HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-13 Special Meeting of La Porte City CouncilLOUIS R. RIGBY
Mayor
JOHN ZEMANEK
Mayor Pro-Tem, Councilmember At Large A
DOTTIE KAMINSKI
Councilmember At Large B
MIKE MOSTEIT
Councilmember District 1
CHUCK ENGELKEN
Councilmember District 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
DARYLLEONARD
Councilmember District 3
TOMMY MOSER
Councilmember District 4
JAY MARTIN
Councilmember District 5
MIKE CLAUSEN
Councilmember District 6
Notice is hereby given of a Special Meeting of the La Porte City Council to be held February 18,
2013, beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 604 West Fairmont Parkway,
La Porte, Texas, for the purpose of considering the following agenda items. All agenda items are
subject to action.
CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Limited to five minutes per person.)
3. DISCUSSION OR OTHER ACTION
(a) Discussion or other action regarding Planning Department Audit — C. Alexander
4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
La Porte Wrecker Committee Meeting, Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, Thursday, February 21, 2013
City Council Meeting, Monday, February 25, 2013
5. COUNCIL COMMENTS regarding matters appearing on the agenda; recognition of community
members, city employees, and upcoming events; inquiry of staff regarding specific factual
information or existing policies — Councilmembers Moser, Kaminski, Zemanek, Leonard, Engelken,
Mosteit, Clausen, Martin, and Mayor Rigby.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council reserves the right to meet in closed session on any agenda item should the need
arise and if applicable pursuant to authorization by Title 5, Chapter 551, of the Texas Government
Code.
7. RECONVENE into regular session and consider action, if any, on item(s) discussed in executive
session.
8. ADJOURN
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of La Porte will provide for reasonable accommodations
for persons attending public meetings. To better serve attendees, requests should be received 24 hours prior to the
meeting. Please contact Patrice Fogarty, City Secretary, at 281.470.5019.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of the February 18, 2013, agenda of items to be considered by the City Council was posted on
the City Hall bulletin board on February 12, 2013.
Patrice Fogarty, City Secretary
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested February 18, 2013
Requested By Traci Teach
Department: Administration
Report Resolution: Ordinance:
Exhibits: Final Report
Exhibits: Presentation
Exhibits: Proposed Action Plan
Appropriation
Source of Funds:
Account Number:
Amount Budgeted:
Amount Requested:
Budgeted item: YES NO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
On September 24, 2012 the Council approved an agreement with Mueller Management to conduct an
operational and process audit for the City's Planning and Engineering Department. Since that time, the
consultants have been busy collecting data about the City's current processes and procedures. This was
completed by conducting a series of one-on-one interviews and focus group meetings with both internal
and external stakeholders. Each group had an opportunity to discuss their experiences with the many
divisions of the Department- code enforcement, inspections, planning, and engineering.
On December 10, 2012, the consultant presented the interim report, as outlined in the approved scope of
work. This report focused primarily on the information obtained through the stakeholder interviews and
meetings and identified recurrent themes and categories of issues. The final report attached and includes
recommendations for addressing the issues and themes identified in the interim report.
Following the consultant's presentation, staff will provide information on a proposed action plan for
implementation. Staff is requesting Council input on the proposed action plan at this time. Revisions to
this proposed plan will be made based on Council comments and brought back for additional
consideration and approval.
Action Required by Council:
Provide staff with comments regarding the proposed action plan.
Approved for City Council Agenda
Corby D. Alexander, City Manager
Date
City of La Porte
Planning Department
Organizational Review
Final Report and Recommendations
Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
February 6, 2013
City of La Porte
Planning Department Organizational Review
Final Report and Recommendations
Table of Contents
Introduction
Recommendations
Process Recommendations
A.
Communication
B.
Cumbersome Processes
C.
Site Plan Review Process
D.
Permitting Intake/Issuance
E.
Code Enforcement
F.
Inspections
G.
Miscellaneous
Organizational Culture Recommendations
H. Mission & Goals
I. Departmental Cohesiveness
J. Trust
Code Recommendations
K. Code Recommendations
Zoning Code
Development Ordinance
Other
Conclusion
IV. Exhibits
A. Site Plan Review Flowchart
B. Permit Intake/Issuance Flowchart
Page
2
4
4
6
8
10
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
20
23
25
25
i Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
I. Introduction
On September 24, 2012, the City of La Porte engaged Mueller Management, in association with Ron Cox
Consulting, to perform an organizational review of the Planning Department. The desire for
organizational reviews in various departments of the City was identified by the City Council during the FY
2013 budget planning process. The Planning Department was chosen as the initial candidate for review
due to its high frequency of customer/citizen interaction points. The results of these interactions can
have a significant impact on the community's perception of the City government as a whole.
Specifically, the purpose of this review was directed toward evaluating departmental policies,
procedures, practices, and codes to identify improvements that may add value, shorten response times,
and improve customer service. In particular, the processes involved with site planning and permit
issuance were identified as areas of emphasis.
The underlying strategy of the analysis by the consulting team was to identify "internal perceptions" and
"external perceptions" as they relate to the identified issues/problems. The degree to which the
perceptions of internal participants (employees) align or differ from external participants (City Council,
Planning Commission, customers) was analyzed to identify gaps in desired -versus -provided service
levels.
Internal perceptions were gathered from individual interviews with each member of the Planning
Department and members of other City departments who are involved with the site plan and building
permit processes. Further, the site plan review process and the permit intake and issuance processes
were flowcharted to identify potential gaps or inefficiencies in those processes.
External perceptions were obtained by individual interviews with each member of the City Council and
Planning and Zoning Commission. To further validate the perceptions communicated during those
interviews, three separate focus groups were convened — one focused on code enforcement; one with
contractors/designers; and one with business owners.
An interim report, summarizing the internal and external observations, organized under 10 major
themes, was presented to City Council on December 10, 2012. Subsequent to the interim report
presentation, the consulting team conducted the following activities:
• The interim report and several specific customer concerns that were expressed in the
focus groups were reviewed with the Planning Department division managers. This
review provided an opportunity for the staff to better understand and accept the reality of
the issues at hand and begin to be part of the recommended solutions.
• Management recommendations were developed to address the organizational culture,
communication, and trust themes that were identified in the interim report.
2 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
• The flow -charted processes were analyzed for efficiency and communication
improvement opportunities.
• Organizational, process, and communication improvements were developed. Suggestions
offered by the elected and appointed officials, customers and employees were
incorporated.
• The zoning and development codes were evaluated for potential recommendations to
improve their functionality and address concerns raised by the customer groups.
Implementation Recommendations:
Implementation of the recommendations will present many opportunities for organizational and
leadership development within the department and with customers. An effective method of
implementation is the use of task forces organized around a specific set of the recommendations.
