1. J Garza Consulting and Associates 1 Non-uniformity in Permitting Practices Local Permitting Issues

2. J Garza Consulting and Associates 2 2006 SC&R Foundation Study Scope –Illinois –Indiana –Michigan –Ohio –Wisconsin Process –Interviews State permit officials Carriers Permit Services –Analysis State regulations Sample of state & related county and municipality permits Publications, reports, and papers

3. J Garza Consulting and Associates 3 Findings State issued permits do not identify required county permits County issued permits do not identify required city, town or village permits Inconsistent electronic access to county information e.g.. 62% IL, 99% WI Limited electronic information on county permit requirements e.g.. 14% IL, 19% WI

4. J Garza Consulting and Associates 4 Findings Inconsistent permit practices across states, counties, and municipalities Lack of coordination between states, counties, and municipalities Inconsistent practices in permit administration, requirements, and enforcement across states, counties, and municipalities

5. J Garza Consulting and Associates 5 Findings Limited exchange of information on changes in transportation infrastructure across states, counties, and municipalities Inconsistencies between state, county, and municipal statutes, regulations, and administrative codes Inconsistencies between state, county, and municipal permit fees, process times, penalties, and fines

6. J Garza Consulting and Associates 6 Findings Limited availability of electronic information on county and municipal permit requirements and application practices Cumbersome and inconsistent permit requirements and administration contributing to non compliance, transportation delays, safety risk, and increased costs

7. J Garza Consulting and Associates 7 Findings Limited communication and availability of county and municipal permit requirements, practices, and enforcement contributing to non compliance and transportation safety Delays in securing county and municipal permits contributing to transportation inefficiencies and non compliance No central repository of state, county, and municipal permit requirements and practices

8. J Garza Consulting and Associates 8 Recommendations Expand study to include Western and Southern states Expand study to include three transportation corridors Examine economic impact related to permit processing for 20 specific routes

9. J Garza Consulting and Associates 9 Recommendations Initiate a pilot project whereby issued state permits include contact information for the respective counties requiring a permit and issued county permits include contact information for the respective municipalities that maintain permit requirements

10. J Garza Consulting and Associates 10 Recommendations Initiate a pilot project to establish a data base populated with state, county, and municipal permit practices for one transportation corridor –Evaluate setup and sustainment costs –Evaluate feasibility of electronic access e.g.. Link on SC&RA website

11. J Garza Consulting and Associates 11 Recommendations Complete a comparative analysis of county and municipal permit practices and processing for a specific transportation corridor –Identify deviations from the norm –Recommend changes to close gaps and move practices closer to consensus –Quantify realized efficiencies from adopting uniform practices

12. J Garza Consulting and Associates 12 Recommendations Identify “Best Practices” for state permit processing Recommend state adoption of “Best Practices” and uniformity in permit practices Evaluate communication models to promote the timely exchange of critical information between state, county, and municipal permit officials necessary to make informed decisions