact and express a desire to help them stay successful and profitable.

Recommendation 5: All jurisdictions: Bring together a joint planning group that works to

harmonize the UGA codes.

Recommendation 6: City of Centralia and Lewis County update their inter-local agreement for the

UGA to have one document that includes all the current info in one place.

Recommendation 7: City of Chehalis and Lewis County create a new inter-local agreement for

permitting within the UGA.

Recommendation 8: All jurisdictions: Fund technology improvements to provide capability for

submitting permit applications and paying fees.

Recommendations 9: All jurisdictions: Use website to establish a business-friendly presence and

welcome new investments in the community.

52

Recommendation 10: All jurisdictions: Until permits can be submitted and paid online, provide

an after hours drop box so applicants don’t have to wait for business hours to get things

submitted.

Recommendation 11: Centralia City Leadership and Management clarify strategic direction for

the City and provide clear goals for City employees to align to. Include in this effort clear

statements about the City’s goals related to supporting business and economic development in

the local community.

Recommendation 12: City of Chehalis: As new staff come on board, ensure that they are fully

trained and informed regarding the vision and expectation the City has for a strong permitting

process.

Recommendation 13: County provide a flow chart or written step-by-step process for land and

building permitting. Make available on-line and hard copy.

Recommendation 14: All three jurisdictions should develop a notification process that allows

professionals to sign up for code change notifications.

Recommendation 15: County create a process map for legal lot determinations. Share broadly

with professionals who support clients through the process.

Recommendation 16: County provide an org chart at the pre-sub meeting so customers know

who they’re working with.

Recommendation 17: County remind staff that customers aren’t always clear on roles within

the County system. Train staff to provide warm handoffs and continue to clarify roles with

customers. Keep organizational charts on hand to show customers.

Recommendation 18: County develop a staffing allocation model based on permit volume to be

used for forecasting needed staffing levels in the next budget cycle. This needs to be done

proactively so the County isn’t caught short with higher volume.

Recommendation 19: County mitigate the lack of redundancy by cross-training or developing an

inter-local agreement to support key roles when staff members are out of office.

Recommendation 20: County improve consistency of customer experience at the counter.

Recommendation 21: County set a strategic priority related to development. Engage the local

development community in designing processes that will be attractive to outside investors.


October 2016

Appendix A: Project Timeline Note: Per a request from the Lewis County Commissioners, the Steering Committee revised its

original timeline and extended it by 5 weeks so the County could have more time to respond to

requests.

MAY JUNE

M T W T F S S M T W T F S S

1

1 2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30

30 31

JULY AUGUST


1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

11 12 13 14 15 16

17 15 16 17 18

19 20 21

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31

SEPTEMBER OCTOBER


1 2 3 4 1 2

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 3 4 5 6

7 8 9

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

19 20 21 22 23

24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

26 27 28 29 30

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

Steering Committee Forms

Customer Survey Focus Groups and Interviews

Public Kick-Off – Chamber Forum

Govt. Agencies Informed

Customer Survey, cont.

Survey

Survey

Report Finalized

Survey

Survey East County Focus Group

Survey

Survey Employee Survey

Survey

Report Published

Survey

Survey

54

Appendix B: Example of a Simple Flow Chart for Customers From Jefferson County, Washington


October 2016

Appendix C: Customer Satisfaction Survey The Survey was administered through SurveyMonkey. The survey questions are included here:

1. With which agencies have you obtained a permit since January 2012? Check all that apply.

2. What is your field of work? (Check private landowner if you do not work in a field that requires you to use the permitting system.)

3. How many years of experience do you have with the permitting process?

4. How many permit applications do you submit a year?

5. On what type of project were you working that required permitting? (Check as many as apply.)

6. Have you applied for any of the following permits in the past 4.5 years?

7. I currently have permit applications being reviewed in:

8. I received helpful and clear written information that showed me how to maneuver through the permitting process.

9. I received helpful and clear verbal information that showed me how to maneuver through the permitting process.

10. The process for submitting my permit application was understandable.

11. I received a checklist that gave me step-by-step information regarding what I needed to do to complete the permitting process.

12. If I received a checklist, I thought the checklist was:

13. I would like to be able to do the following on-line:

14. Are there any comments you would like to make regarding the information (verbal, written, other) you received during your permitting process?

15. I was provided a timeline for receiving my permit:

16. I found the time between submitting my application and receiving the permit was reasonable based on the complexity of my project.

17. The length of time between submitting my application and receiving the permit was:

18. The following reviews were required as part of my permitting process:

19. When I apply for a permit, I know about how long I can expect to wait before the permit is issued. The length of time between application and issuance is predictable.

20. It would be helpful to receive regular updates on my permit applications.

21. I had one on-site inspector for each specific area of permitting. For example, the same building inspector inspected each time an inspection was required.

22. One consistent on-site inspector would be/is helpful to me.

23. To get my permit, I had to work with:

24. The permitting process makes this jurisdiction a good place in which to do business - they are business-friendly.

56

25. The overall building permitting system is designed in a way that I can be successful.

26. The overall land use/development permitting process is designed in a way that I can be successful.

27. I regularly incur delays in my projects due to issues in the following areas (check as many as apply):

28. I regularly incur costs due to delays in the permitting process.

29. When given a checklist, I submit the information or correct the problems cited. I then receive a new list with new issues and must go through the same process:

30. I have seen other jurisdictions do the following, which I would like to see adopted here:

31. Staff members consistently provide me with accurate information regarding the permitting process.

32. When my original plan cannot move forward, staff work with me to find an alternative that will work.

33. My interactions with government employees in relation to the permitting process are positive.

34. The people I worked with could make decisions when needed. If they had to get approval from someone else, it seemed reasonable.

35. I had a problem during my application process.

36. If yes, how was the issue handled? Please note which jurisdiction.

37. Overall, the staff I dealt with were:

38. Did anyone exceed your expectations? Please describe:

39. Are there any comments you would like to make regarding your interactions with staff? Please note which jurisdiction(s).

40. Anything else you would like us to know?

external review of permitting processes: phase three -...

Documents