Yesterday the Chamber of Commerce put out their press release, stating what they think is “broken” with the development process and noting their recommendations. I’m not sure their main recommendation is all that practical or will get them what they want. Talk about unintended consequences. Their input to the Economic Development Commission is here.
PRACTICAL
Ok, first, how practical is this. Can it be implemented with confidence?
Can you see something getting presumptively approved because
a. There was a snow storm and the council meeting got cancelled?
b. There was a paperwork snafu and it didn’t end up on the agenda and publicly noticed properly?
c. The developer delays getting information to the committees and staff until the last minute and then it can’t be adequately reviewed? And later, they find out that they approved something with major issues?
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Second, the unintended consequences.
a. Staff would have to get really hard-nosed about having complete applications up front, making any little slip up a reason to consider the application incomplete so as not to start the clock ticking. Additional requirements could be added for considering an application “complete”.
b. The “complete” applications may end up costing the developer more money, because they do the detailed work on something that can’t or won’t get approved instead of coming forward with concepts. This will end up costing more in design and architect fees.
c. Bad projects would simply be told “no” instead of having staff and committees work to get to a yes.
d. Project that need additional information that isn’t timely would just get rejected instead of continuing to work to get to yes.
e. The “perception” about the city being hard to work with would get worse as the staff and committee worry more about the clock than getting things done.
f. The list of conditions and items to be worked out with staff after the approval would become longer and more cumbersome.
g. In order to approve things committees would attach conditions that certain portions of the project come back to the committee for approval because they didn’t have time to work them out.
h. This won’t simplify things. It will make them more convoluted as people twist themselves in knots to approve something that is not ready so they don’t have to turn it down.
I’m sure there are more . . .those are just the issues off the top of my head this morning.
PRESS RELEASE
Here’s their press release in case you are interested:
Greater Madison Chamber Aims to Make City Approval Process Consistent
MADISON, WIS. – In an effort to make doing business in Madison more predictable and timely, the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce (GMCC) released several recommendations that will enhance the City’s development approval process. Madison’s Economic Development Committee (EDC) is currently reviewing the approval process at the request of Mayor Cieslewicz.
Many GMCC recommendations echo themes and ideas originally generated by the EDC in a 2004 report on the City’s business climate. GMCC President Jennifer Alexander acknowledged the progress made, but said more work can be done to improve the development approval process.
“The Mayor and Alders deserve praise for implementing many of the recommendations outlined in the 2004 report, but we have further work to do to make the approval process more simple and consistent,” said Alexander. “We should always strive to be more efficient and competitive.”
The GMCC is recommending several concepts and initiatives that aim to make the process consistent and timely. “When you have an uncertain approval process, it inevitably increases the risk and costs for a project,” said Alexander.
One recommendation to ensure a timely decision is adoption of presumptive approval. Under presumptive approval, the City would have 180 days to approve or deny a project once a formal application is submitted. Alexander says the policy would preserve public input and send an encouraging message to business and investors.
“The purpose of a 180-day decision clock is not simply to get to yes,” said Alexander. “Communities that have a presumptive approval policy have found it to be an internal motivator to ensure timely decisions are made.”
In another step aimed at efficiency, the GMCC recommends consolidation of the Plan Commission and the Urban Design Commission.
“By adding two design professionals to the existing Plan Commission, we will be able to streamline the process without losing the intent of the current UDC, which is to make sure we build beautiful buildings,” said Alexander.
Alexander emphasized that all interested parties – the developer, the neighborhood, elected officials and planning staff – would be better served by a simpler and more transparent approval process.
“To preserve our high quality of life, it’s imperative that Madison continues to attract quality development proposals which add to the tax base, visually enhance the City, and create exciting places to visit, live, work and play,” said Alexander.
View the list of GMCC recommendations at www.greatermadisonchamber.com/policy/bulletin-board/46.
Mutual agreement (near the bottom of the linked doc) would be a deal breaker for me. If a developer can force enough delays and not agree to stop the clock… they get approval automatically?!?
From the doc:
o After a formal application is submitted, the City will have 180 days to move the proposal through all committee and Common Council approvals. If a yes or no decision is not provided during that time, the project is automatically approved.
o During the 180 day period, the time clock may be temporarily stopped by mutual agreement between the developer and the City. Stopping the clock should be an infrequent occurrence yet may be necessary due to project complexities or extenuating circumstances.
Lots to absorb. On first skim, this struck me:
“City boards, councils or commissions should not be allowed to add conditions of approval that exceed the zoning code requirements.”
So the zoning code becomes the ceiling as well as the floor? With the zoning rewrite in progress the implications of that need to be explored.