the path to e-government - final draft 3

8/2/2019 The Path to E-Government - Final Draft 3

1/21

The Path to E-GovernmentPromoting Economic Development in the Pioneer Valley:

Streamlining & Regionalizing Local Permitting

I. Executive SummaryElectronic Government, or E-Government for short, refers to the ability of public institutions to provide

its residents and businesses with services, information, and opportunities to interact with government

through the use of online tools. The use of E-Government can revitalize public administration, foster

inclusive leadership and improve the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the public sector.

While there are many potential ways to implement E-Government services at the municipal level, local

permitting is a service that would greatly benefit from an electronic application. The use of electronic

permitting should be a priority for municipalities as a first step towards E-Government, as much citizen

interaction with local government is via permitting.

This report makes recommendations and explores the steps needed to reach E-Government, particularly

through streamlining the permitting process in the 43 cities and towns that comprise the Pioneer Valley

Planning Commission.

Multiple sources have been used to inform the process, including meetings and interviews with

municipal officials, conversations with electronic-permitting industry representatives, case studies from

neighboring regions and best practice reviews.

Key Findings

y Few, if any communities in the Pioneer Valley region have streamlined permitting practices inplace, which in turn places administrative hurdles to permit applicants in many communities.

However, most municipalities at least provide basic permitting information and permit

application documents online, while key municipal officials in at least half of all municipal

governments are interested in implementing new or improving existing e-permitting software.

y Electronic permitting would require considerable investment up front, both in capital andtraining. The benefits, however, would be seen soon after implementation in time saved both by

the permitting officials and by residents and those seeking permits. If all municipalities in the

Hampden and Hampshire counties were to implement a regional e-permitting system, the Net

Present Value would be approximately $10.4 million. E-government solutions in the region

would allow for faster permit processing time, reduced costs and pollution from travel, faster

payments, error reduction, and greater transparency and predictability.

y Now ten months into the process, PVPC is well poised to facilitate the implementation of aregional e-permitting system in the next 18 months. Recent case studies and best practices

show that Commission staff can help guide streamlined permitting and ultimately the use of e-

government throughout the region by aggregating local demand into one procurement process


2/21

and serving as a good-faith broker to coordinate information and other resources between

municipalities in that timeframe.

Recommendations

The following strategies are recommended as next steps to be implemented by the Pioneer Valley

Planning Commission at a regional scale in order to facilitate the adoption of e-government applications

towards permitting:

y Provide technical assistance: PVPC should work to facilitate adoption of streamlined permittingbest practices throughout the region, especially those articulated in the 2007 streamlined

permitting report produced by MARPA with PVPC support. These practices will not only make

permitting more streamlined, but will also lay a stronger foundation to implement a regional e-

government application for permitting.

y Standardize and Consolidate information: PVPC should work with towns to standardizepermitting information from all of its member towns to make permit applications easier,

thereby making it easier to do business in the region. PVPC should also provide municipal

permitting information from its 43 municipalities on a regional permitting website. This would

provide a centralized location for stakeholders in the region to obtain more information and,

coupled with standardized processes, would serve as a first step to build a more robust, regional

e-permitting solution.

y Procure e-permitting software: PVPC should procure a software platform on behalf ofinterested municipalities from a vendor that has produced a product for other Massachusetts

towns and that requires as little modification as possible. Commission staff should also do its

best to identify resources that can help ameliorate the start-up costs associated with such a

system, such as customizing the software settings to meet municipal permitting procedures,

thereby reducing municipal barriers to start using the system.

II. IntroductionE-Government & Streamlined Permitting

Electronic Government, or E-Government for short, refers to the ability of public institutions to provide

its stakeholders such as residents and businesses with services through the use of online tools. The

use of E-Government can revitalize public administration, foster inclusive leadership and improve the

efficiency, transparency and accountability of the public sector.1 Through the internet, local

governments can provide basic information, interactive procedures to comply with government

regulations and forums for civic engagement and democratic participation.

As useful as E-Government tools can be, implementing such a scheme entails considerable investment in

software, public employee or volunteer training, and educating the broader public in the use of these

tools. Therefore, pursuing the path towards e-government requires prioritizing which measures need to

be provided first. As one recent study puts it:

1http://www2.unpan.org/egovkb/documents/2010/E_Gov_2010_Complete.pdf


3/21

Municipalities face a dilemma as they pursue technologically enabled modes of

providing traditional services. The planning stages of e-government amount to triage:

which specific municipal functions and services can a municipality afford to implement

(or which services can they afford not to implement) given the costs of technology and

technological capability?2

An article entitled To Rethink Government, Start Close to Home3 suggests a direction to answer this

question. The piece exemplifies how highly-bureaucratic or outdated procedures frustrate citizens while

they interact with government institutions, and how addressing one type of government procedure can

make a big difference:

High on many lists of miserable places to spend an afternoon is the local office of the

department of motor vehicles. () customers complained bitterly and often. One big

annoyance was that they had to wait in one line to have their forms processed, then

start all over again in another line to pay their fees.

It is not a stretch to imagine these words being written in reference to uncoordinated or outdatedmunicipal permitting procedures instead of the department of motor vehicles; disjointed permitting can

create as much frustration and waste. Ubiquitous tasks such as obtaining a building, signage or animal

permit can cost citizens dearly in time and other resources.

This is particularly a concern at a time when government institutions seek to improve vital services that

can spark economic activity, all the while cutting expenses in ineffective areas. Meanwhile, much citizen

interaction with local government is via permitting; by some measures, as much as 80% of total contact

between residents and their various public agencies. Therefore, it seems clear that one of the services

that can produce great benefits and which municipalities can take on as an initial step towards E-

Government is their permitting system.