Membership in the task forces should primarily consist of employees within the department, but should
also consist of representatives of the customer groups identified earlier. Each task force should be
managed by a team leader appointed by the Director. Each team leader will be responsible for
completing and reporting on the final implementation.
It is also important to reinforce the revised processes with underlying improvements in culture, trust,
and cohesiveness. The process improvements will not be fully successful until the underlying
organizational culture is redirected toward better cooperation internally and a customer focus
externally. A variety of tools are available designed to enhance the organizational culture. A
commitment by City Council and management toward this holistic approach will enhance the full
implementation of the improved customer service attitude.
Acknowledgements:
The consulting team wishes to thank all members of the City Council, Planning Commission, City
Manager's office, the Planning Department, and the customer focus group participants. We received
great cooperation from each person we spoke with and encountered no obstacles in obtaining the
information we requested. All participants were very candid in their comments and believed their
negative and positive comments would be used in the spirit of improvement for the department. Many
positive suggestions were put forth by the individuals and groups we worked with that were
incorporated into these recommendations.
The consulting team appreciates this opportunity to be of service to the city of La Porte. It is our hope
that these recommendations will add value to your customer's experiences and your staff's ability to
effectively perform their jobs. This report concludes our engagement, however, we are available to
provide additional assistance should you or the staff desire an additional engagement to assist with
implementation.
3 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
II. Findings and Recommendations
The internal observations, external perceptions, and a preliminary assessment of the implications of
these observations and perceptions were documented in the interim report. The topics presented in
this report generally correspond to the themes that were covered in the interim report. A set of
findings are presented for each topic along with a series of recommendations designed to address each
finding. The topics are grouped into process, organizational culture, and code -related
recommendations.
Process Recommendations
The following process -related recommendations are intended to respond to concerns expressed by
customers and incorporate procedural improvement possibilities observed by the consulting team.
These improvements are designed to improve communication and access to information; reduce the
time required to obtain permits and improve the customer experience when interacting with the
Department.
A. Communication
Findings
The variety of independent prerequisites before the issuance of a building permit provides multiple
opportunities for ambiguity and difficulty in coordination. Currently, there is not a single person
charged with coordinating all aspects of a project from initial application to final approval so it can
be challenging for customers to know exactly which sub -applications apply for a particular project
and the correct submittal sequence.
Staff acknowledged that multiple resubmittals do occur, but generally believe those cases are a
result of poor plans being submitted or designers modifying unrelated items (on which the
additional comments are based). There is a gap between the perceptions of the customers and the
staff that needs to be resolved.
Recommendations
1. Pre -Development Meetings with customers:
i. Establish routine days and times for pre -development meetings when staff will
be available.
ii. Establish which staff is required to attend the pre -development meetings, and
hold those staff accountable for attendance. Establish a protocol and assign
4 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
responsibility to the appropriate person for notifying the staff of their
attendance requirement.
iii. Publicize the availability and schedule of pre -development meetings on the web
site and in the Planning Department lobby. Encourage staff to reinforce the
preference for using the pre -development meeting format whenever possible in
their interactions with the public.
iv. Develop a pre -development meeting checklist that outlines all of the permits
that may be necessary for a particular project, so that the applicant is made
aware of the multiple steps that may be needed before they make their first
submittal. Also, provide fee schedules associated with each of the applicable
permits.
v. Utilize the pre -development meeting to review the checklist and have staff
available to elaborate and answer questions. Also, utilize this meeting to
communicate lessons learned from similar projects, such as critical review items
and long lead-time aspects of the permitting process, to assist the customer in
planning their overall schedule.
2. Host periodic forums for the development/contractor/business community to open
and maintain an opportunity for dialogue. These forums can be utilized to
communicate such topics as new codes, frequently encountered problems, and to
receive feedback and suggestions from developers and contractors. The goal is to
establish and maintain open lines of communication between the department and
customers to reduce the perception that involving management or council is required in
order to achieve solutions. Establishing open rapport will facilitate a collaborative
problem -solving environment between staff and customers.
i. Initially a quarterly schedule is recommended; re-evaluate frequency after the
first year.
ii. Depending on the interest of participants, the city may want to break the
forums into more focused topic sub -groups (for example, separate planning,
engineering, and inspections forums).
3. Establish a centralized database of previous code interpretations accessible to the
staff and public; or display in a FAQ format.
4. Ensure that the need for address verification and utility verification is communicated
consistently; document the need on related forms and communicate early in the
application process.
5. Ensure that all permit application forms and related information (that was provided to
the consultants in the binder) are available on the website. At a minimum, provide
5 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
printable PDF files, but preferably as live forms that can be completed and submitted
electronically.
6. To the greatest extent possible with the current computer system, make information
available on-line so that applicants can obtain status updates as easily as possible.
Where the computer system falls short, establish an information base that will track
status of projects and provide contact information to the customer for obtaining that
information. The objective is to develop a system within the constraints of the current
computer software system, to provide substantive information to the customer on a
timely basis.
7. Post the office hours by the outside door. City hall hours are posted, which may cause
customers to think the office is closed when it is actually open.
8. Departmental staff should proactively notify the city management of customer
interactions that may be reasonably expected to evolve into more difficult public
relations situations.
9. Revise the Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing agenda format. The
following agenda sequence is proposed:
i. Staff Presentation
ii. Applicant Presentation
iii. Public Comments (for, against, or simply questions)
iv. Question and Answer
The current public hearing agenda format encourages the Commission to ask questions
before all of the information has been presented and also puts the staff in the position
of answering questions better answered by the applicant. The Commission should allow
all information to be presented in items i-iii before asking questions under item iv. Any
questions posed by the public during item iii should be noted by the Commission and
then asked by the Commission during the question and answer period. During the
question and answer period, questions should be directed by the Commission to either
the staff or applicant, depending on who is in the better position to answer the
particular question.
B. Cumbersome Processes
Findings
The cumbersome nature of the NaviLine software system appears to contribute to some of the
sluggishness and inconsistencies that customers experience. Ironically, if customers find the
6 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
processes too difficult to navigate and work without permits, this also increases the workload of the
code enforcement division.
Recommendations
1. Track certain permits outside of the NaviLine system to eliminate excess data entry
that does not add value — for example: fill dirt, utility verification, culvert, address
assignment, site plan review.
i. A separate logging and tracking system (database or spreadsheet) needs to be
developed and made available on the server so all staff members have access to
update information and check status' as needed.
2. The driveway permit process should be modified so that culvert sizing is handled as
part of driveway permit process rather than as a separate application. When a
driveway permit (issued by the Inspections Division) requires a culvert, a separate
culvert permit (issued by the Engineering Division) is also required. The culvert permit
primarily consists of specifying the correct diameter for the culvert pipe. If the culvert is
for a non -driveway application, the culvert application would still be a separate
application.
