Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant survey finds Franklin development services well regarded but urges clearer roles and faster, more consistent responses
Summary
A consultant presentation of a survey of 400 development professionals found strong marks for customer service and communications but flagged inconsistent review responses and role clarity as areas for improvement; staff outlined follow-up steps including targeted meetings with practitioners.
City staff and Thrivance Consulting presented results of a yearlong survey of 400 development professionals at the Jan. 28 meeting, reporting 66 responses and recommending targeted operational and communications changes to improve predictability and coordination in permitting, plan review and inspections.
Gary McClure, lead consultant for Thrivance Consulting, told aldermen that customer-service scores were high across permitting, plan review and inspections, but response clarity and “piling on” — where revised submittals introduce new issues — rated lower. McClure said the survey exposed “a disconnect between the expectations of the clients and reality,” and recommended role clarity so developers better understand whether staff functions are compliance checks or problem-solving resources.
City staff explained the survey targeted development professionals who interact regularly with the department rather than occasional single-permit homeowners. Catherine, a city staff liaison for development services, said the invite list of about 400 comprised firms active in the last three years; 66 respondents yielded a roughly 17% response rate. Vernon, a city staff member, said the city will hold follow-up meetings with survey respondents through the Development Services Advisory Commission to mine verbatim comments and identify concrete process improvements.
Recommendations from the consultant included: amplifying and sharing strong customer-service practices across staff; mining “complainer” verbatim comments for actionable ideas; mapping and deconstructing customer journeys to find bottlenecks; clarifying staff roles to align client expectations with compliance responsibilities; and sending respondents follow-up communications describing what the city plans to change.
Aldermen raised sample-size and representativeness questions; several urged more frequent or “in-process” feedback mechanisms such as short surveys tied to permit milestones. Alderman Burger suggested a triage or help-desk function to convene project teams (contractor, architect, engineer, developer) early and reduce repeated resubmissions.
Staff committed to continuing the engagement: they will share the full dataset with aldermen on request, host follow-up Development Services Advisory Commission sessions with respondents who volunteered to meet, and explore more frequent, targeted feedback surveys at permit milestones.
