|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000 Population – 873,341 |
|
|
|
Land Area – 497 Sq. Mi. |
|
|
|
2001 Permits Issued - 28,994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Created 1996 |
|
|
|
Combined Permitting Functions of Executive
Branch Departments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vision:
Faster / Friendlier Service |
|
|
|
Mission: |
|
The mission of the Department of Permitting
Services is to provide the highest quality of public service while ensuring
compliance with Montgomery County's development and construction standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strategies: |
|
Remodel Existing Floor Space |
|
|
|
Reorganization |
|
|
|
New Automation Systems |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space |
|
Open & |
|
Inviting |
|
Floor Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space |
|
Inviting |
|
Customers |
|
Into |
|
Workspace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space |
|
Customer Conference Facilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization |
|
Collapse Classifications |
|
Flatten the DPS Organization |
|
Increase Supervisory Span of Control |
|
Push Decision Making Further Down In The
Organization |
|
Compensate Employees For Certification |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PREVIOUS CLASS |
|
|
|
EAA (17) |
|
OSM (15) |
|
PAA (13) |
|
PROG SPEC (21) |
|
ENG TECH (17 & 18) |
|
ENG AIDE (10) |
|
NEW CLASS |
|
|
|
PERMIT TECH (19)* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Budget Level |
|
|
|
|
PREVIOUS CLASS |
|
INVESTIGATOR (25) |
|
ENV HLTH SPEC (23) |
|
FIELD SUPV (23) |
|
HWY FIELD SUP (23) |
|
CONST STANDARDS SPEC (21) |
|
CODES REP (21) |
|
HWY INSPECTOR (18) |
|
NEW CLASS |
|
PS INSPECTOR (23)* |
|
ENV HLTH SPEC (24) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Budget Level |
|
|
|
|
PREVIOUS CLASS |
|
SR PLANNING SPEC (25) |
|
ENGINEER (24) |
|
PLANS ANALYST (23) |
|
WATER RESOURCES ANALYST (23) |
|
ENV HLTH SPEC (23) |
|
FIELD SUP [BC] (23) |
|
ENG TECH [BC] (18) |
|
|
|
NEW CLASS |
|
SR PS SPECIALIST (26)* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Budget Level |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABOLISHED CLASS |
|
|
|
ENV PROT MGR (27) |
|
SR ENGINEER (26) |
|
PROG MGR II (25) |
|
|
|
CREATED CLASS |
|
|
|
PS MANAGER (28) |
|
|
|
|
Five years experience in client-advocacy work in
a regulatory environment. |
|
High school diploma |
|
An equivalent combination of education and
experience. |
|
|
|
|
BOCA certified Permit Technician |
|
|
|
|
Two years in a technical/professional field
appropriate to the assigned position. |
|
BS degree in an appropriate engineering,
technical, or professional field. |
|
An equivalent combination of education and
experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
Residential & Commercial Inspectors: |
|
NCPCCI certification in 5 modules, such as; “Building
General”, “Fire Protection General”, “Building 1 & 2 Family Dwelling”,
“Electrical 1 & 2 Family Dwelling”, “Mechanical 1 & 2 Family
Dwelling”, “Mechanical General”, and “Electrical General”. |
|
Stormwater Management/Sediment Control: |
|
NICET certificate as a “Level 1 Engineering
Technician” in erosion & sediment control program. |
|
|
|
|
|
Highway Construction: |
|
Md State Hwy Admin certification as a Concrete
Field Tech, Soils and Aggregate Compaction and Tech, and Hot Mix Asphalt
Materials Tester/Field Tech. |
|
Zoning Land Use: |
|
BOCA “Certified Zoning Inspector”. |
|
|
|
|
Five years in a technical/professional field
appropriate to the assigned position. |
|
BS degree in an appropriate engineering,
technical, or professional field. |
|
An equivalent combination of education and
experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
Residential & Commercial Construction: |
|
NCPCCI certification in 6 modules, such as; “Building
General”, “Fire Protection General”, “Building 1 & 2 Family Dwelling”,
“Electrical 1 & 2 Family Dwelling”, “Mechanical 1 & 2 Family
Dwelling”, “Mechanical General”, “Electrical General”, and “Building, Fire
Protection, Electrical and Mechanical Plan Review”. |
|
Stormwater Management/Sediment Control: |
|
IECA & SWCS certificate as a “Certified
Professional in Erosion & Sediment Control”. |
|
|
|
|
|
Highway Construction: |
|
NICET certificate as a “Level 2 Engineering
Technician” in the highway design program. |
|
Water Supply/Sewage Disposal: |
|
State of Maryland licensure as an “Environmental
Sanitarian” & additional
certification required by DPS and Maryland State Board of Sanitarian. |
|
Zoning Land Use: |
|
BOCA certified as a “Zoning Inspector” &
NCPCCI certificate in “Building Plan Review” . |
|
|
|
|
Establishes appropriate compensation levels. |
|
Allows career migration among classes. |
|
Resolves redundant, inappropriate &
inequitable classes. |
|
Improves customer service. |
|
Enhances technical capabilities &
Professional standing. |
|
Reduces supervisory layers. |
|
|
|
|
|
System infrastructure |
|
2 IBM RS6000 database servers, Oracle RDBMS |
|
100 Mbit Ethernet network, Cisco switches |
|
200+ Desktop PCs, 85 laptop PCs, 30 printers |
|
14 Application servers |
|
CD-ROM jukebox & Document imaging jukebox |
|
Data Conversion ( > 50 data sources ) |
|
Hansen V7 (Permit & Customer Service
modules) |
|
50 Permit/License processes, 160+ reports |
|
Complete office automation suite |
|
Documentation, training & implementation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geographic Information System (GIS) |
|
Interactive Voice Response (IVR) |
|
Mobile Computing |
|
Document Imaging |
|
Electronic Plan Review & Markup |
|
Faxback
& Fax-on-demand |
|
Internet Access to DPS Permit System |
|
DPS Permit Center |
|
Training & Implementation |
|
|
|
|
Integrates the DPS 'toolset' |
|
Easily migrate between various applications |
|
(e.g. Permit System to GIS) |
|
Create permit applications with existing data |
|
(e,g, GIS to Permit System) |
|
Find electronic documents easily |
|
Create/manipulate a personalized list
('hotlist') of applications and permits |
|
Improved access to documents & information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer Satisfaction Survey: |
|
Wave IV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faster |
|
While two out of ten (20.0%) of all Wave IV
respondents were neutral, nearly two thirds (62.6%) rated the time to
complete the permitting process from first contact with DPS until final
inspection favorably (4 or 5, where 5 meant excellent). Another two out of ten (17.3%) rated
this attribute unfavorably. When
the scales from both waves were compared, the mean from Wave IV (3.7) was
indeed higher than the mean from Wave III (3.4). (This difference was confirmed at a 98.4% confidence level.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friendlier |
|
While only about one out of ten Wave IV
respondents (13.1%) were neutral, a strong majority (81.9%) rated the friendliness
of staff throughout the process favorably (4 or 5 on a 5-point scale, where
5 meant excellent). Only one out of
twenty Wave IV respondents (5.0%) rated this attribute unfavorably. When the scales from both waves were
compared, the mean from Wave IV (4.3) was higher than the mean from Wave
III (4.1). (This difference was
confirmed at a 93.3% confidence level.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space |
|
When asked how comfort of the waiting
facilities compared with their expectations, half of all Wave IV
respondents (49.9%) said that it was about the same as they expected. Another large group said that it was
either much better (23.7%) or somewhat better (19.2%), while substantially
fewer said it was either much worse (2.2%) or somewhat worse (5.0%). When the scales from both waves were
compared, the mean from Wave IV (3.6 where 5 meant much better) was
substantially higher than the mean from Wave III (3.0). (This difference was confirmed at the
99.9% confidence level.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassification |
|
While only one out of ten Wave IV
respondents (9.4%) were neutral, nearly nine out of ten (87.0%) rated the overall
professionalism of the staff favorably (4 or 5 on a 5-point scale, where 5
meant excellent). Fewer than one
out of twenty Wave IV respondents (3.6%) rated this attribute
unfavorably. The mean from Wave IV
(4.3) was significantly higher than the mean from Wave III (4.1). (This difference was confirmed at a
99.9% confidence level.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automation |
|
While fewer than two out of ten Wave IV
respondents (14.0%) were neutral, over three-quarters (78.3%) rated the use
of technology to facilitate the permitting process favorably (4 or 5, where
5 meant excellent). Relatively few
Wave IV respondents (7.7%) rated this attribute unfavorably. When the scales from both waves were
converted to weighted means and compared, the mean from Wave IV (4.1) was
indeed higher than the mean from Wave III (3.5). (This difference was confirmed at the 99.9% confidence
level.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall |
|
When asked how overall experience with
Montgomery County's DPS compared with their expectations, over four out of
ten Wave III respondents (43.6%) said that it was about the same as they
expected. Slightly less than half
said that it was either much better (21.1%) or somewhat better (23.1%),
while substantially more said it was either much worse (12.1%) or somewhat
worse (44.3%). When the scales from both waves were compared, the mean from
Wave IV (3.5 where 5 meant much better) was significantly higher than the
mean from Wave III (3.3). (This
difference was confirmed at a 98.2% confidence level.) |
|