Goals

In early 2011, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) began to collaborate with interested cities

and towns to improve efficiency and service, reduce costs, and save businesses and residents time,

money and fuel through collaborative development of a regional online building permit portal. The goal

of the portal would be to automate many elements of the permitting process, allowing simple permits

to be obtainable over the internet, as well as automating other related procedures.

The first step to see this project fully materialized has been to research the needs, costs and benefits of

such a system in the region, and to start the complex, slow, and very necessary long-term process of

building consensus and commitment from municipalities across Hampshire and Hampden Counties.

With that in mind, PVPC has:

1. Identified the state of streamlined permitting in the Pioneer Valley region, and2. Proposed next steps in the pursuit of E-Government applications for streamlined permitting.

2http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X01000892

3http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/business/to-rethink-government-start-close-to-home-economic-view.html


4/21

Research Questions

Some basic questions were outlined to guide the research of information and outreach to stakeholder

municipalities. These were:

y How easy is it to navigate local government permitting?Describes how complex it is to navigate through the local permitting process in the Pioneer

Valley. Gathering this information requires knowing whether there are current established

procedures to streamline permitting, such as having unique points of contact. This both

facilitates the process for applicants and makes for an easier transition towards a permit

software application.

y How can e-government solutions aid in streamlining local government permitting?Provides specific examples of how e-government applications can aid municipalities to improve

their permitting process. This could aid municipal employees and volunteers to understand the

benefits of investing in such systems and support their decision making.

y What are the resources and desires of the community to streamline local permitting?Understanding the interest and barriers to streamlining permitting in the Pioneer Valley will

allow PVPC to pursue a more coherent and effective regional strategy. Every community is

different with respect to financial resources at its disposal, human capital and interest in

reforming its permitting process.

y How can PVPC facilitate the streamlining of permitting in the region?Presents recommendations on which actions can be implemented at the regional level in order

to support municipalities to make this complex transition and list which actions should remain at

the local level.

Research Methodology

PVPCs work during the first year of this project was based on collaboration and research from several

sources, each explained below.

y Stakeholder meetings: PVPC called on all 43 cities and towns from Hampshire and HampdenCounties in early 2011 to invite their participation in a regional effort to save municipalities

money and personnel time promoting streamlined permitting through internet accessible

applications. Commission staff held 2 meetings with municipal stakeholders including Town

Administrators, Information Technology Directors, Planners and other personnel where

interests, concerns and opinions were discussed.

y Conversation with industry representatives: PVPC staff held multiple conversations withpermitting software representatives from various companies. Representatives from three of

those companies were invited to one of the municipal stakeholder meetings to exemplify what

online permitting software could accomplish.


5/21

y Document review: Case studies were an integral part of the research behind this report. Ofparticular importance was a best practices report on streamlined permitting produced by the

Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies (MARPA). See Appendix for full list of

documents reviewed.

y Survey interviews: Officials from each of the 43 cities and towns in the Pioneer Valley werecontacted for a local permitting survey consisting of 26 questions. 27 of the 43 municipalitiesresponded to the survey, a response rate of 62.8% of PVPC's total service area.

y Website review: To evaluate the current level of communication and technological engagementbetween municipalities and citizens, PVPC staff also reviewed all 43 municipal websites to

determine what e-government features are currently being offered by member communities.

y Conversation with other RPAs/COGs: The report also discussed with other Regional PlanningAgencies and Councils of Governments which have implemented regional streamlining

permitting efforts to ascertain the successes, strengths and weaknesses of those efforts. The

RPAs/COGs contacted included the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) inGreenfield MA, the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) in Pittsfield, MA, the Capital

Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) in Hartford CT as well as eCityGov Alliance, an inter-

local agency of 9 municipalities in Washington State running e-government programs.

III. Analysis of information gatheredOutreach to municipal officials

The best guidance on the regions needs comes from municipal stakeholders themselves. In early 2011,

PVPC reached out to all cities and towns in the valley to launch the time-consuming process offacilitating regional e-permitting. Now, ten months into the process, PVPC is moving forward toward a

regional solution.

The following events describe the engagement between PVPC staff with the municipal representatives

on regional streamlined permitting:

y Call for expressions of interest: PVPC contacted elected officials, administrators, municipalplanners, and/or Information Technology managers from all 43 cities and towns in Hampshire

and Hampden counties to gauge the level of interest in the region to adopt e-government

software that would help streamline local permitting. About half, twenty-two (22) of them

responded in the affirmative and were invited to discuss and advise PVPC on how to best

address the regions needs. The municipalities that responded to the call of interest were:

1. Agawam2. Belchertown3. Brimfield4. Chester5. Chesterfield6. Chicopee

7. Easthampton8. Granby

9. Hadley10.Hampden11.Hatfield12.Huntington

13.Longmeadow14.Ludlow15.Montgomery16.Northampton

17.Palmer18.Pelham


6/21

19.South Hadley20.Southwick 21.West Springfield22.WestfieldRepresentatives from each of these communities were invited to subsequent meetings. While not all

municipalities were present at the meetings, they all remained informed through electronic and phone

communication.

y Software Demonstration: In March of 2011, PVPC gathered municipal representatives for thefirst time to discuss how an e-government application for streamlined permitting could benefit

them, and deliberate what they would need from such a platform.

PVPC also extended an invitation to three software providers: View Point, which designed the

regional permitting software in use by the Hartford, CT based CRCOG, which borders Hampden

county on the south; Full Circle Technologies, which designed the system in use by the FRCOG,

which borders Hampshire county on the north; and Accela, which is designing the permitting

software in Springfield, the largest city of the Pioneer Valley. The company representatives were

brought in to provide some context of what these types of applications can accomplish and the

benefits they are providing neighboring cities and towns.

From the demonstration and discussion it was evident that there was much interest from the

group to pursue an e-government solution to streamlined permitting. It was also evident that

each town had different needs, as some had systems they were looking to change, modify or

enhance, while others did not have anything electronic in place.

