Skip to Main Content

blogpost

When time is money: Reviewing your planning and development service fees

By:

Fred is a former city manager and community development director with more than 20 years of experience working with local government agencies and extensive experience assisting public sector entities with project management, business process improvement; fee and cost recovery analysis; system implementation and design; and policy analysis and formation. He advises BerryDunn clients in the areas of planning, permitting, inspections, code enforcement, and business licensing.

Fred Turnier, AICP
07.26.19

Read this if you are a City/County Administrator, Building Official, Community Development Director, Planning Director, Development Services Manager or work with customers providing a service for a fee.

Planning and development service fees are, for many municipalities, often discussed but rarely changed. There are a number of reasons you might need to consider or defend your fee structure―complaints from developers, rising costs of operation, and changes in code or process are just a few. 

But when is the right time for a formal review of your service fees? There are several key organizational factors that should prompt an in-depth study of your fees, either internally or with the assistance of an objective advisor. It may be time for an update if:

  • You’re considering a new permitting system. New technology may streamline your workflows, simplify processes for your customers, or necessitate changes in your staffing. All of these secondary changes can impact the cost of your services. In addition, if you’re anticipating significant changes to your fee structure or methodology (e.g., moving to full cost recovery), you’ll want to configure your new system to support that going forward.
  • You have an enterprise development fund. Development fees are collected to cover the cost of providing a service. The methodology you use to charge fees should be based on defensible formulas that can withstand the scrutiny of your customers and cover the cost to provide the service. In addition, reserve funds should be adequate to ensure your development service is funded through the completion of the project. 
  • The regulations in your municipality are changing. Perhaps your organization is moving to a unified or form-based code or making changes to the International Building or Fire Codes. Changes in the process and requirements for development may require a reevaluated fee structure.
  • It’s been a while. Even if your organization is not experiencing any significant or sweeping change, small shifts can accumulate over the years, resulting in significant fee adjustments that may be tough for you to implement and for your customers to understand. Periodically reviewing service demand and benchmarking your individual fees against those of neighboring communities can help to avoid sticker shock.

If any of these scenarios sound familiar, you may want to consider a fee review, which may consist of benchmarking against similar jurisdictions. Not sure what level of review your organization needs? Our dedicated government consultants include former planners and community development leaders who have walked in your shoes and can talk through the considerations with you.
 

Related Industries

Related Services

Consulting

Organizational and Governance

Related Professionals

Read this if you are a state Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, State Procurement Officer, or work in a State Medicaid Program Integrity Unit.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) Final Rule on July 5, 2017, that made several changes to the PERM requirements. One important change was the updates to the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) requirement. 

The Final Rule restructures the MEQC program into a pilot program that requires states to conduct eligibility reviews during the two years between PERM cycles. CMS has also introduced the potential for imposing disallowances or reductions in federal funding percentage (FFP) as a result of PERM eligibility error rates that do not meet the national standard. One measure states can use to lessen the chance of this happening is by successfully carrying out the requirements of the MEQC pilot. 

What states should know―important points to keep in mind regarding MEQC reviews:

  • Each state must have a team in place to conduct MEQC reviews. The individuals responsible for the MEQC reviews and associated activities must be separate from the state agencies and personnel responsible for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) policy and operations, including eligibility determinations.
  • States can apply for federal funding to help cover the costs of the MEQC activities. CMS encourages states to partner with a contractor in conducting the MEQC reviews.
  • The deadline to submit the state planning document to CMS is November 1 following the end of your state’s PERM cycle. If you are a Cycle 2 state, your MEQC planning document is due by November 1, 2019. 
  • If you are a Cycle 1 state, you are (or should be) currently undergoing the MEQC reviews.
  • There are minimum sample size requirements for the MEQC review period: 400 negative cases and 400 active cases (consisting of both Medicaid and CHIP cases) over a period of 12 months.
  • Upon conclusion of all MEQC reviews, states must submit a final findings report along with a corrective action plan that addresses all error findings identified during the MEQC review period.

CMS encourages states to utilize federal funding to carry out and fulfill MEQC requirements. BerryDunn has staff with experience in preparing Advanced Planning Documents (APD) and can assist your state in submitting an APD request to CMS for these MEQC activities. 

Check out the previously released blog, “PERM: Prepared or Not Prepared?” and stay tuned for upcoming blogs about specific PERM topics, including the financial impacts of PERM, and how each review phase will affect your state.   

For questions or to find out more, contact the team

Blog
PERM: Does MEQC affect states?

Federal contractors with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have begun performing Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) reviews under the Final Rule issued in July 2017—a rule that many states may not realize could negatively impact their Medicaid budgets.

