Prepared for the City of Madison May 11, 2005 Authors: Lisa Beane, Amber Edwards,

1. Analysis of Madison’s Development Review and Permitting Processes Via Innovative Approaches from Selected Cities Prepared for the City of Madison May 11, 2005 Authors: Lisa Beane, Amber Edwards, Kim Herb, YoYo Park, Jennifer Schuh, and Caitlin Skinner La Follette School of Public Affairs

2. How this Project Came to Be • Healthy City Initiative • Economic Development Commission Report “The commission recommends a professional systems analysis in conjunction with city staff be done on the entire process and all its possible permutations.” –EDC report Introduction Madison’s Process Key Findings Innovative Cities Recommendations

3. Complaints from EDC Report In Depth Analysis of Madison’s Current Processes Case Studies of Selected Innovative Cities Analysis of Madison’s Current Process Analysis of Complaints Iterative Analysis Analysis of Innovative Processes Recommendations Introduction Madison’s Process Key Findings Innovative Cities Recommendations

4. Relevant Actors: Introduction Madison’s Process Key Findings Innovative Cities Recommendations

5. Addressing the Complaints: What’s the Word on the Street? Opportunities for Streamlining How do the Complaints Pan Out? Our analysis suggests Madison’s process is not substantially slower, but may be inefficient Madison’s process is slow compared to other cities • Speed up the Development Review and Permitting Process • Ordinance Overhaul • Coordinate Public Involvement • Facilitate Understanding of the Development Review and Permitting Process Conflicts exist within the ordinances manifesting as conflicts between agencies Conflicts between City agencies and commissions in their enforcement of ordinances Uncoordinated public involvement is costly late in the process Neighborhood associations are able to delay or derail development plans late in the process IntroductionMadison’s Process Key FindingsInnovative Cities Recommendations

6. Orlando, Florida Portland, Oregon Saint Paul, Minnesota San Diego, California Comparable Cities Austin, Texas Cincinnati, Ohio Eugene, Oregon Kansas City, Missouri IntroductionMadison’s Process Key FindingsInnovative Cities Recommendations

7. Innovative Approaches in Comparable Cities • Speed up the Development Review and Permitting Process • Ordinance Overhaul • Coordinate Public Involvement • Facilitate Understanding of the Development Review and Permitting Process Austin, Texas Portland, Oregon St. Paul, Minnesota Portland, Oregon IntroductionMadison’s Process Key FindingsInnovative CitiesRecommendations

8. Complaints from the EDC Report In Depth Analysis of Madison’s Current Processes Case Studies of Selected Innovative Cities Analysis of Madison’s Current Process Analysis of Complaints Iterative Analysis Analysis of Innovative Processes Recommendations IntroductionMadison’s Process Key FindingsInnovative CitiesRecommendations

9. Recommendations:Evaluating Madison’s Concerns with Alternatives from Innovative Cities Concerns Alternatives IntroductionMadison’s Process Key FindingsInnovative CitiesRecommendations

10. Recommendations:Evaluating Madison’s Concerns with Alternatives from Innovative Cities Concerns Alternatives IntroductionMadison’s Process Key FindingsInnovative CitiesRecommendations

11. Five Key Factors for Successful Innovation • Facilitate coordinated public involvement and emphasize to customers the necessity of early action. • Place a high priority on fostering internal and external communication and coordination. • Sustainable in the long-term and reflect the capacity of a city’s budget. • Focus on customer satisfaction, needs, and education as high priorities. • Facilitate continual improvement toward streamlining complex regulations. IntroductionMadison’s Process Key FindingsInnovative CitiesRecommendations

12. Thanks for listening. Questions? La Follette School of Public Affairs