In order to get a precise understanding of costs involved in e-permitting, municipal

representatives asked PVPC staff to launch a Request for Proposals (RFP).

y Reviewing the market for permitting software: PVPC staff drafted an RFP, but then determinedthat there was additional ground work required before releasing it. PVPC did have conversationswith representatives from the software industry, from which staff could brief municipal officials

about the markets pricing structure (i.e. charges by year, by user, by population) and common

features.

y Last meeting and consensus: On September 8th, 2011, a second meeting with municipalstakeholders was held. Further discussion about how to implement a regional e-government

application for streamlined permitting highlighted additional barriers to the project: the

challenge of getting buy-in from all permitting offices in each community, especially some

municipalities that already have software while others have nothing; transferring of data from

one system to another can also be expensive; and resistance to change from some citizens who

preferred the paper-based system.

Permitting procedure survey

During the fall of 2011, PVPC invited town officials from all municipalities in Hampshire and Hampden

counties to participate in a structured interview about permitting processes. The 27 respondents,

representative of diverse community sizes, were people involved in their community's permitting

process such as planning staff, planning board members, town administrators, building inspectors, and


7/21

town administrative staff. The interview questions sought to identify whether the municipalities in the

region were applying best practices towards streamlined permitting, such as:

y Single point of contact:More than half of the municipalities surveyed have a single initial pointof contact for all permit applications, typically either the building inspector or town clerk.

However, this person often does not coordinate the full process for the applicant, rather they

point the applicant towards the next steps in the process, at which point the applicant is

responsible for arranging contact with whichever staff or boards may be required, as well as

ascertaining that the required materials are in order.

y Applicant guides: 70% (19 total) of respondents said that they do have some type ofinstructional material for applicants, ranging from stand-alone development guides with

flowcharts, timelines, and matrixes detailing relevant contacts for different types of projects, to

basic checklists on the reverse side of the permit application itself. However only about half of

all respondents realistically provide guides to applicants, as three respondents indicated that

they do not provide their guides unless specifically requested by the applicant, and two

respondents noted that their guide was out-of-date. In one town, the users guide was created

but is not distributed because officials believed it needed to be formally adopted by the Town asan official publication prior to use.

y Concurrent Applications: 19% (5 total) of respondents use combined or concurrent applications.In Northampton, a centralized online portal provides one application for multiple permits. In

other communities, one permit exists for all types of projects but multiple permits may be

required for projects that involve separate phases. Northampton shares building inspectors with

Williamsburg, so they use the same form, and Chesterfield, Goshen, Huntington, and

Middlefield (who have at times shared a building inspector) all use a combined building permit

for all types of alterations which simplifies the application process for residents and contractors

that work in these towns.

y Combined Hearings: Only 11% (3 total) of respondents regularly hold combined hearings; 2other towns reported that they occasionally schedule consecutive hearings (same night) for

projects. Many officials expressed that they believed combined hearings would be more

efficient but implementation would be difficult. As one interviewee wondered: Logistically,

how do you do that? [...] How long would the meeting go--which board runs the meeting?

Other concerns voiced by officials included statutory barriers such as state timelines for

conservation commissions, as well the need for projects to gain approval from one board before

proceeding to the next.

y Pre-application process: 89% (24 total) report that they offer informal pre-application meetingswith either professional staff or with boards and committees, and most towns stated that theyprefer applicants come in as early in the process as possible before submitting an application. In

more rural communities, these meetings may be held over the phone insteadin Montgomery,

for example, the large land area combined with staffing limitations make in-person meetings

difficult but phone discussions prior to submittal of a formal application are common.

y Project Technical Review Teams & Interdepartmental Meetings: Of the 7 municipalities whicheither hold regularly scheduled interdepartmental meetings or form teams to oversee multi-


8/21

departmental applications, all have populations above 16,000. While many smaller communities

reported that less formal or occasional meetings between town officials and applicants were

common such as telephone check-ins regarding details of an application several smaller

communities indicated that different boards and committees rarely discuss applications outside

of their respective formal hearings, and that town staff in other departments such as zoning and

fire may not discuss projects frequently. This may be indicative of broader difficulties with

staffing in primarily volunteer governments without full-time administrative staff, noted by

many officials in interviews.

y Physical Proximity ofStaff: More than half (59%, 16 total) have one central Municipal Building,in most cases, the City or Town Hall, that contains all permitting departments. Other

municipalities interviewed have up to three buildings with departments such as public works

and fire most commonly located away from other administrative departments. For the majority

of our smaller towns, who depend largely on volunteer board members to review and sign off

on permit applications, the permit evaluators are mostly not available at Town Hall during

regular hours.

y Adequate Staffing: The most common barrier to effective permit systems expressed bymunicipal representatives was related to inadequate staffing, which creates difficulties for both

applicants and staff, particularly in smaller municipalities where planning functions are primarily

overseen by volunteer staff. In Monson, where the building inspector was traditionally part

time, inspectional-service turn-around times reportedly improved from one week to 1-2 days

after the position switched from part-time to full-time.

y Culture of Training: All but one of the municipalities surveyed responded that their town eitheroffers on-site training for staff and board members or reimburses for off-site trainings and

workshops. This may indicate that there is support in most communities for continuing skills

training among board members and planning administrators.

y Electronic Permit Tracking Systems: The majority of municipalities in our sample (15 towns,55%) maintain only a paper-based permit filing and tracking system. Another 12 towns (44%) in

our sample currently use some form of electronic permit tracking system: the most commonly

used software are MUNIS and GeoTMS, with several towns using a Microsoft Access database to

track permits internally. The number of staff using permit systems ranged from a single user in

one department in some municipalities to 20-30 users across varied departments with functions

such as Planning, Building, Assessors, Public Works, Health, and Fire. Users reported varied

levels of satisfaction with existing tools; several respondents indicated dissatisfaction with

current systems, stating that they desired different features from those that are currently

available. The current cost of systems ranges from $500-$1000 for yearly licensing fees in

communities with less than 10 users, to $20,000 to $100,000 for set-up and licensing fees inlarger municipalities with 10 to 30 users across departments. While several municipalities use

systems that have optional modules for online permit applications, the only respondent that

currently accepts permit applications online is the City of Northampton.

