Our Staffing Model for Planning

The City routinely performs a cost/benefit analysis with City contracts and recently completed this study for the M-Group contract as part of the FY 23/24 budget preparation process. This analysis includes a thorough review of M-Group’s monthly and annual costs, including hours worked and services provided, based on the needs of a full-time City Planning Department. The analysis below compares three models – M-Group only, City in-house planning department, and our current hybrid model.

First, we looked at M-Group’s monthly costs, which change depending on demand, and calculated an annual average cost. Next, we reviewed our Planning Department's service requests to assess the community’s needs and understand which positions provide these crucial services. The first columns assess the cost of staffing the Planning Department only with M-Group contractors.

Next, we considered the costs of an in-house planning department model. We looked at the type and number of City positions that it would take to continue operations at our current service level (i.e., staffing the public counter, etc.). These positions include both salaries and benefits, based on comparable local agencies, plus the overhead incurred with bringing on new internal staff, like admin, technology, and human resources costs.

When all costs are considered, transitioning to an in-house planning department model is estimated to cost approximately 24% more than the M-Group only model. This is in part because a consultant like M-Group can move staff to other projects when the City's demand is low, while the City would have to bring on full-time employees in an in-house model, regardless of whether there is a consistent need.

Finally, we looked at the hybrid model we have in place today. This includes an in-house, full-time Community Development Director (CDD) to bring Planning, Building and Housing services under one roof and provide oversight. The CDD then utilizes M-Group for planning services, providing more flexibility for day-to-day operations and the ability to pivot quickly when necessary. This includes the ability to up or down staff depending on activity level and to bring on expertise we don't currently have in-house. The cost to operate this model is approximately 6% more costly than the M Group only model, a minimal increase that still provides significant savings and community benefits. However, the goal of the City continues to be to provide in-house services whenever financially feasible and practicable, a goal that was discussed with Council when the CDD position was reestablished in 2022. That goal continues through present.