DMI’s Draft Recommendations for Fixing the “Broken” Development Process

This has passed their Economic Development and Executive Committees and the Board is voting on it tomorrow. If you know anyone on the DMI Board you may want to try talking to them.

When the Mayor talked to EDC about the “broken” process, he talked about Bill White taking the lead on this, and I thought those recommendations were the same as DMI’s, turn out, its not and DMI seems to think they are the lead on this, I don’t fully understand what is going on, but its clear both groups have been working on this since the beginning of the year, but neighborhoods, the Plan Commission and Urban Design Commission just found out about it in the Mayor’s State of the City address to the invite only Rotary Club.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO CITY OF MADISON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS

PREPARED BY DOWNTOWN MADISON INC, JUNE 15, 2010

The current recession has had a profoundly negative impact on both residential and commercial real estate redevelopment. In particular, faced with mounting losses in their real estate portfolios, bank have tightened credit by, among other things, increasing the percentage of equity that developers must contribute before lending on a project. These and similar changes effectively make it much more difficult and expensive to redevelop a downtown property and still make a fair profit. In addition, infill redevelopment projects are generally more complex and expensive than new construction on open land. As a result, Madison has increasingly been losing attractive redevelopment opportunities to surrounding cities able to offer inexpensive land and a streamlined approval process.

The significant “tightening” in credit markets and the attractiveness of outlying communities to investor/developers are in all likelihood permanent changes. However, the changing redevelopment landscape is relatively new and therefore not uniformly understood or acknowledged by all decision makers and decision influencers who participate in the development approval process. More important, Madison’s system to review and approve or deny proposed development leaves it at a significant disadvantage in an increasingly competitive environment for now scarcer quality redevelopment/investment. Madison has unique cultural and educational advantages, but to win our share of new investment, we will have to be re-think and revise our development approval process and culture.

Downtown Madison Inc.’s Economic Development Committee worked between February and June 2010 to evaluate the City of Madison’s development approval process and make recommendations to improve the efficiency of the current process. The consensus view of the participants was that the current approval process has its strengths, but could be significantly improved. The most important reasons for Madison to consider revising its current approval process include the following:

Efficiency: The current development approval process taxes the resources of all stakeholders involved, including the Common Council, staff of the various City agencies involved, neighborhood associations, and the development community. Unproductive hours spent on a less than efficient process leave fewer resources for other pressing problems facing the City and waste private investor resources.

Image: In order to compete, Madison must be able to attract potential investors and developers. Unfortunately, our city is viewed by many as inherently hostile to development and investment. Revamping the development approval process would to reduce the time required to approve or deny approval of proposed projects is essential for Madison to compete effectively.

Recommendations:
We have several recommendations to improve Madison’s Development Approval Process. These are presented below in no particular order.

1. Project a Customer Engaging Attitude
a. Background: City staff, alders, and the members of committee’s commission’s boards and agencies (committees) need to cultivate and project a customer engaging attitude. Right or wrong, Madison is perceived by many to be hostile to development and investment. In order to compete effectively with surrounding communities, Madison must address head on its reputation in the marketplace.

b. Recommendations
i. Committee Members: Members of committees are part of the face of the City. Applications for open seats on committees should include requests for information that would provide insight into abilities, but also attitudes of prospective committee members.
ii. Annual Review: Conduct an annual review of committees and staff to assure accountability for actions/conduct.
iii. Promotion: If (and only if) the City successfully revises its development approval process, consider conducting an outreach campaign to let the world know.

This is mildly interesting in that the Mayor makes the appointments to the committees, the council can either approve or reject and any attempts to change that process or get more input have been pretty soundly rejected by the mayor. I wonder how he will respond to this.

2. Appoint a Project Liaison for Important Projects
a. Background: Larger projects can have a huge impact on the city as a whole and on the local neighborhoods. A project liaison for larger projects would present a welcoming attitude to investors regardless of the ultimate decision of the community to approve or deny the proposed project. The improved efficiency a liaison would present would likely be significant and essentially pay for the service.

b. Recommendations
i. Liaisons for Larger Projects: Have one staff member of the planning or economic development teams assigned to shepherd important projects through the review/approval process. The project liaison would help educate applicants, emphasize early submittal of projects, help get ahead of inter-agency/inter-commission conflicts and help applicants obtain timely feedback from various stakeholders.

Same recommendation as Bill White, kinda.

3. Consider a Different Approval Process for Smaller Projects
a. Background: Larger projects can have a huge impact on the city as a whole and on the local neighborhoods. As a result, they would typically require a longer, deeper and more complicated approval processes. On the other hand, an approval process which provides a streamlined review process for some smaller projects which meet certain defined characteristics might improve efficiency without risk of lax oversight or loss of input from stakeholders.

b. Recommendations
i. Define a Simplified Process for “Small” Projects: Staff should prepare a set of recommendations for a streamlined approval process for smaller projects including a list of attributes that, if met, would qualify a project to be tracked into a simplified process.

Again, kinda sounds the same as Bill White. Funny they think staff should prepare this set of recommendations, and they don’t have any themselves. Um, this is their proposal to change the process, why can’t they come up with their own ideas.

4. Other Efficiency Improvements
a. Background: The development approval process can be made more efficient without losing any of the oversight or valued input that ensures the best possible outcomes. There are many diverse ways this could be accomplished.

b. Recommendations
i. Neighborhood Notice: Change notification of neighborhood groups to providing full information notice upon filing of the application, not preliminary notice 30 days before filing.
ii. Discourage Multiple Referrals: Committees should be limited in the number of referrals which can be required. Ideas include tracking the number of times that a project has been on previous agendas, evaluating the performance of committees annually on referrals, and limiting committee involvement to the committee’s mission.
iii. Overlapping Jurisdictions: Examine eliminating multiple bodies reviewing the same issue with different appeal routes and procedures (e.g., ZBA, Plan Commission) to eliminate overlap.

They want to eliminate early neighborhood and alder notification, presumably to allow them less time to organize meetings for the neighborhood? They also want less referrals/less opportunities to take a detailed look at projects. And finally, they seem to be encouraging rejection of projects instead of referrals to get to yes. Interesting approach. And they don’t seem to distinguish about when the referral is due to the developers request or lack of information from them. All this will do is result in longer referrals to ensure things get done by the next meeting. The unintended consequences here are kinda obvious and I’m surprised they didn’t protect for that.

5. Improve the Functionality of Committees and Commissions
a. Background: An efficient development approval process requires that Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Agencies (committees) themselves operate efficiently and effectively. Ideas to improve the functioning of committees include:

b. Recommendations
i. Leadership Training for Committee Chairs: Committee chairs should be provided with leadership training including instruction on how to control meetings and how to keep discussion to germane matters and prevent “mission creep” of the committee.
ii. Annual Review: Provide “360 performance review” of all committees. Applicants, real estate professionals who interact regularly with staff, and other stakeholders should be a vital component of these reviews. Provide for anonymous written comment/praise/complaints as part of the ongoing and annual “360 performance review” process. To aid in this review, the assigned staff should compile and annually review data regarding committee performance including identification of delays and causes thereof. A central goal of this review is to look for process improvements. Provide feedback to all committee members.
iii. Train Members in Scope and Function of the Committee: Provide committee members with training in the purpose, responsibilities, organization, reach, limits, etc. of the committee.

These are the same as Bill White’s and I agree on the training. Concerned about the time it would take for the “360 Review”

6. Decision Making Authority Should be Retained by the Council
a. Background: Development approval decisions require that many competing interests be weighed and considered. These include the concerns of neighbors vs. broader city interests, current vs. future generations, competing property owners, historic preservation vs. redevelopment, etc. Development approval decisions also require weighing different sets of values such as quiet enjoyment of one’s property vs. critical need for economic opportunity and jobs. The appropriate venue for the deliberation and weighing and judging of these competing interests and ideals is the Counsel itself.

b. Recommendations
i. Mission: Review and clarify each committee’s mission statement and scope of authority
ii. Authority: Make Explicit that All City Boards, Committees, Commissions and Agencies Committees) are advisory to the Common Counsel. The Counsel could still delegate review of routine development matters to its Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Agencies, but decisions by these bodies should be appeal-able to the full Counsel.
iii. Supermajority Requirement: Eliminate the requirement for supermajority votes to overturn decisions made by subordinate bodies (committees), which are “creatures of the Counsel”.
iv. Committee criteria: For all committees, review/adopt applicable and appropriate approval criteria and standards.

Wow. They display a remarkable lack of understanding of our ordinances with these recommendations. Most of the criteria and standards are all there, they just need to be followed. Including, but the council. And, they’re elimination of supermajority votes ignores some state laws and again could have unintended consequences when the council overturns a decision they favor.