Overall, there is a wide variety of permitting practices among Pioneer Valley municipalities. In

some municipalities, one or two best practices may be implemented such as pre-application

meetings combined with the use of development handbooks or users guides but not others,


9/21

such as combined hearings or interdepartmental review teams. Some communities follow very

few best practices for a variety of reasons like staffing limitations, political resistance to

reorganization and a perception that existing systems are sufficient to meet the current level of

citizen demand. A number of officials also commented on practices that have been

implemented but have lapsed or are not utilized to their full extent due to lack of ongoing

support, such as municipalities that infrequently or occasionally offer consecutive or combined

hearings, or where user guides are available but out-of-date with current regulations. Officials

interviewed also reported varying levels of technology use among municipalities, with some

respondents stating that they rarely use computers and do not have official (non-personal)

email addresses, to others who use digitized parcel and electronic permit tracking systems daily.

y Overall impressions: Town officials who responded to the survey stated that the permittingprocess in their town functions very well. Their average rating was 7.9 out of 10, while they

thought applicants perceived satisfaction was 7.2 out of 10. However, many interviewees noted

that there are some potential improvements possible, particularly in the area of

interdepartmental communication and timeliness of permit approval. Although some

communities with low growth receive as little as 20 to 30 permits of all types in a year, even a

low workload may be made more difficult by understaffing, minimally documented processes orpoorly coordinated processes, leading to greater pressure on staff resources and unnecessary

delays for residents and contractors.

Website Review

Of the 43 communities in Hampshire and Hampden counties, all but two Montgomery and Plainfield,

with less than 1,000 residents have municipal websites. This indicates that the majority of PVPCs

communities may have existing information infrastructure that would support the integration of a new

e-permitting system.

The website review included an assessment of several features that improve communication betweentown officials and applicants, such as:

y Online calendars listing board meeting times and locationsy Zoning and subdivision bylawsy Public Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping portals

These features allow citizens to plan out meeting dates, research permit and parcel information, and

gather other necessary information related to their property without the need to travel in-person to

municipal offices. This increases the transparency of the application process and may reduce staff

preparation time related to permit applications.

Additionally, municipal websites were analyzed for other types of permit functions:

y Permit applications that can be downloaded but need to be printed and filled in writingy Permit applications that can be downloaded and filled electronicallyy Permit applications that can be filled and sent onliney Ability to pay permit fees online, other than excise or property taxes


10/21

While each of these online offerings provide permit information to applicants, online permit applications

and fee-pay services have a higher level of sophistication and may provide greater convenience as

applicants do not have to bring a printed copy of the application and check to town offices.

The most commonly offered features across

our region are those that are static or purely

informational, such as event calendars, bylaws,

and permit information. These features are

available in most communities in a variety of

forms, ranging from Google calendar plug-ins

and custom GIS systems to simple html-based

webpages. Interactive features, which allow

the user to enter information or manipulate

data, such as permit applications that can be

filled out electronically or GIS maps of town

parcels were less common in the sample. In

general, the websites of communities with

higher populations have the most features, which are also more likely to have professional planningstaff and full-time administrative support. In communities with lower populations and/or volunteer

planning staff, less complex features are offered, with the exception of GIS and mapping capabilities

(including those hosted by specialty mapping websites such as www.mainstreetmaps.com), which are

available in approximately 50% of the region including some communities with populations below 5,000.

While many municipalities have permit information on their websites, the majority of those only offer

files that must be printed and filled in writing, rather than a version that can be filled electronically.

Recent experience from neighboring regions

Several Regional Planning Agencies and Councils of Governments have successfully applied a number of

permitting best practices in different permitting areas. TheFRCOG already provided regional building

inspection services to many member communities before they launched their on-line building permit

system. In 2010 they purchased permitting software to aid in the process. BRPC recently received price

quotes on behalf of four of its member communities to facilitate online e-permitting for those

communities. E-Citygov.net in Washington State has had an e-permitting program since the late 1990s

and has successfully increased the types of permits processed.

Two major themes emerge from reviewing the outlined experiences of regional efforts to streamline

permitting via e-government. (1) the need for a realistic timeline and (2) the need for a phased

approach. The creation of an e-permitting program is not a quick process. It took more than two years

for both FRCOG and BRPC to move through their e-government permitting process, and CRCOG took

more than two years. It is imperative that PVPC have a realistic view of the potential implementation

timeline for any e-permitting program. FRCOG, CRCOG and MBP all implemented e-permitting in phases.

For FRCOG, having an already established centralized building inspection process was the first phase

towards e-permitting. CRCOG began with only strictly building permits and is only now beginning to

phase-in Planning and Zoning and other types of permits. MBP began with only simple permits that did

not require document review. In all cases, e-permitting begins in phases, instead of an implementation

of an all-encompassing program that processes all permits.


11/21

FRCOG: FRCOG has centralized its permitting process for fifteen of its municipalities for building,

plumbing and electrical services. Franklin County recently purchased an on-line permitting system to

use within its current centralized process. This purchase enables electronic back-end work flow and

online permit request, vastly increasing the transparency and ease of use. Using state grant funding for

start up and transition costs, FRCOG began its procurement process in late spring of 2010 and went live

with its program on July 1st, 2011.

In participating communities, paper applications are no longer accepted. FRCOG processes permit

applications via the on-line application process. FRCOG also created a part-time support position to help

field calls and guide people through the on-line application process. A challenge for future years is to

have the maintenance, support and hosting costs covered within the boundaries of the current budget.

