IBJNews

State pushing to keep building-review wait times down

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state is working to address growing delays in the building-project plan-review process that can slow down developments and increase their costs.

But it’s unclear whether Indiana’s Department of Homeland Security, whose staff reviews non-residential projects for compliance with state codes, will be able to keep up with demand, should it grow again next year.
 
Wait times for the plan-review process increased from an average of 10 to 12 days to 18 to 20 days during the summer and into the fall. In early September, the average wait was 21 days.

A thinner staff and unexpected influx of applications caused the uptick, said Bonnie Robison, the department’s director of plan review.

The review staff decreased from nine employees in 2007 to six. The department avoided filling vacant positions while a recession-driven slowdown in construction caused a contraction in applications coming in the door.

But, since the second quarter this year, Robison said, “we have showed a steady increase in applications.” At the same time, a more thorough review was mandated, making the process more time-intensive.

The increased workload led to a backlog of cases. And the only way to speed up the process was for developers to pay a flat fee of $5,000 on top of regular review costs, which range from a couple hundred to thousands of dollars, depending on the size of the project.

Adding extra time to the review can drag out the overall approval process for projects, adding to costs and, in some cases, threatening their viability.

“Every day you add to the entitlement process, you’re increasing the cost of the development,” said Brad Beaubien, director of Ball State University’s College of Architecture and Planning Indianapolis Center. “For major developments, that may not be an issue, but for the neighborhood-scale projects, that really adds up. That can be a deal-breaker in some cases.”

Mark Demerly, an Indianapolis architect, said he faced a four-week wait for the review this summer. But rather than paying the fee, he informed his clients that it was going to take longer. While it slowed down the project, they preferred the wait over the extra expense.

“It’s very cost-prohibitive, so it’s not even a consideration,” Demerly said. “It was as if that was the only option you had—normally it’s a two-week or 10-day scenario.”

In the last few months, the department has attacked its wait times by bringing in code-enforcement field inspectors to work on reviews and hiring two additional employees. As of the first week of December, the average wait was down to 12 days. That’s still up slightly from three years ago, when it was less than 10 days, Robison said.

It’s difficult to predict, though, whether the challenges will resurface next year if the economy grows as expected and construction projects see an uptick again.

Jason Shelley, executive director of the American Institute of Architects Indiana, said his members are more optimistic than they were a year ago, but no one is expecting a flood of work next year.

“The two key words: cautiously optimistic,” Shelley said. “Nobody is expecting great things, but nobody is expecting it to go down.”

While they have increased staff, the plan review staff is still down a person from three years ago, and Department of Homeland Security spokesman John Erickson said there are no current plans to hire another employee.

But, he said, if there is another surge, the department will do what it takes to keep the wait times down. That could include reallocating staff to help review applications.

“Certainly we’re going to take a look at what the needs are,” Erickson said, “as we hope the need for plan review increases.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Plan reveiw
    The plan reveiw department should be abolished. Leave that to the local building and fire people.
  • Frustrated
    It is very hard to understand how this group has gotten progressively worse when fewer projects are being submitted for review. Even the payment of the expediting fee is not speeding up their review times within 48 hours.
  • Review time
    To state that the only way to speed up the process is to pay an additional $5,000 on top of the regular review fee is a ridiculous statement. That merely means that you get more money and those who elect not to pay the $5,000 wait longer. How about normal productivity and working a full 8 hours?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT