Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting And Development Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fayetteville mayor asks staff to explore third‑party review of permitting process; councilists back information gathering
Summary
Following a presentation and discussion at the Feb. 3 work session, the mayor asked staff to collect information on outside, third‑party reviews of the city’s permitting and permitting process, citing examples from other cities. Council members asked for assurances that any review would be practical and used to improve permitting throughput.
At the Feb. 3 work session Mayor Colvin (presiding) asked staff to collect information about bringing in a third‑party reviewer to evaluate the city’s permitting, code and zoning processes and recommend improvements aimed at speeding approvals and reducing bottlenecks.
The mayor described nationwide examples presented at a recent conference of mayors that linked process complexity to housing affordability pressures and said a third‑party review could identify opportunities to simplify city procedures. He told council he had discussed the subject with staff and sought their help identifying qualified reviewers and the potential scope of work.
Council members voiced support for collecting information but also asked that any consultant engagement be result‑driven and cost‑effective. Councilman Thompson said he would not support paying for studies that the city would not use and asked staff to ensure the review would produce actionable recommendations. Councilman Benavente asked staff to confirm the scope and the intended outcome of a potential review.
City staff said they would gather information about third‑party options (AIA, independent process reviewers and similar firms were discussed during the session as possible models) and report back to council with options and likely costs and deliverables. The mayor referenced examples such as Austin and San Diego, where outside consultants produced process reviews to improve permitting certainty and throughput.
No formal vote or contract award was made; the council’s direction was to have staff bring back information so council could consider whether to engage a consultant and what scope would be appropriate.