7. City Staff
a. Background : Staff participation on committees and staff reviews of development requests is absolutely critical element in the current development approval process. However, developers sometimes receive conflicting requirements from various committees and staff and sometimes are presented with significant approval conditions from staff well after projects have been vetted and even approved by relevant committees. That can cause significant additional design fees that might have been avoided with earlier notice. In addition, there is a somewhat widely held opinion in the development community that some staff involved in the review and approval process are reluctant to make recommendations that might engender strong reactions from elected officials, applicants or neighborhood advocates. Finally,community planning and related disciplines are highly dynamic fields whose practitioners are expected to help communities meet current and future needs. To be successful as professionals, planners must have a working knowledge of land use regulations, architecture and landscape architecture, urban real estate economics, political science, etc. Ongoing training including exposure to the approaches other Cities have employed to solve their problems is a critical element of a robust, healthy, efficient system of development approval and economic redevelopment.

b. Recommendations
i. 360 Review: Provide “360 performance review” of staff assigned to review development proposals. Applicants, real estate professionals who interact regularly with staff, and other stakeholders should be a vital component of these reviews. Provide for anonymous written comment/praise/complaints as part of the ongoing and annual staff “360 performance review” process.
ii. Outside Training: Staff should be expected to remain accountably current in their fields through self-direct study and regular attendance at national planning and related conferences.
iii. Shift the Culture: Staff should be expected to present facts to commissions and committees and applicants, but that is not enough: they also should be expected to make specific recommendations. Implementing this recommendation will require effective leadership to change a culture that does not currently reward staff for fully engaging as professionals in the review and approval/denial process.
iv. Staff Knowledge: Ensure staff know and understand the perspective of the development community. (Because citizen members of committees and alders often rely on staff, staff should be expected to hold a higher level of knowledge).
v. Broader Interests: Establish policy and criteria which ensure that staff pay attention to and respond to neighborhood concerns AND the interests of the larger community. Reinforce this through leadership training directed at staff.
vi. Staff Input: Take steps to ensure that all staff comments and concerns are raised well before final review so that developers can review and, as needed, redesign their projects. Provide for an appeal process for any additional requirements that are imposed by staff after plans have been approved by commissions and committees.
vii. Staff Reports: Provide a process to assure accuracy and quality control of staff reports. In particular, drafts for review should be provided to applicants to ensure mistakes and miscommunications are eliminated before such reports are submitted. In addition, implementing an appeal process when staff additions overreach.

I’m all for the training, and I’m intrigued by letting staff tell us what they really think. The developers may not really want that. Just think about what Gromacki had to say about the OBR/MDC proposal for BioLink. The other issue is that the staff often don’t agree. I kind of think its funny that they think staff don’t know what the development community wants. I think they know, I just don’t think they agree. You’d have to be living under a rock not to know, through their lobbying efforts and loud complaining at every turn, if you’re paying any attention at all you’re well aware. We can thank this loud grumbling for our perception problem. Also, interesting that they want to focus on criteria, but then they want to focus on wider community interests. I think they do this through the neighborhood plans and comprehensive plan. Those have been approved by the council and had broad input. I agree with earlier staff reports, but the moment they provide them to the developer for review, they become open records, which is a inconvenient truth for sure.

8. Committee Members
a. Background: Committee and commission members play key roles in the development approval process. However, knowledge of real estate development and real estate finance are not prerequisites for being selected to serve on a commission or committee. In order to be effective, new counsel members and members of subordinate bodies (and new staff) should have a basic understanding of the challenges and process of development and development economics. This can be accomplished through the selection process for committees and commissions and through various training activities which could be offered by city staff or others.

b. Recommendations
i. Accountability
1. The Mayor should appoint all chairs of all the committees.
2. Implement a process to allow for a change in committee leadership based on results of annual evaluations.
ii. Training
1. Provide training written from a developer’s perspective. The goal of the training should be a transparent, non-biased understanding of what is involved in completing a development project including basic real estate finance.
2. Educate committee members, alders, and staff on the costs and consequences of delay and multiple citizen and staff reviews.
3. Educate committee members on real estate economics and the development process to help ensure the best, highest level dialog between stakeholders and the applicants.
4. Repeat training annually, making it available to committee chairs and members, and members of neighborhood associations.

Oooooh, Mayor appointing committee chairs, that’s a new one. He has essentially been doing this even tho he doesn’t have authority. He does it by announcing that so-and-so has agreed to serve. I really think that the colleagues on the committee are rarely going to disagree with someone willing to step up. These charimanships are often more a matter of duty than privilege, especially since the staff usually make the agendas and I don’t think many consult with the chairs to the extent that they should. Much of the agendas are set by deadlines, maybe the chair should have the ability to bump projects that are not ready.

The un-biased training from a developer’s perspective is hilarious. Seriously? If its unbiased, how come it has to be from the developer’s perspective? Hmmmmm.