BRPC: BRPC, at the request of four of its member communities, conducted a regional procurement

process for permitting software and is in the process of negotiations and contracting. The goal of the

project is to save the municipalities some time and money in procurement by having the RPA conduct

the procurement on behalf of four municipalities instead of each one having to do their own

procurement. The main take-away for PVPC from BRPCs process has been to reinforce the lesson

learned that a transition to on-line permitting takes time. BRPCs process has taken approximately 12months from inception to implementation with four members. Depending on the number of

communities PVPC begins e-permitting, the base implementation timeline should be set realistically.

SRPEDD: The Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) recently

performed a comprehensive review of e-government in its member communities, and permitting was

one of the highlighted high-value areas, both to the community members and to government staff and

volunteers. In that report, SRPEDD mentions other benefits of e-permitting, including:

y GIS integration, enabling easy identification of flood plains, abutters and other geographicalfeatures

y Faster payment of permitting feesy Inspection scheduling and receiving and giving comments, either from the applicant or inspectory Prevents redundant entries and errors from mistyped addresses

CRCOG: The Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) in Connecticut, like BRPC, does not have a

centralized building inspection service but was able to implement an on-line permitting system for its

members, enabling member municipalities to offer on-line permitting and electronic back-end workflow

at a significantly discounted price. CRCOGs implementation of on-line permitting did require some

municipalities to change certain processes in order to create a uniform process across the region which

still allows municipalities to retain control of certain areas to conform to local codes and fees. CRCOG

worked in close partnership with the chosen vendor in order to coordinate and customize the software

to meet the needs of the diverse communities. Implementation was highly successful and has many

lessons for PVPC. Like PVPC, CRCOG has a very diverse membership, ranging from large cities to very

small towns, and the regional permitting program has participants that encompass this wide range. Like

Massachusetts, the State government structure also grants municipalities independent powers and lacks

a County government structure.

Some important factors learned from CRCOG are as follows:


12/21

y Stakeholder Buy-in:Coordinating permitting across municipalities that will retain control overthe permitting function requires both the Mayor or City/Town Manager (or equivalent) to

advocate for online permitting, as well as the director or person responsible for the permitting

area. In addition, Information Technology (IT) personnel within the municipality must at a

minimum accept the move towards online permitting in order for the process to be a success.

CRCOG focused heavily on stakeholder buy-in from the very beginning, making sure officials,

especially those who would be using the software, were involved from the outset and were able

to give their input on the look and feel of the software. In addition, an area was chosen that did

not involve union contracts or affect unions. Through its experience in CRCOGs digital health

system, CRCOG also learned that it is best when municipalities have some vested interest in the

system being established, financial or otherwise, which will keep the municipality within the

program and dedicated to working with the system. Without stakeholder buy-in, CRCOGs e-

permitting program would not have been the success that it is.

y Strong Coordination: Depending on the permitting type, the options for existing processes,forms, reports and other products can be very diverse. If a more complex permitting type is

chosen, the project manager must be able to facilitate effectively in order to reach agreement.

In this case, CRCOG was an ideal facilitator because the agency did not have a pre-existingagenda and the various municipalities could trust its staffs objectivity. Because of the

complexity in coordinating efforts, CRCOG recommends beginning with a permitting type that is

generally uniform across municipalities. For this reasons CRCOG began with building permitting.

In addition, because this was a regional project, CRCOG was able to have the online system

connected to the state licensing system, enabling a daily download from the state system and

ensuring accurate licensing data without the need for a municipality to either keep an additional

database or check applications against the state system. This alone has saved considerable time

and effort for both the customers and the municipalities.

y Phased Approach: CRCOG took a phased approach to permitting in that it defined a number ofmodules to be included within the regional system, but did not immediately implement all

modules. The initial e-permitting implementation from inception, through procurement and

customization took CRCOG approximately 28 months. Because of the complexity of processes

and coordination across municipalities as well as to simplify implementation, this approach is

recommended for any regional permitting implementation, but especially online permitting

implementation. CRCOG and its member communities expect to expand into additional

modules.

My Building Permit: ECityGov.net is an inter-local agency alliance in Washington State of 9

municipalities with numerous projects, including an e-permitting program called MyBuildingPermit.Com

(MBP). MBPs structure is very different from other regional permitting systems discussed previously.MBP is a front-end system that interfaces with the municipalities own permitting system, instead of an

end-to-end solution. Since its inception in 1998 until very recently, MBP accepted only permitting

applications for simple permits, or permits that did not require any document review, such as re-roofing

permits, hot water heater replacement permits and other building requirements not requiring

document review. In 2011, MBP added a document review module so that additional types of permits

could be accepted via the system. MBP has used a phased approach in its implementation of e-

permitting for the region. Instead of attempting to do all kinds of permits immediately, MBP limited


13/21

itself to very specific types of permits, enabling them to be successful in the implementation. It is slowly

expanding to other permit types, but is ensuring with each step that the implementation is successful.

E-Permitting Cost Benefit Analysis

Electronic permitting requires upfront investment, both in capital and training. The benefits, however,

are seen soon after implementation in time saved both by the permitting officials and by residents and

those seeking permits. With an estimation of 2 hours saved on processing time per permit, the

opportunity for officials to focus on more high-value work quickly becomes evident. In addition, when

the applicant is able to enter information online, there is additional administrative data-entry time that

will be saved. Although in some communities this has translated into direct cost savings, most

communities have focused the time saved towards high-value activities, enabling government to

become friendlier and more effective across the board.

In addition, time and travel saved by applicants bring overall benefit to the community, creating a

friendlier business environment. The appendix to this study shows a comprehensive cost benefit

analysis for each of the PVPC municipalities implementing e-permitting using a regional approach. If all

the municipalities were to implement a regional e-permitting system the Net Present Value (NPV) wouldbe approximately $10.4 million. Smaller municipalities, for whom a single system would not give a

positive NPV, would also experience a positive NPV with a regional system.

