Fairfax County Land Development Time to Market - Using Data to Make Improvements
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•2,681 views
Fairfax County Land Development Time to Market - Using Data to Make Improvements Bill Hicks, Land Development Services June 8, 2018
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Fairfax County Land Development Time to Market - Using Data to Make Improvements
Similar to Fairfax County Land Development Time to Market - Using Data to Make Improvements (20)
More from Fairfax County
More from Fairfax County (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Fairfax County Land Development Time to Market - Using Data to Make Improvements
- 1. Fairfax County Land Development Time to Market Using Data to Make Improvements Bill Hicks, Land Development Services June 8, 2018
- 2. Discussion of Land Development Metrics • Defining Relevant Metrics • Current Data Trends and Analysis • Next Steps
- 3. Categorizing Metrics • Volumetric Workload/Capacity – How Much? • Performance Targets/Service Levels Both are applicable to LDS
- 4. Workload or Capacity Metrics (Volumetrics) • Have we applied the necessary resources to a task? EXAMPLE: • Inspections Conducted Annually • 220,000 • Plan Reviews per Engineer • 2,000 per engineer per year for Building
- 5. LDS By the Numbers 60,000 Building Permits Issued Annually 4,500 Site-Related Plans Submitted Annually 30,000 Customers Served at Counters 220,000 Field Inspections $2.2 Billion in New Construction! LDS Annual Operating Costs: $40 Million 310 Total Staff Members 23 Building Plan Reviewers 27 Site Plan Reviewers
- 6. Volumetric Example: Customer Information Center • Log all Inquiries 7,800 (September 2016 thru June 2017) • 80/20 Rule • Improve Service Delivery Options • Canned Responses • FAQ • Web Videos
- 7. Performance Metrics • How well do we deliver our services? EXAMPLES: • Lag between an inspection request and conducting the inspection • Time to Market.
- 8. Performance Metric Example: Residential Building Inspections
- 9. Performance Metric Example: Review Times = 1st Submittal Reviews 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Projected Major Site Plan Avg # of Days - 1st Review 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Projected New Commercial Building Plans Avg # of Days - 1st Review
- 10. The Holy Grail – Time to Market Industry Definition • Length of time it takes from a project being conceived to occupancy Focus of LDS Impact/Partnership with Customers
- 11. The Holy Grail – Time to Market Industry Definition LDS Proxy – What We Can Control Focus of LDS Impact/Partnership with Customers FOCUS 1: Site-Related Plans FOCUS 2: Building Plans
- 12. Described the Holy Grail but… • Current Systems do not readily produce this information. • In preparation for this presentation, we data-mined 2017 approvals. • Describe the Data • Focused on • Tenant Fit-Out • Non-Fast Track: > 4,500 Square Feet • Fast Track: < 4,500 Square Feet • Single Family Homes • Restaurant • Large Mixed Use
- 13. Datasets Reviewed • FY 2017 Plans Approved • Major Site Plans Sent to Bonds and Agreement • Building Plans Reviewed and Approved • FY 2017 RUPs/Non-RUPs Issued • Associated Site Plan Reviews to Bonds and Agreement (1-3 Years Earlier) • Associated Building Plan Reviews to Approval (Prior to Construction)
- 14. Expedited Site Plan Review (FY 2017) Non-DPE Peer Review Average County Review: 146 Days Average Customer: 597 Days
- 15. Expedited Building Plan Review (FY 2017)
- 16. Expedited Building Plan Review Footing & Foundation Permit Fast Track Permitting
- 17. 4 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 54 6 Time to Market = 13 Months Time to Market = Site plan acceptance to building plan approval Site Plan Review 9 months 1 2 3 5 Building Plan Review 6 months Current State of Plan Review Times
- 18. Detailed Building Plan Data Reviewed Single Family Homes, 766, 13% Restaurant, 1, 0% Mixed Use, 35, 1% Tenant < 4500 SF, 1866, 33% Tenant > 4500 SF, 3044, 53% 5,712 Projects Final Approved in FY 2017 1/3 of All Non-Trade Building Permits - $25 Million in Fees
- 19. Tenant Fit-Out > 4,500 SF Single Family Homes, 766, 13% Restaurant, 1, 0% Mixed Use, 35, 1% Tenant < 4500 SF, 1866, 33% Tenant > 4500 SF, 3044, 53%
- 20. Tenant Fit-Out > 4,500 SF (FY17 Data) Details 3,044 Projects in FY 2017 Avg. Time to Market: 56 days Construction Average: 276 days
- 21. Tenant Fit-Out > 4,500 SF – Popeye’s Chicken (Herndon) County Review: 126 days Customer: 175 days Construction: 763 days
- 22. Tenant Fit-Out > 4,500 Square Feet – McDonald’s Old Keene Mill Road County Review: 125 days Customer: 377 days Construction: 89 days
- 23. Tenant Fit-Out < 4,500 SF Single Family Homes, 766, 13% Restaurant, 1, 0% Mixed Use, 35, 1% Tenant < 4500 SF, 1866, 33% Tenant > 4500 SF, 3044, 53%
- 24. Tenant Fit Out < 4,500 SF (FY17 Data)
- 25. Tenant Fit-Out < 4,500 SF – Celebrities Salon & Spa
- 26. Single Family Homes Single Family Homes, 766, 13% Restaurant, 1, 0% Mixed Use, 35, 1% Tenant < 4500 SF, 1866, 33% Tenant > 4500 SF, 3044, 53%
- 27. Single Family Homes (FY17 Data) Details 766 Projects (596 with Site Plans) Avg. Time to Market: 108 days Avg. Construction: 766 days
- 28. Single Family Home (Site Plan) – 8611 Georgetown Pike County Review: 100 days Customer: 28 days Construction: 520 days
- 29. Single Family Home (Site Plan) – 4024 N. Stuart Street County Review: 90 days Customer: 13 days Construction: 419 days
- 30. Restaurants Single Family Homes, 766, 13% Restaurant, 1, 0% Mixed Use, 35, 1% Tenant < 4500 SF, 1866, 33% Tenant > 4500 SF, 3044, 53%
- 31. Restaurant – 5761 Burke Center Parkway County Review: 198 days Customer: 80 days Construction: 182 days
- 32. Large Mixed Use Single Family Homes, 766, 13% Restaurant, 1, 0% Mixed Use, 35, 1% Tenant < 4500 SF, 1866, 33% Tenant > 4500 SF, 3044, 53%
- 33. Mixed Use Developments (FY17 Data) Details 35 Projects in FY 2017 Avg. Time to Market: 527 days Avg. Construction: 602 days
- 34. Mixed Use – Sheraton Dulles Station County Review: 272 days Customer: 286 days Construction Days: 3,155 Queue
- 35. Mixed Use – Modera Fairfax Ridge County Review: 508 days Customer: 634 days Construction: 819 days
- 36. What Comes Next? • Further Data-Mining (Not Too Much) • Leverage Technology for Performance Metrics • Incorporate Metrics into Agency Culture • Better Define Levels of Service (i.e., Targets) • Be Transparent/Benchmark Local Jurisdictions • www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/development-review-metrics
- 37. CUSTOMER SERVICE How do we respond to customer input?
- 38. Targets for Site/Building Plan Review Times 41 2 3 5 6 4 Time to Market = Site plan acceptance to building plan approval Time to Market = 8 Months (from 13) 1. Overcome Resource Issues 1. Backlogs from Peaks and Lulls in Market 2. Attract and Retain Experienced Staff 2. Site and Building Plans Reviewed More Concurrently a. e-Plans b. Effective Partnerships with Outside Agencies 3. Decreasing Time to Market Depends Heavily Upon: a. Partnerships with. . . a. Industry (high quality plan submissions) b. Inside/Outside Review Agencies on Timelines b. Maximizing the Use of Modified Processing by • Eliminating Existing Monetary Threshold Altogether • Allowing for All Major Plan Types (Req. Director Approval) c. Assigning Project Plan Resubmittal Due Dates How do we get there? Site Plan Review 6 months (from 9) Building Plan Review 1 2 3 4 months (from 6)
- 40. Metrics Portal To Include Time To Market Metrics and Illustrations For Recent Approvals
- 41. Questions
Editor's Notes
- Intro 60,000 permits per year 4,500 Site-related plans 2,000 Customers on 2nd floor 220,000 field inspections $2.2 Billion in New Construction (FY 2017) _____________________________________ 40M costs 310 positions
- September 2016 – June 2017 Combined Inquiries = 7,791 CIC Total Inquiries: 4,468 1690 Walk-Ins 2764 Calls 14 E-mail Herrity Help Desk Total Inquiries: 3,323 3231 Customers 92 County Staff
- Stated Level of Service: Next Business Day Inspection. Annually only 1% holdover from one day to the next Residential Inspections <100,000 annually. (NEED A Graph) 2017 topped 100,000 and holdovers mounted!!!! Inspectors were averaging 26 inspections per day. Nearly 3x the industry standard.
- How does this compare? Define what we’re comparing What is time to market Metric purposes time to market is Across the counter to Bonds and Agreements Building Counter to Building Permits Approved
- How does this compare? Define what we’re comparing What is time to market Metric purposes time to market is Across the counter to Bonds and Agreements Building Counter to Building Permits Approved
- Data for All Major Site Plans Sent to B&A in FY 2017 (Separate from Site Plans attached to Building Projects Finaled in FY17)
- KPIs Following Key five classes of building (1/3 of all non-trade permits) Single Family Homes Mixed Use Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF >4,500 SF Restaurants
- KPIs Following Key five classes of building (1/3 of all non-trade permits) Single Family Homes Mixed Use Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF >4,500 SF Restaurants
- KPI – Tenant Fit-Out >4,500 SF FY 2017 3,044 Projects $8.95 Million in Fees Average “Time to Market” 56 Days Average # of Building Plan Submissions: 1 Average # of Processing Days (County and Customer): 56 Average # of Other Discipline Reviews: 0 (Based on High Volume)
- Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF Example
- Tenant Fit-Out >4,500 SF Example
- KPIs Following Key five classes of building (1/3 of all non-trade permits) Single Family Homes Mixed Use Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF >4,500 SF Restaurants
- KPI – Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF FY 2017 1,866 Projects $2.8 Million in Fees Average “Time to Market” 15 Days Average # of Building Plan Submissions: 1 Average # of Processing Days (County and Customer): 15 Average # of Other Discipline Reviews: 4
- Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF Example
- KPIs Following Key five classes of building (1/3 of all non-trade permits) Single Family Homes Mixed Use Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF >4,500 SF Restaurants
- KPI – Single Family Homes FY 2017 766 Projects; 596 with Associated Site Plans $5.5 Million in Fees Average “Time to Market” 184 Days Average # of Building Plan Submissions: 2 Average # of Processing Days (County and Customer): 76 Average # of Site Plan Submissions: 1 Average # of County Review Days: 52 (All Submissions) Average # of Customer Days: 56 (All Submissions)
- Single Family Home Example - Outlier showing what may happen in process
- Single Family Home Example More typical example – but with additional time spent by LDS
- KPIs Following Key five classes of building (1/3 of all non-trade permits) Single Family Homes Mixed Use Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF >4,500 SF Restaurants
- KPI – Restaurant and Sole Example FY 2017 1 Project – Five Guys (5765 Burke Center Parkway) $27K in Fees “Time to Market” 824 Days # of Building Plan Submissions: 4 # of County Review Days: 77 # of Customer Days: 64 # of Other Discipline Reviews: 9 # of Site Plan Submissions: 2 # of County Review Days: 122 (All Submissions) # of Customer Days: 561 (All Submissions)
- KPIs Following Key five classes of building (1/3 of all non-trade permits) Single Family Homes Mixed Use Tenant Fit-Out <4,500 SF >4,500 SF Restaurants
- KPI – Mixed Use FY 2017 35 Projects; All with Associated Site Plans $7.5 Million in Fees Average “Time to Market” 742 Days Average # of Building Plan Submissions: 2 Average # of Processing Days (County and Customer): 242 Average # of Other Discipline Reviews: 6 Average # of Site Plan Submissions: 2 Average # of County Review Days: 263 (All Submissions) Average # of Customer Days: 237 (All Submissions)
- Mixed Use Example Outlier Sheraton Dulles Station
- Mixed Use Example Typical Example
- Intro Qless HappyorNot
- Concluding Illustration Site and building plan review must occur more concurrently, with building plans submitted at around month four of the site review process Site plan needs: ePlans in place effective partnerships with and among outside agencies Building plan needs: additional review staff to remove 1 month from the queue remove 1 month from Fire Marshal’s review (this is probably review staff as well as a unified approach) Decreasing time to market depends heavily upon: partnership with industry (high quality plan submissions) partnership with inside/outside review agencies on timelines maximizing the use of streamlined RGP process maximizing the use of concurrent processing maximizing the use of modified processing by eliminating existing monetary threshold altogether allowing for all major plan types (req. Director approval) assigning project plan resubmittal due dates This will accentuate the sense of urgency with industry and will enhance predictability
- Intro LDS Annual Report Website Metrics