9. Neighborhood Plans
a. Background: Confusion exists currently as to the relationships of the various plans which govern development. This seems particularly the case for neighborhood plans drawn up with local involvement and minimal staff involvement.

b. Recommendations
i. Plan authority: Make clear the relationship of the neighborhood plans to other plans. There is significant confusion, even among real estate and planning professionals, on the role of neighborhood plans in the planning process, especially when such plans conflict (or at least fail to mesh well) with other plans. If neighborhood plans are merely advisory, that should be made clear.
ii. City-Wide Issues: All citizens have some interest in all neighborhood plans, so the process of developing neighborhood plans must ensure that interests of the larger community, such as economic development, transportation, parks, etc., are represented. Examine how neighborhood plans are prepared to ensure this always happens by including review of draft plans from citizens who reside outside of the neighborhood.
iii. Flexibility: Neighborhood plans should include significant flexibility to accommodate changing conditions and unforeseen opportunities.

I think it is clear what neighborhood plans mean, I think they just don’t like the answer or don’t want to open up the comprehensive plan to find out. It’s right there on line. And they are not advisory. When there are conflicts it is problematic, but its not widespread and usually the last plan passed carries more weight with the decision makers who look at this information. On the consideration of wider interests, they might have noticed that the new plans are following the comprehensive plan categories including entire chapters on Transportation, Economic Development and Parks and Open Space. This is just embarrassing that they are commenting on something they apparently haven’t looked at. And, you know, if they are so adamant about neighborhood plan being done a specific way, then the city should pay for the plans and there should be a fair process to determine when plans get done. Finally, unforeseen circumstances usually mean that long held neighborhood issues get ignored.

10. Neighborhood Associations
a. Background: Neighborhood associations provide valuable input and help ensure a better outcome for development decisions. However, there is a great deal of variability in the way that Madison’s neighborhood associations function, which is detrimental to a rational, efficient, and fair review process. Suggested changes include:

b. Recommendations
i. Membership: Membership of neighborhood associations should represent all neighborhood stakeholders: residents, owners, renters, businesses, etc. In particular, property owners have a valued stake in the outcome of development decisions and their full participation in neighborhood associations strengthens the associations. Neighborhood associations which wish to be recognized by the City should allow the participation by a representative of non-resident property owners as full voting members in their neighborhood associations.
ii. Review Process: Neighborhood review processes and required submittals should be standardized to provide consistency across the city.
iii. Representing a neighborhood: Comments submitted by neighborhood associations should identify how neighborhood input was solicited, and the numbers of individuals who participated in the development of the neighborhood’s position. This will help the Counsel understand if the neighborhood association’s position is widely held or the opinion of the few. This will also help alders weigh the input of the neighborhood association representative against potential contrary opinions by other residents of the same neighborhood.
iv. Training: Make annual training available to neighborhood associations.

Sigh, I don’t get it. Neighborhoods don’t tell business groups who can be members, why do business groups think they can say how a neighborhood group operates and who its members can be. I think there is some funny confusion going on here. Neighborhood associations represent who they represent, no one is being locked out of any process, their opinion is the opinion of the people they represent, if there are other interests out there, they should make themselves known and form their own groups. Same with how they make their decisions, there is not a one size fit all approach to this. And, there is annual or near annual training available at the Neighborhood Roundtables. And again, the Office of Neighborhood Support, that was frowned upon by the business community might help.

11. Further Research
a. Background: The city should conduct a review of best practices to identify further improvements in the development review process. Madison should look outside its own boundaries for examples of successful, robust development approval processes, and shamelessly borrow ideas that will further improve our own processes. It would be particularly helpful for the research effort took a “50,000 foot view” and examined if our development approval process as refined and revised comprises a logical and efficient development approval system.
b. Recommendations:
i. System Analysis: Evaluate if in total Madison’s approach to review of development proposals, including recommendations in this report, comprises an efficient approach.
ii. Comparisons: Examine other communities’ approval processes
1. Neighboring cities (Middleton, Sun Prairie, Verona)
2. Other Wisconsin cities (Milwaukee, cities in the Fox Valley)
3. Cities we want to emulate (Austin, Minneapolis)
4. International Downtown Association, trade groups
iii. LaFollette Report: Review the 2005 evaluation and analysis of Madison’s Development Review and Permitting Process prepared by the UW’s Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs for additional ideas.

Oooo, the Fox Valley, yes, lets look at their development review process, cuz their results are just awesome! Sorry, but we went through this and they didn’t come up with any dramatic changes that were viable last time, what makes them think that they will get any further this time. Or maybe its just a distraction to keep people busy?

Sigh, I have this very strong been here, done that feeling. The business community recommendations are kind of laughable. If they want something changed, they should be forced to come up with a specific recommendation because without that, nothing will be changed, they’ll still be unhappy and what should be done will remain elusive.

It’ll be interested to see what happens with their recommendations at their meeting, I’m guessing they pass.