Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/BUSINESS FRIENDLY TASK FORCE
Wednesday, September 3, 2003 - 5:00 p.m.________

Members present: Chairman Gershman, Council Member Kerian, Judd Graham, Gary Sondreal, Keith Lund, Dennis Potter, Brad Gengler; absent: Council Members Brooks and Christensen, Schoen.

Also present were Al Grasser, Roxanne Fiala, Sherry Lawdermilt, Bev Collings, Todd Feland.

2.1 Internal tracking system.
Roxanne Fiala, IS, introduced Sherry Lawdermilt who has been working with Brad in Planning and Bev in Inspections and made brief presentation of what they have put together, that virtually everyone in the city has access to Notes Database; that if call comes into Planning from new business, they can go into the system and bring up new document and enter info. (point of contact, name of business, date submitted, fees, project type, detailed development plan, site plan, request for information, etc.), information can be e-mailed to other departments through the system.

There were questions with some information to be included in the document. There will also be some judgment calls when info is put into the document.

Bev Collings stated they have all this information set up in Building Inspections but not on computer, and reviewed the process they use - plans filed in sets of two, office staff makes folder and logs in information and immediately notifies individual who submitted the plan with a form they have to return to Inspections, that form shows which Inspector was assigned to it plus the other trade inspectors; and then notify departments to come in and review the plans; the departments check out the extra set of plans for their review; the form also has a check list for sign-off by department. There are comment areas; anything that comes in on that project goes into that file and they communicate back and forth with developer, builder and if there is an issue with department or inspector not signing off, then it is handled in the office, and communicated back. When everything goes smoothly and they come in for their permit, they (most times the builder or developer) would sign that sheet (there maybe some changes and amendments on it because they can't have them submit a new set of plans (unless major problem) and they get a copy of that form that they agreed to that, they can see that everybody has signed off on it.

Gershman stated there is a process in place (being done on paper) but trying to squeeze this down so they don't miss running into somebody, don't miss phone call, but what parameters will they put or policy decision to say that when you notify fire, health, police, etc., what is the prompt and what is timeline for them to expedite that and that is part of our issue here. Ms. Collings stated the original sheet goes back to the owner and out to departments - says two weeks from date they receive it and has drop dead date - they turn around in two weeks but if major problem and they can't make their changes quick enough then can't do it in two weeks, but total review in two weeks and they are told that upfront -- it will be 10 years this spring since they have been doing that (usually lot less then 2 weeks for building plans, not site plan which is separate process they can work on at the same time). Mr. Sondreal stated he gets feedback if have five days and Insp./Planning uses those five days and if they have ten days they use the whole ten days, and if comes up on your computer every day, can call that person back and maybe just small problems that need to be taken care without using up the ten days because every day is a lot when only have 6-7 months to do it in. Brad Gengler stated in Planning the difficulty is in establishing a timeframe because of fast range of complexity of projects - large projects sometimes easier because have plans nailed down whereas sometimes small project harder to do. Gershman stated he wanted things so there are documents and kicks out the person who is the problem, and you'll find that your large developers probably give fewer problems that small ones who are inexperienced and sometimes we get rap from someone who doesn't know what they are doing and if we get our arms around this thing so that anybody who complains, show information.

Ms. Fiala stated this is more for the site plan and will do basically the same thing on the building plan and they would need to incorporate the two because her concern is if another department gets a call, would be able to go to one site and pull it up.

Al Grasser, city engineer, stated we have to define when something has been submitted to the city and accepted, one of the things that causes us problems is that somebody will come in and think they are giving us a site plan, engineering will review and many things lacking and what concerns him and causes some confusion and frustration is somebody who drops that document off, thinks he is in the system and department doesn't have the information to make evaluation - that maybe there is a way of plugging in a preliminary submittal and when do a first review of the site plan if they think there are things lacking, accept as preliminary so they know this isn't a final and have week to identify the major issues or the point of contact and if there is a check list and not accept as a "site plan" until see certain information - there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Have to have check list and every site plan has to have minimum things on it. Mr. Gengler stated what Planning Department recognizes as an official submittal is the application of fee; people may get application and say next week drop check off and technically could say until receive payment, the flag is not going up. Kerian stated that everyone needs to understand that and when sharing responsibility, where anyone can look on this, and tell somebody something, then there has to be agreement about what does that something mean and those things need to be decided and everybody who looks at it has to understand so not giving bad information to customers.

