TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Jodi Phelps- Assistant City Manager, Dr. Gerald Newton, AICP-Development Services Director
FROM: Alexander Magana, Development Center Manager,
Angela Everage, Development Services Office Supervisor
DATE: September 28, 2026
RE:Title
Site Plan Review and Development Permitting Process by Consultant BerryDunn
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
All
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
FY26 Supports Goal 2: Economic and Strategic Growth
Through Objective 2.7: To sustain a favorable development and business climate through timely and accurate construction review and building inspection.
FY27 alignment of Priority 2: Enhance economic growth opportunities throughout the City; ties to average development review time and percent on time, number of businesses supported, funding deployed,
Executive Summary:
Berry Dunn’s Current Environment Assessment and subsequent Development Permitting Process Review highlights multiple opportunities to strengthen Development Services operations across permitting, plan review, inspections, customer service, staffing, and technology. Their recommendations aim to create a more consistent, efficient, and predictable process that is easier for both staff and customers to navigate. While many of the proposed improvements offer clear benefits, several recommendations require further evaluation to ensure alignment with North Carolina state law, the City’s Unified Development Ordinance, Human Resources policies, Information Technology requirements, and other established City procedures. Moving forward, Development Services will need to balance modernization and process improvements with compliance and organizational standards to ensure sustainable, legally sound implementation.
Representatives of the consulting firm will be presenting their review to the City Council for acceptance of the report.
Background:
City Council approved the Site Plan Review and Development Permitting Process for Development Services on October 27, 2025 (Item 7.0A3, approved 10-0). This approval authorized work across Phase 1: Environment Assessment, Phase 2: Strategic Alignment Facilitation, Phase 3: Recommendations for Improvement, and Phase 4: Implementation and Change Management. The contract was approved for Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker, LLC (BerryDunn) to handle the review. The presentation provides the first three Phases for awareness to the City Council, as we built into the scope of work.
Issues/Analysis:
The consultant will be providing seven components which are outlined in the presentation and align with the overall scope and objectives presented.
Additionally, the five attachments provided are as follows:
1. Development Permitting Process Review: Recommendations for Improvement Report
2. Site Plan Review and Development Permitting Process: Current Environment
3. Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC Presentation
4. Recommendations Report
5. Ongoing Initiatives
These attachments align with the consultant’s presentation while sharing more of the ongoing initiatives, many of which began prior to the consultant’s commissioning.
The outside consultant’s material shows the commitment Development Services has to make the process of doing business in the city every better, as the department continues to be a partner in development and not merely a regulator. It highlights staffing, process, and software at the end of the presentation.
Path Forward: Improving Development Services Efficiency and Customer Experience
• Berry Dunn’s assessment offers a valuable framework for further process improvements. Many items were changed over the past eight years and this continues some of those Kaizen, LEAN principles.
• Standardized intake, clearer procedures, stronger communication, and better technology use can significantly enhance efficiency.
• The City should adopt recommendations that make operational sense while confirming legal and policy requirements.
• Implementation plans should improve service delivery without adding administrative strain to an already stretched department
• Improve consistency, efficiency, and predictability across all development processes.
• Reduce unnecessary back‑and‑forth between staff and applicants.
• Streamline workflows so staff can spend more time on technical review rather than administrative tasks.
• Make the permitting and development process easier for customers to navigate.
Workload and Process Efficiency; Staffing - reducing overwhelm
• Staff manage many steps: intake, completeness checks, plan review, permit issuance, inspections, customer support, inter‑department coordination, and applicant communication.
• Limited staffing or increased application volume can create delays that affect the entire process.
• Standardized intake checklists and clear procedures can reduce errors and minimize repeated corrections.
• Better workflow tracking would improve visibility, reduce bottlenecks, and speed up processing.
• More consistent communication can help set expectations for applicants and minimize confusion.
Technology and GeoCivix Use; further and continual software process upgrades
• Improved use of the permitting system could enhance intake, tracking, customer updates, and reporting.
• Technology changes must be coordinated with IT to ensure proper security, configuration, testing, and support.
Clear assignments of responsibilities are needed for system administration, user access, records retention, and vendor management.
• Technology should reduce the administrative burden, not add more tasks to already strained staff.
Staff Roles and Responsibilities; continued adjustments to personnel
• Some recommendations may change who performs certain work or who makes specific decisions.
• Decision‑making responsibilities defined in the UDO cannot be reassigned without reviewing ordinance requirements.
• Possible changes in staff duties.
• Customer-service improvements (dedicated contacts, liaison services, pre‑application support, expedited processes) must include clear and consistently applied eligibility criteria.
Permit Data and Peer Comparison
• Differences between Berry Dunn’s permit counts and UNC’s dataset do not necessarily indicate errors.
• Each source uses different definitions and categories, leading to significant variations, especially for Fayetteville.
• Permit totals alone are not reliable indicators of workload.
• Project complexity, trade permits, inspections, resubmittals, and customer interactions all impact staff workload.
• Peer data should be used as context, not as direct performance comparisons.
What This Means for the Assessment
• Recommendations should be evaluated based on Fayetteville’s actual processes, staffing, legal environment, and technology capacity.
• Peer practices should not be adopted automatically without confirming they fit local needs.
• Data definitions and reporting periods must be verified before using permit statistics for decision‑making.
• A high volume of smaller projects can create heavy workload even if major project counts appear low. Berry Dunn’s assessment offers a valuable framework for improvement.
• Standardized intake, clearer procedures, stronger communication, and better technology use can significantly enhance efficiency.
• The City should adopt recommendations that make operational sense while confirming legal and policy requirements and align with UDO Ordinance and NC State Statutes and related state codes.
• Implementation plans should improve service delivery without adding administrative strain to an already stretched department.
Budget Impact:
City Council Funded- No new budget impacts. This is a continuation of the contract work of the consultant. Longer term issues and budget impacts tied to people, software. However, recent grant funding allows for further review of technology, and sets of options are underway to address the city hall greeters issue, and staffing adjustments are under current reviews with no current fiscal year budgetary impacts anticipated due to this report.
Options:
1. City Council accepts the consultant’s report and continue into implementation.
2. City Council declines the consultant’s report and do not continue implementation.
3. City Council determines another option.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
City Council accepts the Development Permitting Process Review: Recommendations for Improvement Report and continue into implementation.
end
Attachments:
1. Development Permitting Process Review: Recommendations for Improvement Report
2. Site Plan Review and Development Permitting Process: Current Environment
3. Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC Presentation
4. Recommendations Report
5. Ongoing Initiatives