The chart below shows the positive returns towns experience through implementing e-permitting.

The smallest NPV is about $4 thousand and the largest of $2.7 million. Most towns with a population of

under 10,000 experience a median NPV of approximately $29 thousand. For all PVPC towns, the median

is $67,960.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

NetPrsentValueofe-Per

mitting

Number of Housing Units

E-Permitting Net Present Value

by Population - PVPC Towns


14/21

In addition to a positive NPV, e-permitting offers savings to the environment by reducing greenhouse

gas emissions of vehicle miles travelled. Below is an assessment of PVPCs potential CO2 savings through

regional e-permitting, based on the model developed for CRCOGs permitting system:

0.06 Ratio of permits/population

621,570 PVPC Population

37,294 PVPC estimated permits per year

10 Estimated miles driven per permit

25% percent of permits applied for and issued on-

line

93,236 reduction in miles driven

10 MPG of vehicles used (primarily contractor

trucks)

9,324 reduction in gallons of gas used

8.8 kilograms of CO2 produced by a gallon of gas4

82,047 Kilograms of CO2 saved/year

Actual CO2 savings would depend on the number of online applications, the number of participating

municipalities, and the types of permits available for online applications.

Local Best Practices

In late 2007, the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agency (MARPA) published a report

titled A Best Practices model for Streamlined Local Permitting. While 2007 sounds like a long time ago,

the best practices are still relevant today and were used to help design a municipal permitting survey

that could gauge which practices are widely adopted, or are not widely adopted, in the region. PVPC

heavily participated in gathering content and writing for that report, which gives a comprehensive view

of twenty-six (26) best practices for local permitting in key areas such as communication with applicants,

process standardization, using effective resources and planning.

Two of those areas are particularly important to have in mind while pursuing e-government applications

for permitting: communication with applicants and effective use of resources, as these have the greatest

effect on the applicants interaction with the municipality and the workflow of the steps required to

obtain a permit. In fact, improvements in communications and resource use are desirable, and arguably

necessary, in order to effectively use permitting software. Luckily, these types of improvements often

only require managerial adjustments rather than political efforts, which could make streamlined

permitting more attainable.

The following are a list of the best practices that were identified from the MARPA study as most relevant

to the implementation of an e-government solution for streamlined local permitting:

y One stop shop for intake: One of these practices is having a single point of contact forpermitting. Someone responsible for coordinating an applicants efforts to get a permit

4Source: http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm


15/21

improves clarity and productivity for both the applicant and the municipal regulators, while

guiding the applicant towards the appropriate boards. The municipality also experiences

efficient permitting when this person is charged with important administrative tasks, such as

reviewing applications for completeness, tracking applications and following up with relevant

staff and boards, as required by each permit type.

Another one stop shop measure that leads to improved communication and efficiency is to

locate professional staff associated with permitting in the same building, floor or even office if

possible. The least amount of places an applicant needs to go, or least amount of distance to

travel the faster it will be for the applicant. It also increases opportunities for

interdepartmental staff communication, allows questions to be answered quickly and allows for

informal discussions between applicants and reviewers.

y Clarity of Requirements: Having clear requirements from the outset informs applicants whichactivities require permits and describes what information they need to provide to the

municipality. This can be communicated in multiple forms. One is providing a users guide to

local permitting, containing practical information such as contact information for relevant

boards, a step-by-step process for each permit, fee schedules, and anticipated timeframes foreach permit. The guide can equally serve as an educational manual for new municipal staff or

board members who need to learn about the processes in place.

Another way to provide step-by-step instructions is through permitting flow charts and

checklists. This can illustrate each action the applicant and the municipality will have to do

throughout the process, providing clear guidance to both applicant and municipal officials.

Finally, as nothing can replace human contact, providing initial verbal guidance to applicants

through a pre-application meeting allows better up-front communication between applicants

and permitting officers. It can serve as a way to establish relationships early in the process and

save both parties time by flagging issues that will require greater attention down the road.

A great benefit of e-government permitting applications is that, once a municipality creates

these communication protocols, they can be made accessible through online software that

guides applicants through the information needed by the permitting agency.

y Single Process Workflow: The permitting process is streamlined when applicants do not have tofollow multiple streams of paperwork and hearings in order to get a project off to a start.

Concurrent applications are one way of reaching a single workflow, where the applicant does

not have to submit multiple applications to multiple municipal boards. Likewise, public hearings

can be combined amongst the multiple permitting bodies to save time and effort just as

coordinated, interdepartmental project review teams will lead to a more consistent evaluation

of the applicants project.

y Staffing: The most important element of any system is the people behind it. An adequate,trained staff is important for municipal permitting, even when computer software takes care of

many automated functions. It is key that municipalities have enough staff to deal with the

permitting demands they will face, but also that they have adequate guidance and knowledge of

local permitting to provide clear, timely, competent and defensible decisions. There is no

software that can replace this vital role.


16/21

y Software: Electronic permit tracking systems allow users to produce status reports and highlightany problems that can hold up the permitting process, such as unpaid property taxes or other

violations. While some communities use standard suite software to track permits such as

spreadsheets or simple databases more sophisticated e-government applications can integrate

the entire permitting workflow into one software package, reducing staff and applicant time onpermitting. Creating an electronic filing process for permit applications enables citizens to

submit their applications and request inspections electronically, receive correspondence and

status updates through the web, and depending on the system, remotely review comments and

file revisions and corrections, amongst other possible functions.

Municipalities should also maximize their website as a communication tool with citizens,

providing e-permits or application files online, and making sure that permitting guidelines and

other vital information is accessible at any time, from any place, with an internet connection.

IV. Answers to research questionsHow easy is it to navigate local government permitting?

While most town officials rated their permitting process highly, many survey respondents also noted

significant issues with coordinating the permit approval process. As one respondent explained, because

permit sign-offs can sometimes be lengthy, and the burden of obtaining approval is on the applicant,

oftentimes [developers] get through the construction season and they still have to get approval. Other

common difficulties are staffing shortages due to budget limitations, which have become especially

difficult due to the recent budgetary climate: as one interviewee in a town where administrative hours

were reduced recently pointed out, positions have been cut, but the (amount of) work still stays the

same.

In communities in which boards may meet infrequently and volunteer staff work primarily nights and

weekends, these combined limitations can create difficulty for applicants in obtaining required

signatures even if their application is complete in other ways. Because the majority of municipalities do

not combine hearings frequently, projects that require multi-step approval may face additional delays as

applicants must arrange hearings on multiple days, sometimes over a period of several weeks,

depending on the frequency of board meetings. Several officials also described administrative problems

caused by a lack of coordination between permitting departments such as prematurely approved

projects or misplaced information, which creates frustration for both applicants and staff. While in some

communities permitting processes do function smoothly, there is a wide variety of practices throughout

the region, providing multiple opportunities for improvement of local permit practices in the region as a

whole.

How can e-government solutions aid in streamlining local government permitting?

There are numerous benefits to e-government permitting both for the applicant and for community

staff. Benefits include faster processing time through workflow management and routing and reduction

of transit time between departments. Online availability for applicants saves time and labor costs of


17/21

going to government offices, automatic tax verification and automatic licensing verification reduces

application verification time both on the front and the back end.

y Faster Processing Time:Automated workflow and routing enables departments to immediatelyview permits that have moved from one stage to another without having to receive inter-office

mail or other communications. In many cases, it enables simultaneous review of an application

where multiple departments are involved instead of consecutive review, saving flow time. In

addition, if there is a department that needs more information or is holding the permit for some

reason, that information is easily viewable by all departments or anyone with access to the

system. If there is a consistent bottleneck in a department because of lack of resources,

managers will have that information objectively and will be able to address the issue. In some

cases, the applicant themselves can see the status of the permit by logging in online. This saves

administrative time for municipal employees as well as the applicants time in tracking down the

status of an application, making everyone more efficient. For example, the State of Indiana

implemented an online permitting system in 2000 and saw processing time drop from 45 days to

10 days.5 For simple building permits, an average of 2 hours of time is saved through e-

permitting.6 Complex permits save additional time.

y ApplicantSavings:MyBuildingPermit.com, through its simple permitting applications estimates$1.5 million in savings by contractors on an annual basis in direct labor costs for only one of its

jurisdictions.7 And this estimate does not include opportunity cost saved where the contractor

is able to perform other work instead of traveling to apply for a permit. CRCOG has experienced

contractors requesting that more towns adopt online permitting, in order to save them time,

labor, and travel costs.

y Automatic Verification: E-permitting systems allow automatic verification of tax status,preventing tax delinquent owners or properties from obtaining a permit, saving time in back-

end administration of verifying tax statuses or mistakenly allowing a tax delinquent owner to

continue with projects. Automatic license verification also saves time and resources, by-passingany need to look-up contractor information manually and preventing un-licensed contractors

from even applying for permits.

y Real-time Updates: Building e-permitting allows Assessors to have up to the minute updatesregarding construction projects. This allows for faster assessment of new construction, enabling

faster tax collection on expanded construction.

y Faster payment: E-permitting enables applicants to pay for applications online, enabling thosefunds to be received by the government agency almost immediately. This eliminates any

payment processing, saving additional administrative time as well as giving immediate access to

funds.

y Error reduction: Having an electronic trail within e-permitting allows for a clear trail of apermits status, reducing human error of having a file lost in processing. It also allows for an

5Electronic Permitting Systems, How to Implement Them, HUD publication

6Study by ViewPoint Systems on customer processes

7Estimate provided by MyBuildingPermit.com Executive Director


18/21

audit trail of when and what was approved or inspected and ensures that all signoffs have been

received prior to a permit being issued. E-permits cannot be issued without the appropriate

departments signing off on a permit, reducing human errors of omitting or overlooking a

department by mistake and issuing a permit without the proper review from the proper

departments.

y Transparency and predictability: Depending on the system, applicants can view the status oftheir application (whether approved, pending or other) as well as schedule inspections online.

This enables them to know where their permit is within the process, without contacting or

calling an official. This saves time for the municipal employees as well as the applicant and

increases transparency for the applicant and predictability for inspection scheduling for both the

applicants and the inspectors.

What are the resources and desires of the community to streamline local permitting?

Approximately 50% of survey respondents were interested or partially interested in joining a regional

project for electronic permitting. Among towns that already use a form of electronic permitting, 80% of

respondents expressed interest in switching to a different system depending on the features available.

Concerns about the potential financial burden of upgrading technical systems were frequently

expressed. Due to budgetary constraints in many communities, there was some expressed resistance to

spending additional funds than are currently invested in permit systems. Some officials were also

concerned with the potential resistance to change within their departments or other departments,

stating that although the current methods may not be ideal, the process of upgrading to a new system

and acquiring new skills might prove more difficult than continuing with the status quo permitting

process.

Based on this information, it appears that implementing electronic permitting may present a significant

challenge for some municipalities, depending on the financial, technological, and staff resources

available and the current level of technology use. While some municipalities have permit systems thatare largely online, many others are using paper-based systems and three towns in our survey reported

that their computers are not yet connected to a network, indicating that implementation of a new

electronic system may be more difficult in some locations than in those that have high technology use or

have already adopted some elements of an e-permitting system. Improvements to existing processes

may be possible in other aspects of streamlined permitting, such as the use of users guides and

development handbooks, which are used in some municipalities but not universally throughout the

region. The creation of consistent, widely distributed and regularly updated permitting informational

materials throughout the Pioneer Valley would improve communication between citizens and

government officials.

How can PVPC facilitate change streamlining of permitting in the region?

As a good faith broker, it is common for communities to prefer working through a regional entity rather

than to negotiate directly with a vendor and each other simultaneously. For example, if communities

wanted to consolidate part time workers to take advantage of economies of scale, PVPC would be a

natural broker dealer in creating such a solution on behalf of the communities. In addition, similar to

how CRCOG manages the vendor relationship between software provider and towns, PVPC could be a

vendor manager on behalf of its member communities.


19/21

PVPC could provide practical applications of the best practices for the individual communities to

streamline permitting. Given the practices within each community, PVPC could recommend processes to

improve the current workflow that does not necessarily involve technology or high cost from the

community. Eventually, working with communities, PVPC could create a permit application model for all

communities, which can facilitate the permitting process across the region. In addition, as a regional

entity, PVPCs website could be used to provide permitting information from member municipalities

enabling those communities with limited web presence to have their permitting information readily

available and creating a regional one-stop-shop for permitting.

As a regional planning agency, PVPC also has considerable ability to consolidate and leverage buying

power of multiple municipalities in order to reduce software costs for the individual municipality. This

would especially enable smaller communities that normally do not invest in technology to justify and

purchase e-government solutions for their communities. Those costs can also be reduced if PVPC is

successful in leveraging funds from other sources.

V. Recommendations for the Pioneer Valley Planning CommissionDirect Technical Assistance towards Streamlined Permitting

Given the observed permitting practices, which show a low level of streamlined practices in the region,

PVPC should proactively provide communities with technical assistance geared towards implementing

best practices in each community that would significantly streamline permitting.

Foster Standardization and Consolidation at the Regional Level

At a very basic level, PVPC can consolidate information such as contact information for the local

communities and provide a regional permitting guide on the organizations website for each member

city and town. Some of the smaller communities within PVPC would benefit greatly from consolidatinglocal permitting information and providing it on the web.

Another way PVPC can foster consolidation is by creating a model permit application for municipalities

across the region to adopt. This would simplify the permitting process for all communities and make it

easier for contractors to do business in the valley.

Finally, for those communities that so desire, PVPC could broker agreements with neighbors that

currently have part-time staff in order to share permitting personnel.

Procure a regional E-Permitting software system

y Phased approach: Permitting is applied in a wide range of circumstances, from building,licensing, planning and zoning, fire and health, amongst others. In order to successfully

implement a regional solution PVPC should initially focus on one area of permitting and build on

the success of the initial regionalization. The first focus area should be (1) an area of need that

has the potential for uniformity across municipalities, (2) an area in which local governments

and stakeholders have a great desire to improve and streamline, (3) an area that has relatively

low complexity and has few stakeholders. For example, Washington States


20/21

MyBuildingPermit.com only does very simple permits that do not require any plan review, such

as water heater or furnace replacement, reroofing permits, amongst others. They are currently

expanding to other permitting that requires plan review. Similarly, CRCOG focused initially only

on building permits and is currently expanding into Planning and Zoning permits, and will

eventually expand into Public Works permits.

y Out of the box software: Given the time and cost of various options, this report recommendsPVPC or its members pursue purchasing a vendor application or service that does not require

additional development.

y Realistic Timeline: Given the experiences of other planning regions, PVPC should have anexpectation that a straightforward procurement process for an e-permitting program will take a

minimum of 12 to 14 months, with additional time needed for any customizations or regional

implementation leading up to approximately 18 months of turn-around time for a project of this

magnitude, given the 10 months of ground work already completed.

y Budget expectations: Cost of the software and maintenance will vary depending on the numberand size of participating municipalities. The Cost Benefit Analysis within the Appendix gives a

very good overview of potential costs. One key budgeting recommendation is if PVPC will be a

vendor manager on behalf of the municipalities, PVPC should ensure that a structure is in place

to be able to manage those administrative costs. CRCOG collects an administrative fee of 20%

of the maintenance costs to offset its management costs and improve the system for the future.

FRCOG currently charges based on a rolling three year average of actual permit fees, but is

considering creating an alternative method that would enable easier budgeting for its members.

In addition, CRCOG recommends not having municipalities participate without any financial

commitments.

y Coordination and buy-in of stakeholders: All successful programs had considerable buy-in fromstakeholders. It is important that stakeholders have a vested interest in the process and in theend product. Resistance to change can be expected, but each participating member community

should have an internal advocate for the project. Given the long-term nature of electronic

permitting implementation, buy-in is essential to the success of the project. As part of the buy-

in, this report recommends municipalities commit to contributing financially to some degree in

order to show their support for the e-permitting project.


21/21

VI. AppendicesE-Permitting Cost Benefit Analysis

See attached file E-Permitting CBA and include:y One page for worksheet NPV Analysis all Townsy One page (or insert somewhere in the document if possible) table in Muni NPV worksheet.y NPV Calculation Tables in worksheets 1 through 43

Community Surveys

See attached file Community Permitting Survey.doc

Report Review List

A Best Practices Model for Streamlined Local Permitting, Massachusetts Association of Regional

Planning Agencies (MARPA), November 2007

Automated Permit Tracking Software Systems: A Guide for Massachusetts Municipalities,

Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies (MARPA), June 2007,

E-Government Maria Manta Conroy and Jennifer Evans-Cowley for American Planning Associations

Planner Advisory Service, 2004

E-Government: Efficient, Effective, Electronic Government, Southeastern Regional Planning and

Economic Development District (SRPEDD), 2011

The Future of Small Town Computing: A Cloud or a Digital Divide?, David Davies, DLS Director ofInformation Technology (2010)

E-Government Survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis,

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2010.

the path to e-government - final draft 3

Documents