Mr. Grasser stated how much do they want to track - if individual comes in and unless check list filled out, not complete plan. Ms. Collings stated that everyone doesn't want public to know that new business coming in, and have to be extremely careful with that and don't tell anyone but as soon as put on paper is public information. It was noted this could be judgment call.

It was noted the system is city-wide but that this information will not be put on the internet.

Mr. Gengler stated as far as development packets, he has stacks of information that he is working with and trying to downsize, that he did nation-wide search, primarily on west coast which is little more progressive with professionally managed cities and with their operating procedures, and that a lot of those communities, no matter which size, have various sorts of preliminary plan review teams, plan review teams and the direction that we're going to go is to make it a more formal process, and has down-loaded a lot of applications. He stated individual wants to develop - go to website to obtain application for preliminary plan review, follow criteria and what to submit, have total development check list (by category, by specifics) and draw up plan, and then schedule meeting with review team - that they do that now but to make this a more formal process they can set up an actual preliminary site plan review meeting. He stated they could even have regularly scheduled meetings when plans on board - once week, etc.

Ms. Fiala stated that Sherry has designed and worked with Info Center and there are some things on website re. business/commercial and if individuals or property owner looking for information over internet under Business Info have a commercial building guide and all the information is there, and to call Building Inspections if have question. Instructions and guidelines can be printed. Mr. Grasser suggested adding telephone number for department.

Ms. Fiala suggested if you have access to the internet run some test cases, ask some questions to see if you can find the answers to it and to let IS, Inspections or Planning know. She also suggested going to Permits for additional information, applications can be printed out, etc., a lot of information is available.

Gershman noted that when discussing, perhaps need to put some things in Spanish - is an outreach - have about 1400 Hispanics in Grand Forks and for cost and effort a nice thing to do and for the committee to decide.

2.2 Brochures.
Info Center is working on this but not available.

2.3 Internal contact list.
Mr. Gengler reported that the Info Center has one and will go through it and is something that should be placed at every phone in City Hall because quite often people get run-around and if someone has summary list they can help identify or narrow the caller's needs; and would like to refine it a little more (list summarizes area of departments) and quick reference.

2.4 Citizen Survey.
Mr. Gengler stated Info Center or Mr. Haga came up with this - and that was survey concept itself and had discussed doing a comment card - Info Center worked on it and came up with a draft. It had been suggested having comment cards at telephones and desks, in Mayor's Office or at council meetings and people could take a card and fill it out.
Comment cards should be available throughout City Hall.

He stated that Shelly in Info Office did a little research and came up with summary list - is a standard - have it at hotels, restaurants - basic customer survey. Committee felt survey looked good - this is something Info has designed but they haven't taken second look at it.
There was some suggestion about putting survey on the water bill and/or cards here at City Hall and have address on the card for mailing back - Mr. Grasser suggested that if the question is yes or no, and add why not (comment area); or putting range 1 to 5. Gershman stated to take this with them and think about it, and at next meeting come back with suggestions - It was also suggested that if on utility bill, have it on return stub so limited on size and if do insert, there is a cost; or take data base of those permits/contacts of those who have done project and do all of those and put stamped self-addressed envelope - Committee suggested reviewing it.

2.5 Development Packets.
Work in progress.

2.6 Customer Service Training
Chairman Gershman noted that Jim Price offered services of Rydell's for service training to city staff and if we think we're at the point of checking that out further, should we contact Rydell to see what it looks like, and how would we implement it, for everybody. Mr. Grasser suggested that perhaps have somebody come to committee meeting and run through it so committee has chance to look at it. Department heads should be invited to be at that meeting. Chairman Gershman stated he would contact them.

3. The next step.
Committee will review comment cards, get more information on survey, check Rydell's, and people continue to work on the website and get updated version of that, and have something on brochures also.

4. The next meeting.
Chairman Gershman suggested having meeting beginning of October - Wednesday October 8.

The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk