City plans to spend $5M to speed up its building permit process

The city of Pittsburgh plans to spend more than $5 million in a bid to simplify and speed up its system for approving permits, an issue that has been the topic of growing complaints from developers and others — including a local attorney who went to court because of frustration over delays.

The permits are key to anyone doing construction in the city, from the big developers doing work Downtown, in the Strip District and other hot neighborhoods, to the resident who wants to build

an addition to a home. Without the permit, projects sit and money can be lost.

Kevin Acklin, chief of staff to Mayor Bill Peduto, said the goal is to untangle the “Gordian Knot” of a system that he conceded must be improved if the city is to prevent development-killing delays.

“I would agree there’s a sense of frustration about the time it takes [to get permits],” he said. “The data shows we’re actually improving those times, but we still have to get better.”

The city will pay Colorado-based Computronix $5.6 million over five years to develop a single software program to be used by all the agencies involved in approving building, occupancy and other permits relating to development and construction. That will replace a piecemeal system that now exists.

With the help of a $50,000 grant from the Heinz Endowments, the city also has a $145,000 contract with San Diego-based consultant Zucker Systems aimed at building a transparent and predictable approval process.

It also will meet with developers to understand and correct “sticking points.”

The changes can’t come soon enough for attorney Robert Lampl, who became involved in a lawsuit against the city in May after spending five months trying to get permits approved to renovate two floors in the Benedum-Trees Building, Downtown, for new law offices.

“Wehave a local politician who goes to Paris, New York, Amsterdam and every other placein the world touting the great renaissance of Pittsburgh,” Mr. Lampl said. “Yet he’s presided over a system so overburdened with flaws, I know there are people avoiding development in the city.”

While city officials blamed Mr. Lampl for the delays he experienced, they acknowledged they have to do a better job in handling applications for permits related to development in the city. The number of applications now is four times what it was when Mr. Peduto took office, Mr. Acklin said.

The city has cut the initial review time for building permits from 27.5 days in 2011 to an average of 10.5 days, said Maura Kennedy, director for permits, licenses and inspections.

But she noted that response times still can vary wildly.

“We really want to have a consistent level of service. We don’t want to have a remarkably wild gulf between what some receive and what others receive,” she said.

Now, an application may have to go through the various agencies independent of one another and be revised several times before a permit finally is issued.

With the new system, anyone seeking a permit should be able to submit it electronically and have it reviewed at the same time by the various city agencies involved and be given one single response. Those who submit applications will also be able to track the progress of the request.

One local business official, who asked not to be named, said the biggest complaint he gets from developers and restaurant owners is the time it takes — sometimes six months or longer — to get a permit approved by the city.

“They’re waiting for a permit to go through, and they’re losing business,” the official said.

Mr. Lampl first applied for the permit for the Benedum-Trees work Jan. 6. He revised the plans twice to address concerns, but still could not get final approval because of disputes with the city over accessibility and fire protection issues.

Although both were resolved through variances, Mr. Lampl said he joined a lawsuit filed by the investment group that will own the space he will lease when he learned that another revised application would have to be filed.

That, he said, was akin to starting from scratch.

He ended up getting the permit several days after the lawsuit was filed, although the city contends the approval already was in the works. “If I knew I was going to go through the process they put us through, I would have relocated my business outside of the city,” Mr. Lampl said.

Ms. Kennedy said the city responded to the revised plans filed by Mr. Lampl in 20, 11 and 14 days. The city, she stressed, was doing its job in demanding that Mr. Lampl meet accessibility and fire protection requirements.

“This was done by a lawyer who wants to make a name for himself,” Mr. Acklin added. “We feel like we did the right thing.”

But on the general issue of approving permits in a more timely manner, he acknowledged the city must do a better job.

“We want to lower the barriers to develop in Pittsburgh,” Mr. Acklin said. “At the same time, we can’t cut corners in enforcing the code.”