3. Complete the water and sewer GIS layer and make available to the public. The
internal utility verification process can be eliminated completely by allowing the public,
land owners, and engineers to access the data directly. However, in the interim, within
the current utility verification process:
i. Ensure that the drawing of the existing utilities is provided to the applicant as
part of the response to the applicant.
ii. If NaviLine is continued to be used to track utility verification requests, save a
PDF of the utility drawing as an attachment to the NaviLine file so that all data
related to the request can be obtained in one location.
4. Until NaviLine is able to produce the information needed for the monthly reports, the
reports should be reconfigured to eliminate the time and effort needed to track
information manually. Currently, some data for the monthly and quarterly reports is
tracked manually because it is not accessible from NaviLine.
5. Establish and publish plan review time goals for the most commonly issued permits.
This information will provide the customer with a reasonable expectation and establish
accountability for the staff.
7 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
6. Allow simple plan sets to be reviewed quickly while more complex plan sets are being
reviewed in the background. To expedite simpler plan sets, establish and use a priority
process rather than a chronological (first come -first served) policy.
7. Establish a simplified fence permitting process. The current system is both time
consuming and expensive and is a source of consistent frustration and complaints. To
expedite standard fence replacements in the same location, do not require site plans or
formal surveys. Utilize standard details as a condition of approval (setting posts,
attachment of runners and pickets, etc.). If a fence is on a common property line,
perhaps require consent from the neighbor to waive the site plan requirement. As a
further relaxation, the site plan requirement for new fences could also be waived with
location restrictions being issued as permit conditions.
8. Upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy, paper inspection files should be purged.
Maintaining the paper copies of plan review comments, permits, and inspection results
takes considerable staff time. The content of these files is generally redundant to data
that has been or should have been entered into the NaviLine permit file.
9. Establish a consistent philosophy to utilize PUD's to simplify, rather than complicate,
development applications. Several people who were interviewed reported that the
current implementation of PUD's actually makes approval of a project more difficult,
rather than facilitating the unique situations they are intended to benefit. Consistent
with the organizational culture initiatives previously discussed, an attitude of using
PUD's to facilitate development, rather than as a mechanism to add additional
requirements, should be encouraged and enforced by management and City Council.
C. Site Plan Review Process
Findings
The site plan review process affects a wide variety of businesses and may be the first interaction an
applicant has with the City. As currently structured and administered, the process causes confusion
for many applicants and creates a poor first impression.
Recommendations
1. Compile and agree upon staff review comments before meeting with the applicant.
2. Establish appropriate review protocol between the Planning and Fire Departments.
Evaluate need for fire marshal to be involved with site plan review; consider whether or
not one Fire Department representative can handle all fire -related review comments.
8 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
This will better define and possibly reduce the number of people involved in the review
process.
3. Develop and consistently use checklists for each reviewer. The contents of each
checklist should be unique to the items for which each reviewer is responsible and
approved by the Planning Director. Periodically update the checklists as new or
recurring issues arise. The checklists can be provided directly to the applicants in
advance to better inform them of the requirements. Further the completed checklists
can also be provided to the applicants to eliminate the time and effort required to
compile all comments into one review letter.
4. Ensure all reviewers are submitting comments electronically in a consistent form
(Word document or NaviLine) using the checklists described above; also consider
requiring reviewers to provide marked -up plan sets for return to the applicant.
5. Ensure review deadlines for each application are communicated and enforced for all
reviewers (inside and outside of the Planning Department).
6. Establish review turn -around time goals for re -submittals.
7. Establish and enforce a policy that additional comments will not be added on
resubmittals. Exception: when the applicant has made changes to the plans subsequent
to the prior submittal.
8. Research the ability of NaviLine to assign a project number using an HCAD parcel
number (if NaviLine tracking of site plans is continued). Currently, site plan applications
can not be entered until an address is assigned. This sometimes results in a delay of
processing while the address verification process is completed.
9. Ensure NaviLine is sending automatic notices of new site plan applications received to
all reviewers (if NaviLine tracking of site plans is continued).
10. Establish and post annually a schedule of deadline dates for submittals, return of
comments, resubmittals, and the corresponding Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting date on which action will be taken (if applicable).
11. Consolidated review comments that are sent to the applicant should be provided to all
reviewers. These consolidated comments will allow each reviewer to be aware of the
full context of comments that were made.
9 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
12. Ensure NaviLine is placing a hold on release of building permits until site plan is
approved.
13. Automate the generation of the final site plan approval letter sent to the applicant.
14. Replace the manual "building permits release" form currently being sent to the
Inspections Division with the automated letter described above.
15. Develop a screening questionnaire to help applicants better prepare the application;
this can be reviewed and provided at the pre -development meeting.
i. Communicate to applicants the need for an address request to accompany or
precede a site plan application.
ii. Communicate to applicants that the proposed electric meter location is critical
for determining a proper address.
iii. Communicate to applicants the need for a utility verification request to
accompany or precede a site plan application.
16. Make available to applicants a sample of a good site plan application to use as a
reference in preparing their application.
17. Re-evaluate the site plan application form to ensure all requested information is
necessary; remove unnecessary or unused information to make submittal simpler for
the applicant.
D. Permitting Intake/Issuance
Findings
Customers perceive difficulty in timely receipt of consistent plan review comments and issuance of
permits. In some cases, customers also experience complications in obtaining access to status
information. Reducing redundant internal procedures will free up staff time for more meaningful
tasks and customer communications. Providing a process to streamline the issuance of more routine
permits to trade contractors would address several customer concerns.
Recommendations
1. Investigate and implement the ability to allow permit applications to be completed
and submitted electronically with payments made on-line, over -the -phone by credit
card, or with an escrow fund. At a minimum, contractors should have the ability to pay
for and obtain simple trade permits on-line.
10 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
2. Allow contractors to open escrow accounts against which permit fees can be charged
to eliminate the need for recurring checks and trips to city hall to pay for trade type
permits.
3. Ensure that building plan review turn -around time goals are established and enforced
for all staff members involved with plan review.
4. Establish and enforce a policy that additional comments will not be added on
resubmittals. Exception: when the applicant has made changes to the plans subsequent
to the prior submittal.
5. Redundant paper logs should be eliminated with the data being retrieved from
NaviLine when needed. There are multiple paper logs used for tracking various permit
applications and the status of those applications. Examples include: permits issued log
(tracks applications during plan review), over the counter log (tracks resubmittals and
other delivered documents), roof permits log, temporary and portable sign log,
clearing/fill dirt/storm water quality log, new code enforcement case log, and a follow
up code enforcement log. Periodically, the data on these logs are typed into a
spreadsheet for archiving, but the original paper logs are also maintained. Additionally,
there is a separate database maintained for water and sewer taps.
Most of the information entered on the logs is also entered into NaviLine as part of the
process to set up the permit file in the system. If NaviLine is incapable of appropriately
tracking the review steps, a separate database should be set up in place of the paper
logs, so that the tracking information can be easily entered, updated, queried, and
accessed from the network by all staff members. The database should be set up to track
the info needed for the various permit types, but only require the relevant data fields
for the particular permit type. The database should also be made available to the public
so that applicants can see the review status of their applications.
