Proposal: Re-engineer the Cape Cod Commission
AUGUST 11, 2006 -- More than a dozen engineers, attorneys and developers have issued a series of candid observations and recommendations to a countywide task force studying the effectiveness and future of the Cape Cod Commission.
Among the most significant: Retain a major outside management consulting firm such as Arthur D. Little to conduct a “stem to stern” review of the commission’s administrative process, managerial leadership and operational organization. Also, create an ombudsman position to “honestly and candidly evaluate applicant issues, concerns and criticism and implement changes within [commission] staff accordingly.”
That ombudsman presumably would be an experienced businessperson who understands the pressures, costs and time considerations associated with applying to the commission for a project.
The consultants’ comprehensive advice was driven by one question: “What is the purpose of the Cape Cod Commission’s regulatory review process?” The recommendations come at a time of unprecedented criticism of the commission by the business community – worried about the time and cost associated with development on the peninsula.
The consultants further asked: “Is [the commission] intended generally to stop or limit further development?” “Is there an ideological or political bent against any development that comes in the door, no matter what type? “Has the regulatory process been created to provide disincentives, barriers or obstructions to development?” “Or, is the commission created to provide a regulatory system [with incentives] for appropriate growth, smart planning, redevelopment and oversight [only] of major projects with truly regional implications?”
The consultants, led by attorney Pat Butler, told the 21st Century Task Force studying the Cape Cod Commission that three priorities must be addressed:
• Predictability – Businesses must know how long and how much money and resources will be expended before seeking regulatory approval.
• Objectivity – There must be clear standards for fair and reasonable review
• Certainty – A business should be able to count on a reasonable chance of success prior to spending time and money before the commission.
Instead, many applicants complain of instances where the review process not only drags on, but frequently changes course as it winds its way with “one issue arising and then another.”
“Some applicants felt that [commission] staff tried to redesign or reengineer their project in ways that either were not relevant to regional issues or [because] staff lacked competency or trained expertise.” Making matters worse, these changes occurred often “late in the review process.”
Among the key consultant recommendations:
• Adopt a project tracking system.
• Require timelines for issuance of a decision.
• Reduce the expense associated with commission review. Currently, they represent huge disincentives for small businesses. A development of regional impact review, or DRI, could cost a retailer $47,500 and a professional office $35,000.
• Simplify the mitigation costs for a project – especially for traffic. Recent projects have required mitigation costs from $141,000 to $3 million.
• Include municipal officials in all stages of commission review to build trust among localities and reduce potential conflicts.
• Consider a weighted vote for commission members similar to that of the county Assembly of Delegates.
• Assure that a subcommittee membership at the commission is made up of representatives from the town where the project is located and members from adjacent municipalities.
• Create greater incentives to redevelopment existing property as opposed to building new development.
• Impose a “more businesslike” approach to commission activities.
“Consultants and representatives of applicants consistently state that they feel there is an attitudinal problem encountered during the DRI process,” the consultants said. “Some feel that staff looks down at consultant credentials or data/analysis” or “bootstrap issues and findings to get a predetermined result.”
Margo Fenn, executive director of the commission, said the consultants offer up "many valid characterizations," but she does not "necessarily agree" with them. She is asking for two weeks to respond formally to the task force, which is nearing the point where they will vote on more than 60 recommendations arising from all their hearings over recent weeks.
In addition to Butler, who is a partner at Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP, the consultants group includes Rick Bryant, Rizzo Associates; Eliza Cox, attorney; Matt Eddy, Baster Nye; Michael Ford, attorney; Randy Hart, VHB; Scott Horsley, Horsley Whitten Group; John Kenney, attorney; Don Megathlin, Talanian; Dave Michniewics, Coastal Engineering; Dan Ojala, Down Cape Engineering; William Scully, MS Transportation; and Andrew Singer, attorney.
Cape Business Newsletters
Keep up with the latest issues affecting your business and your life! To sign up for any of the Cape Business newsletters, click here.