PERM is a complex process—states must focus on several activities over a recurring three-year period of time—and states may not have the resources needed to make PERM requirements a priority. However, with the Final Rule, this PERM eligibility review could have financial implications. 

After freezing the eligibility measurement for four years while undergoing pilot review, CMS has established new requirements for the eligibility review component and made significant changes to the data processing and medical record review components. As part of the Final Rule, CMS may implement reductions in the amount of federal funding provided to a state’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs based on the error rates identified from the eligibility reviews. 

Since the issuance of the Final Rule in July 2017, Cycle 1 states are the first group of states to undergo a PERM cycle, including reviews of the data processing, medical record, and eligibility components. These states are wrapping up the final review activities, and Cycle 2 states are in the early stages of their PERM reviews.

How can your state prepare?

Whether your state is a Cycle 1, Cycle 2, or Cycle 3 state, there are multiple activities your Medicaid departments should engage in throughout each three-year period of time during and between PERM cycles: 

  • Analyzing prior errors cited or known issues, along with the root cause of the error
  • Identifying remedies to reduce future errors
  • Preparing and submitting required questionnaires and documents to the federal contractors for an upcoming review cycle
  • Assisting federal contractors with current reviews and findings
  • Preparing for and undergoing Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) planning and required reviews
  • Corrective action planning

Is your state ready?

We’ve compiled a few basic questions to gauge your state’s readiness for the PERM review cycle:

  • Do you have measures in place to ensure all eligibility factors under review are identifiable and that all federal and state regulations are being met? The eligibility review contractor (ERC) will reestablish eligibility for all beneficiaries sampled for review. This process involves confirming all verification requirements are in the case file, income requirements are met, placement in an accurate eligibility category has taken place, and the timeframe for processing all determinations meets federal and state regulations. 
  • Do you have up-to-date policy and procedures in place for determining and processing Medicaid or CHIP eligibility of an individual? Ensuring eligibility policies and procedures meet federal requirements is just as important as ensuring the processing of applications, including both system and manual actions, meet the regulations. 
  • Do you have up-to-date policy, procedures, and system requirements in place to ensure accurate processing of all Medicaid/CHIP claims? Reviewers will confirm the accuracy of all claim payments based on state and federal regulations. Errors are often cited due to the claims processing system allowing claims to pay that do not meet regulations.
  • Do you have a dedicated team in place to address all PERM requirements to ensure a successful review cycle? This includes staff to answer questions, address review findings, and respond to requests for additional information. During a review cycle, the federal contractors will cite errors based on their best understanding of policies and/or ability to locate required documentation. Responding to requests for information or reviewing and responding to findings in a timely manner should be a priority to ensure accurate findings. 
  • Have you communicated all PERM requirements and updates to policy changes to all Medicaid/CHIP providers? Providers play two integral roles in the success of a PERM review cycle. Providers must understand all claims submission requirements in order to accurately submit claims. Additionally, the medical record review component relies on providers responding to the request for the medical records on a sampled claim. Failure to respond will result in an error. Therefore, states must maintain communication with providers to stress the importance of responding to these requests.
  • Have you begun planning for the MEQC requirement? Following basic requirements identified by CMS during your state’s MEQC period, your state must submit a case planning document to CMS for approval prior to the MEQC review period. After the MEQC review, your state should be prepared to issue findings reports, including a corrective action plan as it relates to MEQC findings.

Need help piloting your state’s PERM review process?

BerryDunn has subject matter experts experienced in conducting PERM reviews, including a thorough understanding of all three PERM review components—eligibility, data processing, and medical record reviews. 

We would love to work with your state to see that measures are in place that will help ensure the lowest possible improper payment error rate. Stay tuned for upcoming blogs where we will discuss other PERM topics, including MEQC requirements, the financial impacts of PERM, and additional details related to each phase of PERM. For questions or to find out more, please email me
 

Blog
PERM: Prepared or not prepared?

Because we’ve been through this process many times, we’ve learned a few lessons and determined some best practices. Here are some tips to help you promote a positive post go-live experience.

The road to go-live is paved with good intentions. When an organization identifies a need to procure a new or upgraded system, that road can be long. It requires extensive planning, building a business case, defining requirements, procuring the system, testing it, and implementing it. Not to mention preparing your team to start using it. You’ve worked really hard to get to this point, and it feels like you’re about to cross the finish line. Well, grab some Gatorade because you’re not quite there yet. Post go-live is your cool-down, and it’s an important part of the race.

Preparation is key.
If you haven’t built a go-live plan into your overall implementation plan, you may see stress levels rise significantly in the days and weeks leading up to go-live. Like a runner prepares for a big race, a project lead must adequately prepare the team to begin using the new system, while still handling unexpected obstacles.  While there are many questions you should ask as you prepare to go live, you need to gain buy-in on the plan from the beginning and manage it to ensure follow-through.

Have your contract and deliverables handy.
Your system vendor implementation team will look to hand you off to their support team soon after go-live. It is crucial that you review all of the deliverables outlined in your contract to ensure all of the agreed-upon functionality is up and running, and all contracted deliverables have been provided and approved. Don’t transition to support until you’ve had enough time to see the system through significant processes (e.g. payroll, month-end close). In the period immediately after go-live, the vendor implementation team is your best resource to help address these issues, so it’s a good idea to have easy access to them.

Encourage use and feedback.
Functional leads and project champions need to continue communications past go-live to encourage use and provide a mechanism for addressing feedback. Employing change management best practices will go a long way in ensuring you use the system properly — and to its best capabilities.

Plan ahead for expanded use and future issues. 
Because a system implementation can be extremely resource-intensive, it is common to suppress or forgo functionality to implement at a later date (e.g., citizen and vendor self-service). In addition, we sometimes see issues arise during significant operational milestones (e.g., renewal processing, year-end close). Have a plan in place to decide how you will address known and unknown issues that arise.

While there is no silver bullet to solve all of the potential go-live woes, you can promote a smooth transition from a legacy system to a new system by implementing these tips. The time you spend up front will help offset many headaches down the road, promote end-user engagement, and ensure you’re getting the most from your investment.

Blog
We're live! Now what?

Online banking? Check.
Online shopping? You bet.
Online permit application submittal? What? Actually, yes.


As Americans are becoming more and more accustomed to performing everyday functions online, local governments are evolving and keeping up with the times. This online evolution is coming in the form of implementing modern enterprise applications with electronic workflow and a public-facing portal that allows residents to apply for permits, submit documentation, pay for, and collaborate with local government staff to perform a variety of processes.

One area of recent focus is the online submittal and routing of electronic planning and permit applications, and supporting plans and drawings. This effort is often driven by a desire to expand e-government offerings available to the public, while also realizing internal efficiencies through electronic workflow and simultaneous review, and a reduction in paper usage.

If you were to take a tour of most City or County Building, Planning, or Development Departments, in many instances you would see bins containing rolls of large (24”x36”) scale drawings that support planning (e.g., subdivision, rezoning, etc.) or permit (e.g., new family residential dwelling, accessory building, etc.) documents. With local government agencies receiving hundreds of paper applications each year, the internal driver for moving to an electronic submittal and review environment is evident. Additionally, when it is understood that the applicant develops these documents in a Computer Aided Design (CAD) system prior to printing, and are also required to submit applications in-person during business hours, the need for simplified online processes is even more pressing.

On the surface, moving to an electronic application submittal and review platform may appear pretty straightforward. However, like any major process and technology change there are several major considerations. Here are three that each agency should look at prior to starting an electronic application submittal and review project.

  1. Change to Current Business Processes
    Current processes related to application submittal, completeness review, routing to reviewers, consolidation of review comments, and return of comments and mark-ups to applicants are paper intensive.
    • Are current processes designed around paper submittals?
    • Will reviews be simultaneous or sequential? Should this change?
    • How will electronic copies be distributed to reviewers? How about third-party reviewers?
    • How will comments be consolidated and returned to the applicant?
    • Will plans be submitted online and/or in person via USB/CD?
  2. Change to Current Policies
    Current policies are most likely based on a paper plan set being received, routed, and archived. It is very likely that these policies will require updating with a change to electronic submittal and review.
    • Will plans be required to be submitted electronically? For some case types?
    • Will a hard copy plan set still be required?
    • How will final plans be archived?
    • Will an additional fee be charged to offset equipment and hardware costs?
    • Will the fee schedule incentivize electronic submittals?
    • Will staff be required to perform their mark-ups electronically?
  3. Change to Technology Tools
    Drafting tables, light tables, red pens, and rulers are common tools used to support a paper-based environment. Electronic submittal and review will require a different set of tools.
    • Does your current planning/permitting system have the tools to support an electronic workflow?
    • What software and hardware tools will staff use to complete their review?
    • Will all reviewers be required to complete their reviews electronically?
    • How will revised plans be provided to an applicant (e.g., portal, email, etc.)?
    • How will signatures and stamps be applied to electronic plans?
    • How will resubmittals and multiple versions of plans be managed?

Transitioning to an electronic plan submittal and review environment may seem overwhelming, but when done correctly the benefits can be significant. BerryDunn can assist with answering questions related to transitioning to an electronic plan submittal and review environment. Get more information on how BerryDunn can help your agency navigate this here.

Blog
Moving to electronic plan submittal and review: Three things to consider

This site uses cookies to provide you with an improved user experience. By using this site you consent to the use of cookies. Please read our Privacy Policy for more information on the cookies we use and how you can manage them.