6. The Inspections Services Technicians should log Planning Division -related applications,
such as site plans and zone changes. A consistent logging process as described above
should be developed for all Planning Department applications to eliminate the
differentiation between processes for each division.
7. Ensure the plan review comments from outside the Planning Department are
coordinated with the comments from within the department and returned to the
applicant simultaneously from a single source with the Planning Department
comments.
11 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
8. Ensure all three front counter technicians have the same job descriptions and are
adequately cross -trained; each have areas of specialty, but workload should always be
balanced.
9. Ensure all three front counter technicians have access to the same standard inspection
notes files and all relevant NaviLine modules.
10. Plan review for clearing permits conducted by a Parks Department representative and
Engineering and Planning Divisions should be done simultaneously rather than
serially. A simultaneous review process will expedite the issuance of the permits.
11. Adopt one consistent suite of building codes. Currently, a mixture of the International
and Uniform Building Codes are utilized for different trade specialties. From the
customer's perspective only one suite of codes should be adopted and utilized.
E. Code Enforcement
Findings
Some customers report difficulty in ascertaining the status of service requests. Inefficient internal
processes affect the timeliness of data being available and add a redundant burden to the
Inspection Services Technicians. From a broader perspective, there are differing opinions as to the
preferred focus of code enforcement efforts — an even distribution, or a focus on hot spots or repeat
offenders.
Recommendations
1. Implement a method to allow the inspection notes/results to be transferred
electronically to NaviLine. Currently the notes are taken in the iPad, printed, and then
input into NaviLine by the Inspection Services Technicians.
2. Develop the GIS so that the status of code enforcement cases can be displayed
graphically and accessed directly by the public. This will aid citizens in being able to
quickly ascertain the status of a complaint they called in or to know the status of cases
in their neighborhood. Additionally, the graphical representation will assist staff in
identifying recurring problem trends as an aid to targeted enforcement.
3. Conduct quarterly forums with citizens and homeowners groups. These forums can be
utilized to identify "hot spots" in the community that may need special attention by
code enforcement and provide a system for follow up.
12 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
F. Inspections
Findings
There are opportunities to improve the customers' experiences as they relate to interactivity and
consistency. Many customer suggestions centered on interactivity improvements such topics as the
ability to submit permit applications, request inspections, or view inspection results on-line.
Customers also requested improvements to consistency in the interpretations made by different
inspectors. Internally, there are several paper -based tracking processes that are redundant to
electronic processes.
Recommendations
1. Assign inspectors by project rather than geographically. This system will allow the
customer to have a consistent representative throughout the construction process;
other inspectors are still available to cover vacations or for consultation when needed.
2. Provide an opportunity for the assigned inspector to be involved with the commercial
plan review before final approval. This system will reduce the occurrence of the field
inspectors enforcing codes differently than the plan reviewer.
3. Allow trade permits to be finalized as the work is completed prior to the final building
certificate of occupancy. Several customers commented that the current process does
not allow them to receive trade finals until the final certificate of occupancy for the
building is approved. This practice causes delays in subcontractors being able to close
out their contracts and receive final payment.
4. The inspectors should use their iPads to document field inspection notes and results
for direct transfer to the NaviLine system. The current process requires the inspectors
to hand -write notes and inspection results in the field. The results are then entered by
the Inspection Services Technicians into the NaviLine system. To complete this change,
a method to electronically link the iPad with NaviLine needs to be identified. This
change would free up office staff time and allow inspection results to be posted much
more quickly, while not adding additional work for the inspectors.
5. Implement an on-line inspection request system that could interface directly with
NaviLine to save considerable staff time. The process of pulling inspection requests
from the answering machine, transcribing the information onto "white tickets", and
entering data into NaviLine is time-consuming. The current process of attaching the
white ticket to the inspection folder and then re -stapling it into the ticket book is
13 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
redundant and should be eliminated as all of the needed information should be
transferred to the NaviLine file.
6. Interface the NaviLine system with the website so that inspection results can be
viewed on-line by the contractor or owner.
G. Miscellaneous
Findings
During the course of the review, the consulting team noted several other observations, which are
addressed in the following recommendations.
Recommendations
1. Re-evaluate the need for extended office hours; shift technicians to a standard 8-5
shift with a rotation for one technician to arrive early to pull morning inspection
requests.
2. Executed utility reimbursement agreements should be added as an attachment to the
relevant water and/or sewer line database file in GIS. This will facilitate tracking, help
to ensure proper payments are required of new development, and identify when the full
cost has been reimbursed to the initial developer.
3. Establish streamlined street and alley abandonment procedures available under state
law; establish a prioritized schedule for systematically abandoning unused rights -of -
way, rather than inefficiently responding to ad hoc requests.
4. The duties formerly assigned to eliminated Planning Division personnel should be
assigned to specific employees to ensure clear lines of accountability. With the recent
reduction of Planning Division personnel, duties of prior employees have been split
between the planner and the office coordinator, but specific responsibility for tasks
varies on case by case basis.
5. Zoning notification letters and mailing labels should be generated from the
notification list by a mail merge function rather than manually.
6. The NaviLine system should be programmed to automatically print water and sewer
tap work orders to avoid the delays and manual steps inherent in the current method.
Currently, when a work order request for a new water or sewer tap is generated by an
Inspections Services Technician, the utility superintendent does not receive an
automatic notification. The superintendent has to periodically check the system to see
14 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
if there are new work order requests. Additionally, the superintendent has to perform
several administrative steps in order for NaviLine to print the work order.
7. The Survey Party Chief job description should be updated. The job description does
not match the current duties of the position.
8. GIS Division:
i. The non-GIS tasks assigned to the GIS Manager should be shifted to other staff
members so that the GIS manager can appropriately focus on development of
the GIS and management of GIS-related personnel. If the efficiency and
automation recommendations related to the Inspections Services Technicians
are implemented, those individuals should be freed up to assist with more
productive work.
ii. Provide additional GIS and Laserfiche licenses and training to relevant
Inspections Division staff members to allow staff to obtain information more
directly without having to involve the GIS Manager.
iii. Properly fund and execute the GIS development program to facilitate data
availability for customers. A more functional GIS will improve the public's ability
to get the information they need to prepare better plan submittals, and will free
up staff time currently occupied with manually obtaining that data for
customers.
Organizational Culture Recommendations
This engagement has identified many process issues within the Planning Department. It is believed
that making the changes that have been identified in the first part of this report will bring
immediate results. It is also believed that to ensure a more complete and more meaningful change
in the organization, more than just process should be addressed. In the research many gaps in the
Departments' organizational culture were identified. These findings and recommendations are
addressed below. It is also believed there is a need to better align the organizational culture of the
Planning Department with the philosophy of the City Council. Working together the Department and
the Council can place the City on a better tract toward the same goals and ensure success both with
these organizational and process changes, but the success of the City.
H. Mission & Goals
Findings
There is an opportunity to enhance the department employee's understanding and buy -in for the
mission and goals of the City and Council and management for the department. Developing
15 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
improved processes and procedures will not have full effect unless the organizational culture of the
department is addressed and aligned with the City's overall goals.
Recommendations
1. Discern a consensus between City Council and management regarding the desired
customer service philosophy for the Planning Department.
i. The City Council and staff should work together to discuss and develop the
economic development philosophy of the City. The result of this discussion
should provide staff with better guidance on what development projects
are/are not acceptable in the community. This gives better guidance to staff
when approached for zoning changes and other development considerations.
ii. The City Manager, Planning Director, and City Council should discuss and
establish an understanding regarding the degree to which City Council desires
staff to interpret codes in favor of customer perspectives and expediting
projects. This discussion should give definition to providing "common sense"
answers to customers without being too technical, or too liberal with their
interpretations. The result of this discussion should encourage staff to make
better judgment calls with the security to know they will be supported by the
City Council.
iii. City Council should establish for themselves guidelines for appropriate Council
responses to citizen complaints/concerns.
iv. The City Manager and City Council should discuss and agree upon the
appropriate channel and method for communicating complaints/concerns
including whether or not City Council should coordinate through the City
Manager or directly with department employees. These protocols should reduce
the feeling by staff they are in a constant state of defense, avoiding the
"gotcha" syndrome some feel is present.
v. The City Manager, Planning Director and City Council should discuss and come
to an understanding regarding the preparation, presentation and process of
amendments to the various codes and ordinances (staff has been told by
previous councils it is not their job to bring proposed amendments). This should
assist the staff in knowing when and how to present needed amendments to
meet changes in state law, changes in process and changes in local environment
to enhance customer service.
vi. Staff should develop meaningful communication opportunities regarding the
successes and challenges within the department to enhance City Council's trust
that staff is timely and sensibly responding to City Council and customer
inquiries.
16 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
2. Develop an updated mission statement, guiding principals, and goals for the Planning
Department and each Division.
3. Encourage a departmental culture of problem solving, assisting all customers with
solutions and overcoming impediments, rather than focusing on minor technicalities.
Increase the staff's understanding of the customer's schedule and financing constraints;
"time is money" is a true adage. Inculcate an attitude of collaboration with citizens and
customers, instead of power and control, to overcome the "god syndrome" reported by
some customers.
i. Conduct periodic all -employee meetings to reinforce departmental
philosophies -mission, guiding principals and goals.
ii. Conduct periodic employee organizational development exercises to overcome
existing internal trust and communication barriers.
iii. Use a more structured new employee orientation and training/mentoring
system to ensure new employees adopt and express the desired customer
service philosophies
4. Establish and enforce a culture of mutual respect between the City Council, Planning
Commission, staff, and customers.
i. Conduct facilitated sessions between the City Council to determine the Council's
collective leadership philosophy regarding economic development within the
City.
ii. Conduct facilitated sessions between the City Council, Planning & Zoning
Commission and staff to deliver that philosophy as well as align the actions the
Commission and staff need to take within their respective authorities.
iii. Meet periodically with customers to ensure that philosophy is both conveyed
and is in line with community needs.
iv. Conduct regular follow up sessions with Council, Commission and staff to ensure
long-term alignment.
5. Establish an understanding that staff will be supported by City Council and
management when making judgment calls consistent with the agreed upon "common
sense" parameters. As stated earlier, frank discussions between City Council and staff
should allow for the development of common understandings of how flexible the staff
can be in interpreting code issues, and better define "common sense" answers to issues
that do not overstep authority of the staff or provide the basis for discriminatory
decision making.
6. Establish Planning Commission bylaws and rules of procedure including such topics as:
i. Conflict of interest, participation, abstentions, and voting.
17 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
ii. Differentiate member roles for zoning, site plan, platting, and administrative
functions of the Commission.
iii. Define and enforce appropriate protocol and decorum expectations.
iv. Ensure Commission members are availed of training and education
opportunities.
v. Establishing a schedule and process for periodic review of codes and ordinances
directly related to the work of the Planning Commission.
I. Departmental Cohesiveness
Findings
There is an internal tension between the divisions of the department that may cause
communication errors and process difficulties. A lack of cohesion could easily translate to processes
not functioning as efficiently as possible and customers experiencing difficulty.
Recommendations
1. Change the name of the department to "Planning and Development" or
"Development Services", or similar to better reflect the overall mission and
responsibilities of the department. A divide between the Inspections and
Planning/Engineering Divisions has been identified. One possible cause for the divide is
the name of the department does not represent all aspects of the department. There is
a Planning Division, which has only one member, within the Planning Department.
There is an Engineering Division that is not identified at all within the department. The
name of the department implies that planning is its primary function, which tends to
diminish the perceived importance of the other divisions within the department. A
different name for the department would be more inclusive of all departmental
functions and could serve as a first step in reducing internal tensions.
2. Establish one staff member, with a department -wide focus, responsible for
shepherding applications through all phases from inception to final acceptance. This
person should be charged with communicating all steps and prerequisite permits, for a
particular project at the pre -development meeting. This person should be empowered
with the authority to make judgments (common sense decisions), to reconcile conflicting
inter -division requirements and to facilitate timely and successful completion of
projects.
Currently, applicants with complex projects must interact serially with the various
divisions and multiple contact persons. This system allows staff members to be more
concerned with their individual processes/permits rather than on a department -wide
18 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
focus of achieving an overall successful and timely project for the applicant, further
dividing the department. From the applicant's perspective, there is an internal, rules -
based focus as opposed to an external project -completion focus.
3. Establish clear lines of responsibility/accountability for the various permitting
processes. Define an "approver" and "reviewer(s)" for each major process. Establish
and enforce accountability for each employee's role. Enforcing accountability will
reduce the need for other employee's to fill gaps. When employees have to fill voids
created by others, resentment between employees is generated; process is slowed; and
customers experience conflicting guidance, confusion, and frustration.
4. Develop a review and comment system that will resolve all issues prior to meeting
with the customer. Recognize that individuals involved with inspections, code
enforcement, and engineering generally tend to be more "left -brained" and logically -
oriented, and individuals involved with planning -related fields generally tend to be more
"right -brained" and creative -oriented. When employees interact with other members
of the department, recognizing these different perspectives will facilitate
communication and problem -solving. Resolving differences in perspective internally
before presenting the department's official interpretations to the customer should both
expedite the process and enhance the quality of service to the customer.
J. Trust
Findings
There is a lack of trust between some members of the department resulting in staff members
overcompensating for the deficiencies they perceive. This situation becomes evident to customers,
creating confusion and uncertainty as to the correct staff direction to follow. Processes are not as
efficient as they could be due to the gaps and overlaps caused by ad -hoc modifications made in
response to these patterns.
Recommendations
1. Establish a culture of greater trust and open communication among the staff members
of the department.
i. One outward sign of a lack of trust within the department are the examples of
one division needing a sign -off from another division before a process can
proceed. These situations appear to be based more on self-protection than on
actual documented procedural requirements.
19 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
ii. Organizational development exercises to identify gaps in trust with a plan of
action on closing those gaps should have the effect of extending better service
to the customers.
2. Establish a culture of greater trust and open communication between the staff and
City Council. Earlier recommendations spoke to City Council and staff working together
to determine their working relationship for customer complaints, code revisions, and
overall economic development philosophy. Resolution of these issues through frank
discussion and clear directives also allows for open communication and the building of
trust between the groups.
3. Revise the monthly and quarterly report format to emphasize communication of
successes, problems, and obstacles in lieu of purely statistical data. The statistical
portions of the reports should be augmented to provide more context such as current
month versus same month previous year; or year-to-date versus same date previous
year. This format provides more meaningful benchmark type information to both the
management and City Council and helps measure progress and/or provide information
on gaps that need to be closed.
K. Code Recommendations
Findings
The zoning code and development ordinance were reviewed in light of opportunities to reinforce
improvements recommended under the themes identified during the departmental review. This
review was focused on items that may be an impediment to efficient processing of applications and
the ease of use from the customer's perspective. This review was not intended to be the exhaustive
review that should be conducted to ensure the codes are consistent with the recently adopted
update of the comprehensive plan.
Recommendations
1. Zoning Code Recommendations:
i. 106-62. Planning & Zoning Commission Membership and Structure
The current Commission size and appointment method is atypical. Appointment
of members by district may promulgate any district tensions that may exist at
the Council level and may be an impediment to a city-wide planning
perspective. The Commission should be a more typical seven members with the
only condition that they are qualified voters of the City and appointments made
by a majority vote of the entire City Council. The Commission should select its
own chairperson and other officers. The City Council should consider
20 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
advertising vacancies on the Board as broadly as possible, requiring an
application form, and conducting interviews of applicants before appointment.
Additionally, the City Council and Planning Commission should conduct at least
annually a joint, facilitated workshop to ensure the two bodies maintain a
shared vision and common goals.
ii. 106-64 (10) Bylaws and Rules of Procedure
This section permits the Commission to establish bylaws and rules of procedure.
The staff should prepare drafts of such documents for review and consideration
by the Commission.
iii. 106-65 Review of Chapter
This section requires an annual review by the Commission of the zoning and
development ordinances. The staff should establish an annual schedule and
lead the effort to present proposed revisions to the Commission.
iv. 106-87 Board of Adiustment Rules
If not already in place, the staff should prepare rules of procedure for review
and consideration by the Board.
v. 106-333 Table B, Residential Area Requirements, footnote 12
It is unclear to which "building setback" (front, rear, side) and to which land use
type this opaque screening requirement applies.
vi. 106-333 Table B, Residential Area Requirements, footnote 14
This footnote requires an additional 25-foot "buffer" between multi -family and
single-family developments. It is unclear if this buffer is intended to be
landscaping only or if parking, for example, is allowed within the buffer.
vii. 106-334 Special Use Performance Standards; Residential
Generally: There are a variety of special conditions in this section that relate
back to other underlying zoning districts. These conditions should be cross-
referenced back to the underlying districts, so that the reader can be aware of
these requirements.
viii. 106-334 Special Use Performance Standards; Residential; Subsection (a)
Subsection (a) of this section requires landscape buffers, but it is unclear as to
when or where this buffer requirement applies.
ix. 106-441 Table A, Commercial Uses
This table uses SIC codes to delineate uses. Staff should develop an alternate
table using NAICS codes for consideration.
x. 106-444 Special Use Performance Standards; Commercial; Subsection (a.1)
Subsection (a.1) of this section requires planting strips, but it is unclear as to
when or where this requirement applies.
xi. 106-444 Special Use Performance Standards: Commercial: Subsection (a.3)
This subsection requires certain parking lots to be screened; if the requirement
is intended to apply to the front of such parking lots, the required six-foot
height is excessive. This subsection also requires manufactured housing parks
21 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
and subdivisions to be screened from abutting uses, but it is unclear if the
screening requirement is the responsibility of the commercial owner or the
manufactured housing/subdivision owner. Additionally, for large commercial
lots that are only partially developed, this screening requirement should only
apply if the site is developed in proximity to the abutting use.
xii. 106-441 Table A, Industrial Uses
This table uses SIC codes to delineate uses. Staff should develop an alternate
table using NICS codes for consideration.
xiii. 106-637 Procedures for establishing a PUD; Subsection (c)
The individual items on the list of 12 submittal requirements should be optional
if the specific item is not applicable to the scope or context of the project site.
xiv. 106-637 Procedures for establishing a PUD; Subsection (h)
The code should be modified to allow certain development authorizations to be
issued prior to final approval of the PUD and all related general plans and plats.
This will facilitate construction phasing on large or complex projects. Examples
of early permits that should be allowed include clearing and grading, detention,
and utilities, provided that the corresponding subset of the plans have been
approved prior to commencement of construction.
xv. 106-659 PUD Special Regulations and Procedures; Subsection (b.3)
The requirement that "a sufficient amount of useable open space is provided" is
ambiguous and should be quantified. Developers generally prefer a specific
regulation so they do not have to guess and negotiate the requirement.
xvi. 106-678 PUD Building Height
The maximum building height limitation should be removed to provide
additional flexibility. Surrounding residential properties are still protected via
the setback requirements of Section 106-696(c.2).
xvii. Article V: Supplementary District Regulations
Generally: There are a variety of special conditions in this Article that relate
back to various underlying zoning districts. These conditions should be cross-
referenced back to the underlying districts, so that the reader can be aware of
these requirements.
xviii. 106-801 Tree Preservation
Various terms should be defined, such as "native tree", "protected tree", and
"replacement tree". Subsection (b) prohibits the destruction of any native tree
greater than six-inch diameter; however, Section 106-802 allows removal of a
protected tree as part of a building permit if the tree is replaced with
replacement trees. There is a conflict in this language as it appears all tree
removal is prohibited, but also allowed under certain conditions.
xix. 106-835 Design Standards
This section including all related figures should be consolidated into the Public
Improvements Criteria Manual or a new Private Improvements Criteria Manual,
22 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
as applicable. These moves will consolidate technical criteria, allow easier
updating as warranted by new conditions or technology, and give the staff
greater flexibility in granting "common sense" exceptions when needed to
expedite a project.
2. Development Ordinance recommendations:
General Comments:
1. The Development Ordinance should be codified to eliminate the need
for customers and staff to cross-reference multiple ordinance revisions
to determine the full code requirements.
2. Submittal copies: References to submittal or distribution of a specific
number of copies of various documents (general plans, plats, etc.)
should be removed from the ordinance and established by separate
policy so that staff can readily update the requirements based on the
latest needs.
3. Submittal dates: References to specific submittal deadlines should be
removed from the ordinance and established by separate policy so that
staff can readily update the requirements based on the latest needs.
Additionally, as previously discussed, submittal and re -submittal
deadlines and review time goals should be established and published by
staff. References to statutory Planning Commission action deadlines
should remain in the ordinance.
4. Appendices: Staff should have the authority to update the appendices
(technical specifications and procedures) as new conditions warrant.
This can be accomplished by adding a section to the ordinance
authorizing staff to update the appendices or by removing the
appendices from the ordinance and placing them in the criteria manual.
Regardless of which method is chosen, any staff changes to the
appendices should only be effective after an appropriate notice and
waiting period, say 30 days, after posting the proposed change on the
website.
5. Update the references to "Director of Community Development", which
is an outdated title. Use "City Manager or designee" to make the
reference more generic and flexible.
6. Do not put building setback lines on plats inside the city limits; rely on
zoning ordinance to establish setbacks to avoid potential conflicts.
ii. 4.00 Sketch Plans
The submittal of sketch plans is optional so it should be removed from the code.
Additionally, the intent of the sketch plan review process will be accomplished
more fully if the pre -development meeting recommendations are implemented.
23 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
iii. 4.01 (D) Official General Plan
The code states that an approved general plan expires after one year if a plat
has not been filed and upon written notice to the subdivider. This potentially
creates a gray area if the city fails to send the written notice. The general plan
should simply expire after one year without notice. Further, this section allows
the subdivider to request a one-year extension, but does not stipulate if the
extension is automatically approved or if the Commission needs to act to
approve the request.
iv. 4.03 (C) Preliminary Plats: Effect of Approving Authority Action
The code states that an approved preliminary plat expires after one year if a
final plat has not been filed and upon written notice to the subdivider. This
potentially creates a gray area if the city fails to send the written notice. The
preliminary plat should simply expire after one year without notice. Further,
this section allows the subdivider to request a one-year extension, but does not
stipulate if the extension is automatically approved or if the Commission needs
to act to approve the request.
v. 4.04 (D) Final Plats: Recordation and Construction of Public Improvements
The code states that an approved final plat expires after one year if a
construction of the public improvements has not commenced and upon written
notice to the subdivider. This potentially creates a gray area if the city fails to
send the written notice. The final plat approval should simply expire after one
year without notice. Further, this section allows the subdivider to request a
one-year extension, but does not stipulate if the extension is automatically
approved or if the Commission needs to act to approve the request.
Additionally, an alternative should be provided to allow the subdivider to submit
a performance bond for completion of the public improvements if they wish to
record the plat before the public improvements are completed.
vi. 5.01 General Street Standards
Table 5-2 (Street Geometric Design Standards) should be moved to the Public
Improvement Criteria Manual.
vii. 5.01 (J) Alleys
The City should consider the practice of continuing to allow new alleys to be
platted. Based on the prior complications and cost of maintaining alleys, the
provision of alleys, at a minimum, should be at the discretion of the City rather
than the developer.
viii. 5.04 Building Lines
The building line requirements in this section should be consolidated into the
Zoning Ordinance to avoid conflicts and the need to cross-reference multiple
locations to find the same information. Setbacks applicable to the ETJ should be
specifically specified.
24 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
ix. 10.00 Fees and Charges
The fee schedule should be pulled from this ordinance and combined with other
city fees in a consolidated fee ordinance that can be readily revised on an
annual basis or as needed.
x. 12.00 Open Space and Park Dedication
State laws regarding park dedication requirements have been updated
subsequent to 1985 when the Development Ordinance was adopted. This
section should be reviewed for conformance with current law. Additionally, the
fee in lieu of dedication should be removed from this section and combined
with other fees for easier updating as needed.
3. Other Code Recommendations:
i. Industrial District water and sewer agreements are calculated based on number
of employees — Need an alternate method because the number of employees is
often not known at the time the agreements are prepared, particularly in the
case of companies starting new operations within the City.
ii. Comprehensive Plan sidewalk requirements: Develop a specific list of streets to
which the sidewalk requirements apply and corresponding sidewalk criteria;
place these requirements in the Development Ordinance.
iii. Resolve questions about whether or not fill dirt permits should be required for
projects involving fewer than five loads.
iv. Establishing minimum finished floor elevations for infill development in the
floodplain could be accomplished with a pier and beam requirement rather than
by utilizing dirt fill to minimize the perception of run-off impacts on neighboring
properties.
v. Several focus group members suggested the removal of the requirement for
gates on dumpster enclosures as being impractical ineffective.
vi. Staff has compiled a list of proposed ordinance updates based on recent
experiences. This list should be presented to the Commission for review and
recommendation to City Council.
lll. Conclusion
The consulting team believes implementation of these recommendations will move the City toward its
goals of improving the customer service responsiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness. We appreciate
this opportunity to be of service to the City and we are available for questions or additional
engagements to assist with the implementation phase.
25 Planning Department Review Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
15
ig
ƒ)
)}
12
\\\\
\\\\\
\\\\{){
�Z
p
:
— _
--
\\\�
\
\\
\�
\��{\\a
\\\
, 1
0
12
:
{...... :
.y
� fa:
(\)})\\ �}
75
3»:kas
-
: -
\\�\\\
\\\\\\\\\
�
\\\LD
z
}\ 2{ ^\\\»
/!&{
{j®\ƒ\
±E\^!! �k)\
W
F
W
J
a
OO O O Y O
E Ow E v E> 3 v E
Y O ' O O O O O O
3 E> E E E E E E
O O� O O O O O O O O O
v E E v v E v E E E v E E E E E
Z
c w E m `-' N E m
N m r' m .� m m �o �o
E N m E E .� E �o .� .� E
O
OE E
E E E E E
F
Q
7
0
W
F
Q
F
Z
O
iF iF iF iF
J
iF
J J J
iF iF iF iF iF iF
O
K
a
W
J
m
V)
Z
O
a
W
m U U U U
a s
0d 0a 0d 0a
0a U U a a a CC a
p U U
LL
mmm0 m
0
am 0 0
m
� v U m m m a
a 00a 7
0U
U a a a O v u 0 U U 0 U a a
F
of
u a u u a 0 0 0
O
0 cL (7 O U U U U
U U U D a U
0
U
0
U
M
W
Z
c-I
O
v'
N
a
C
O
x
(6
f
V
LL
Z
C
C
!-
O
W
m
U
U °�
0
0 0 a V U a
0
�J
(6
O-
U U U U U U U O N
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 2 0.6
m U U U U U U m
0 C,6 C� C6 66 66 0
U C7 U U 66 66 a v
L) In In 6 U
U o o O 0 U
4-a
D D D D D D D U a
cQc
a 0 0 C 0 0 0 d N
CC In
C6 0 0 0 66 0 0 m a 0 U 06
C
U 66
a
0 a s D a U U m o.6 0
u 0
OC
C
Z
4-
6
C
F
Q
Q
a
E
W
Z
W
i6
(7
ul t0 t0 t0 t0 t0
n n n n n
m m m m m m m m m O O O O O
d
a
E
v
UC
o
v
v
vE
c
pu
O
g
o
o v '
a E
rco
o
3 c O -2 a u a a
9 v
E v o
o a 3 v
v y
on .N
E .3 o v E o O o v m m o
m a
.4
'v c :° m
'E
v
v v -o c .0 '-" -
v c - c t
ro
m
Y`
�,
Y
v 0
.v v N o a c
E O 9
v
Y M v Y f0 E ro u
o
v .�
C .'_' r��
a
u a v
a
i `° -6 v u v rao p_ '"
O _
v c v -_ ��- v
o v'
a o
-o c o a E
z
o w
p .Q
E
`o_ o E 3 a .v E Y
'Q E 'E 0 v� c- o
v v
�-
.� v O M c .0 0, o
�����
3 Y
c p p v
�, .� .^ ° o v u o c v°
o E i ° N c
o
.E
°n E
m
c m E x a o o
v x
o v
o a�o
E u.o E
.
000 a
u6c
vvv
°'
oO
°Z
E 'moon
c
.
vpovv a
,vvO
.9'co
E o
a-v
r
ENu
cpu
oa 0-"a'C
°uo
m
j C O u
w'
a i:3
v
ue,U -
o
a v 0
z°
U E
0
E
>ao
o
O^CN
N
o v iv v
C
tvr�`m0o°
OOQvo2yuc a
u q
E o
v °°
`
> uE- 3
EvU
v a
U p p U
a
�
o
oto= vt o .> ZYO
>
YE 6 6
YU w.
LCE-'�L 9
O U
Oa
9 9
Oa
v Y
E>
o 0 O O
pv
,0Y ,�
,�
v
w>v
0v
vY
0
O O u U
.-.
a U .� c� m a � � � � rn
0 .-.
u .� N �: �'i`
a � � � � rn
ac6o
O c0vc .U-0
H .-. -F o
m .� N m a � � � � rn �
W
F
W
O
a
a,
V
O
o
O O O Y O O Y 0 0�
O
o
O O O O O O Y 0 00 0 0 0 O O O O
E
E E E 3 E E 3 E E a>
E> °on
E E E E E E 3 E E a E E E E> E E E E
m
co co .� N co m N co m E `-'
m `-' °
co co co m co co N co co E
O
E
O
E
F
Q
7
0
O
a s
a
p
p a
w 0o
cc
pUaj
LLLLQ~
a s O
O O p p O O
m a
O O p
a
a
u
O O OO O
a a
O O p
U p 0 a F
aU
pOO
a
0
apu
co7
U vOO U m
U
co
OU
co
co co co cop
U U U 0
°
pp
Lp
co ° 0
0co
00U
Vf a
u u U
U
U
U O
Fu
o U
O
u 2
Z
U
(7
V)IQ
V
m
LL
p
W
In In In d
Z
p p p N
W
} U
cc
H H m
U U U U O O U U U
m m
z z
U
0 m 0
U a U p° U
a U
Y
0 m K U
a U p° o2i
0 o2i D a 0 0 p
a a a
O O O a
U U U O
0-6
a p
o.6 o.6 o.6 o.6 O O U O O o.6 o.6
p p p p m m p p
o2
N N
~ H H
O
0.6 j o6 o2i
p p F o2i p
o2
j a p a(j U a a
o2
U U U u
Z
U U
p
D U
O p
p
O m
p a
U U U U
U
U
V
p p p
o2i
K
p
W
F
Z
W O O .ti ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N N N m m m m m.;t cn cn co
Qci c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I
a
al
=
=
Y
E
o°
al
:°
v
E
° o o
a `m c cco
O
c
O v
c
o
„ O a
N
N O
N
O
Ij r
a
0
Y
E a o a rao �-
E r
E a
O
c v v v o
0
0
r°°o
-o ;� =
o
o
4io
v�-
v ` 3
°'"r: O
a`, oo°n
`�
v
a ` 9 o '�" v f0
c -o
a, 3
v v a=
r..
cii
'; Ilil II
c
u v
r'i'
rY�...
r.. p ro 0
a
O
0 O O O m yo " O m
?
a
I� l >' >
O v O
c� Y O
E
.O
v o 3' ' u 9
'"�,'. o
``il .v o v E
E on 0
'° o� E
-o m '- E
2
c
c a
u,
II vl
al c> N -6 m
f0
v E
c
-u f 1 Y
m U
v
O 0 O
E
al
11
.a
O v N m E a
c .� o 3 v���- 7
o
v0
v l .�
-6 v
r":� a v v o
v
m
v o r":,
p
r"II " `"r..
v on a, .'� - �.
o Y
Yl m- O a, 0
c
c
o _
V
"
u c" c 0 m E .0 .� "9
.a `v
° 3
r
E
a' .v 'v
a
o o
N o t .c Y
r"I' E v a'
v
12 o U o
z
vl II
v
o
Qcc
v c o
a
o>
po°Y'E
,a
u .0
w
°
mQw
o v
"
v uu v�v
"!.
.,
E "0 v
y
o
vo
.Y
ovn
oa
rr
o
p
a
N
.E3o
p O
I
,I
°
t"'
Ev c
E my
r
p a o it
o
o
p>o v mv
y v>
�nv i�p
v
I
.-. .-. .-. .-. o
U
O .-.
.-.
.-. .-. m
a m a�a rn I
U m
z i N cn a� a
2 N cn a�
a � ri`
O 2
i
(
§
\\\\
\\E
�-E
§,�
B
k
§
§
0 z2z2 zz=
[
�
}
�u�
u u
u\\
§/R
0
020
/
z
\
«
k
\
(60
\joo
\0
\}\
��
�\\
§
\
o
§
z
§DD mmmm m 0 0
\\\\
\\\
.
}§
}\_
.
\(
_
Ec
\o
>
\ )
0,
�\
(\\\u
(\
}\\\\
)\\\
\ E \
EEE
lEE,
&\
�®/2
\\\\
\}
E
yys,
-
g\\)}:&)[
\ \
\
\\\
uou
--
t�:u�0
c6o\zz�\
ƒ//
°\))\so\m
Z
E\ (
\ \
\
\ E cc
:°tea{
\ \
\
E »
0
/ /
/
\�)\m
=
J\a0
_
\ 7''~K
)
} D
k
z