City of Cornwall Building Services Operational Review/Audit

City of Cornwall Building Services Operational Review/Audit

Council Presentation Re. Final Report

& Recommendations

February 22nd 2010

Rethinking the Business of Government

Agenda for Tonight

1. Operational Review Methodology2. Overall Performance Commentary3. Submitted Report – Findings4. Submitted Report –

Recommendations5. Council Q&A

Operational Review Methodology

What We Did

Activities Delivered

Numerous structured staff interviews & working sessions Director CBO Plans Examiners Inspectors Counter & admin staff Planning staff (e.g. Site Plan/Zoning Officer) Engineering staff (i.e. Grading & Circulation

issues) Finance


Review & analysis of City reports, process maps, customer service documents etc.

Review of information management tools & existing performance measurement capacity

Review of financial performance; fee structures, cost recovery, reserve fund strategy

Process & business model benchmarking against industry standards & practices


Performance review of a “rainbow” sample of permit application files selected by our team from 2007-09

Permit decision turnaround times versus Provincial standards (evidence based)

File documentation completeness Approximately 45 files See report appendix re. results


Building industry consultation session Heavily attended & professional vibe Resulted in a genuine “Go forward” window of

opportunity to generate significant performance improvement & dialogue

Balanced feedback noting the need for improved system performance & accountability by applicants & City

Design support to Chamber of Commerce on members questionnaire


Performance review of a “targeted” sample of larger/complex permit application files selected by our team

Permit decision turnaround times versus Provincial standards (evidence based)

File documentation completeness Approximately 10 files See report appendix re. results

Performance Assessment Criteria

1. Business Process Execution Legislated turnaround times for permit

decision? Legislated turnaround times for inspections? Turnaround times for incomplete files once they

become complete? Application intake/screening at counter? Development process overlap (Planning versus

Building) where it makes sense? Ping pong avoidance re. application

deficiencies?


2. Adequacy of Resources & Tools IT tools delivering maximum productivity &

performance dividend? Capacity to measure results, set targets &

react to performance data in timely fashion?

Staffing gaps that escalate performance or compliance risk?

Organization design risks to turnaround times & public safety Code compliance?


3. Culture & Communication Clear mutually agreed upon application

requirements & technical support by City to maximize complete application intake rate?

Code compliant culture developed in “repeat applicant” community & subsequently rewarded by City?

Emphasis on ongoing dialogue to foster mutually beneficial outcomes?


4. Financial Sustainability Appropriate degree of user pay cost

recovery? Industry standard fee design? Industry standard reserve fund design? Financial model maintained/updated to

prevent revenue leakage & unintended property tax subsidies?

Peer appropriate re. economic development “competitiveness” perspective?

Overall Performance Commentary

Overall Performance Commentary: Cornwall Building Dept.

Qualified & diligent staff team Strong OBCA knowledge Strong commitment to enforce Provincially

legislated public safety mandate Well documented “traditional” organization

structure that is competently executing well documented business processes

Largely compliant with Provincially legislated application & inspection turnaround time requirements

Overall Performance Commentary: Cornwall Building Community

Wide ranging degree of understanding & sophistication re. OBCA & Code

Members increasingly acknowledge importance of professional 2-way dialogue & open lines of communication with City

Have provided positive/valid ideas re. customer service & process improvement

Seem willing to move forward to resolve issues - growing recognition that the Building department is enforcing Provincial law

City of Cornwall Building Services Operational Review/Audit

Final Report & Recommendations

December 14th , 2009

Rethinking the Business of Government

1. Introduction to Building Department Review

Objectives, Methodology & Overall Performance Assessment

Objectives of Building Department Operational Review/Performance Audit

The 2009 operational review/performance audit of the Cornwall Building department was designed & executed by Performance Concepts Consulting to achieve the following objectives:

Provide a current service delivery and compliance performance “snapshot” of the Building department concerning Ontario Building Code Act (OBCA) core functions such as building permit application intake, plans examination, permit issuance decision and construction inspections

Investigate and identify potential continuous improvement opportunities concerning Building department policies, practices and service delivery processes

Assess both the Building department and construction community’s capacity to jointly deliver a high quality service within a framework of rigorous legislative compliance

Assess the cost recovery health & sustainability of the City’s current Building department financial framework (i.e. Building by-law fee schedule and reserve fund)

Identify & mitigate major sources of legislative compliance risk & process performance risk such as mandatory permit decision turnaround times, inspection notification turnaround times, and staffing continuity

Assess the quality of the Building department’s relationships with Council (governance), other City business units & key construction industry stakeholders

Advise on implementation approaches & timeframes concerning recommended performance improvement opportunities

Methodology to Execute Building Department Operational Review/Performance Audit

The 2009 operational review/performance audit of the Cornwall Building department was executed according to the following methodology:

Overall project management and priority-setting via a Steering Committee composed of the senior City staff, a member of City Council, and two construction industry representatives

Consulting team third party review of all available Building department performance reporting data, financial data, operational process maps, organization charts, policy documents, Council reports & by-laws

A comprehensive set of facilitated staff interviews involving frontline and management staff from multiple City departments as well as Steering Committee members

A facilitated brainstorming and improvement evening workshop with 50+ organizations/members of the Cornwall construction industry as well as out-of-town design firms

Two distinct and detailed file audits of 40+ residential and 10 complex commercial application files to identify process improvement & application submission improvement opportunities

Peer jurisdiction benchmarking of processes, practices and financial framework design – in order to identify industry standards and best practices

Preparation of draft findings/recommendations that are “stress tested” with Steering Committee

Preparation & presentation of final report including recommendations & associated implementation timeframes

Overarching Assessment of Building Department Performance

The completed comprehensive operational review of the Cornwall Building department has revealed the following overarching performance realities:

The Chief Building Official and his staff are technically competent and knowledgeable concerning the OBCA/Code, and dedicated to impartial and professional enforcement in order to safeguard the public interest. The CBO and staff display an excellent understanding of the public safety liability issues – for both the City and themselves - associated with exercising the statutory authority delegated to them as officers of the Province.

The Building department is meeting the legislated OBCA permit decision turnaround time standards for the vast majority of permit applications. The Building department’s “same or next day” construction inspection turnaround time performance is actually superior to the legislated OBCA standard.

Building department administrative processes, file documentation and Code compliance policies/practices are appropriately and consistently executed. While the processes lack IT automation, files are complete and up-to-date.

Professional relationships with Council & the construction industry are strained and occasionally adversarial. This tension has generated a sometimes defensive, inflexible approach by Building staff to applicant relationships and code compliance. All three parties – Building staff, Council and the construction/design industry - will need to commit to a more open, transparent and dialogue driven business model in order to improve efficiency without compromising compliance. All parties need to realize that the broader public and future building owners, not just current permit applicants, are clients who merit a safe/compliant building stock.

Significant performance improvement opportunities have been identified via business aspects as diverse as operational process re-engineering, financial management and cost recovery, information management systems, stakeholder relations and performance reporting/accountability.

2. Towards a Sustainable Building Department Financial

Framework

Improving Cost Recovery & Eliminating Local Taxpayer Subsidies to Permit

Applicants

Province-wide Financial Trends Re. Building Departments

Since passage of Bill 124 amendments to the OBCA in 2006, a significant majority of Ontario’s mid-size and large municipalities have systematically restructured their Building department financial model into a more sustainable “enterprise” model. The “enterprise” model restructuring undertaken by these municipalities has been characterized by the following:

A 3rd party driven fees rationalization review culminating in the production of a computerized full-cost fees calculation model.

OBCA fee schedule adjustments that ensure 100% recovery of direct operating costs and indirect support costs from Council and corporate departments associated with OBCA functions. The fee schedule is typically based on square footage of constructed structures in the various fee categories.

Creation of an OBCA compliant reserve fund. The uses/rationale for the reserve fund, its target balance, and the rate of accumulation to achieve the target balance are clearly documented and modeled.

Communication of fee review results, and discussion re. the timing of fee schedule adjustments with the municipality’s development/construction community.

Cornwall has not yet implemented the municipal “industry standard” enterprise model for Building services now in place in a significant majority of Ontario municipalities with a population > 40,000 residents.

In many municipalities, Planning application fees have been included with Building fees in an overall rationalization of development approval fees.

Building Cornwall’s Sustainable “Cost Recovery” Financial Framework

Observations & Findings Recommendation

Cornwall currently displays a relatively weak level of user pay cost recovery versus the evolving industry standard of “full cost” OBCA fees now in place across the Province.

Annual financial reporting by the Chief Building Official (CBO) between 2007-09 reveals the existence of an ongoing annual property tax subsidy of approximately $150,000-$200,000 paid by existing residents & businesses to new development applicants. This property tax subsidy is not available to provide services to City taxpayers. It could potentially be re-directed to other Council priorities.

Most Ontario municipalities with populations > 40,000 residents have executed a full cost OBCA fees study to eliminate property tax subsidies & migrate to a full cost recovery “enterprise” financial model.

Recommendation 1

Council should endorse the objective of a timely migration to a “full cost” OBCA fee schedule no later than 2011. The full cost fee schedule will recover 100% of the City’s indirect & direct operating costs and eliminates the existing $150,000-$200,00 historic property tax subsidy delivered to building permit recipients – both residential and commercial/industrial. The new fee schedule will also fund a 5 year accumulation strategy to achieve an empirically modeled OBCA reserve fund target balance.

Council should also endorse the objective of a timely, phased migration to “full cost” Planning Act application fees commencing in 2011.



Cornwall’s current Building by-law fee structure features a denominator based on the estimated “construction value” associated with a building permit application. The Cornwall “construction value” approach suffers from technical problems common to other municipalities (most have since moved to a square footage based fee) – for small projects the construction values that drive the fee calculation are actually reported by each individual applicant. This results in inconsistency of approach and is vulnerable to “gaming” the fee to minimal levels. For larger projects the fee schedule of construction value calculations are aging (2005) and require updating. A significant majority of Ontario municipalities with populations > 40,000 residents have opted for a fee structure denominator based on square footage of proposed new structures – thereby avoiding the technical problems associated with Cornwall’s current fee structure.

Recommendation 2

The Treasurer & CBO should be directed to execute a comprehensive OBCA fees review during 2010 to achieve a full cost fee schedule as noted in Recommendation 1.

The comprehensive fee review exercise should result in the creation of a “full cost” fee calculation computer model, and an OBCA compliant fee schedule based on the permit structure’s square footage.

The comprehensive fee review exercise should be conducted by an impartial 3rd party or firm with demonstrated expertise - and should feature extensive construction industry consultation concerning its design & implementation.

The review should be funded from the City’s OBCA reserve fund.



The accumulated balance in Cornwall’s OBCA reserve fund is forecast to reach $500,000+ by the end of 2009.

The 2009 operational review’s development industry consultation process generated questions about the City’s plans for the reserve fund and its eventual target balance.

Evolving industry practice across the Province (Cities > 40,000 residents) includes reserve fund modeling as part of a full cost OBCA fee review project. A policy rationale for the reserve fund, an empirically derived target balance, and a multi-year target balance accumulation strategy are all typically included in an OBCA reserve fund framework.

Cornwall currently lacks an OBCA reserve fund framework that conforms with evolving industry practices across the Province.

Recommendation 3

The Treasurer & CBO should develop a modeled OBCA reserve fund framework that includes the following:

i) a policy rationale (i.e. eligible expenditure categories for future reserve funding)ii) an empirically derived reserve fund target balance based on a multiple of annual direct costs to be covered during an economic downturn, iii) a multi-year target balance accumulation strategy.

Modeling of the OBCA reserve fund should be integrated into the full cost fees review and computerized model referenced in Recommendation 2.

Building a Sustainable “Cost Recovery” Financial Framework


Both the Cornwall development community & City staff have emphasized the inter-connectedness of Planning Act and OBCA approvals processes as components of an overall high performance City development approvals process.

Across the Province, municipal “full cost” development fee reviews often encompass both Planning Act & OBCA applications and fee schedules. Prior to a full cost development fees review initiative, Planning fees (without fail) consistently demonstrate under-recovery of costs and significant property tax subsidies benefiting development applicants.

As is the case with OBCA fees, the evolving industry practice in municipalities with populations >40,000 residents is significantly reducing/eliminating these Planning application property tax funded subsidies.

Recommendation 4

Council should endorse the objective of a timely migration to a “full cost” Planning Act fee schedule in 2011 that recovers 100% of City indirect & direct operating costs, and eliminates the existing property tax subsidy to planning approvals recipients.

The existing schedule of Planning Act fees should be integrated into the comprehensive “full cost” fees review referenced in Recommendation 2.

3. Technology Driven Performance Improvement

Modernize IT Toolkit to Improve Customer Service & Accountability


In order to meet the performance challenges associated with Bill 124 amendments (e.g. performance measurement reporting, turn-around time compliance, workflow improvement) many Ontario municipalities with populations >40,000 have been re-investing in technology toolkits to leverage efforts at continuous improvement.

These leveraging and re-investment efforts typically involve upgrades to established industry workflow software programs such as AMANDA and City View. Workflow software can eliminate redundant paper filing and data recording on forms. Software can be adapted to fit re-engineered post-Bill 124 processes. Performance measurement reporting capacity can be greatly improved and customized to support business planning and target setting. Strong staff commitment to a rational results based approach to workflow is required – putting aside the current file to deal with “aging” files recommended for attention by the software.

Productivity improvement in the field is also highly desirable. Mobile technology is an effective approach to generating access to information without returning to base or carting around files. Mobile technology also functions as a “one touch” opportunity to capture information in the workflow software without laborious written records. Experience in other jurisdictions is clear that mobile productivity can yield significant improvement dividends. Staff will spend more time in the field and less time entering data in a non-productive HQ location.

These technologies are no longer cutting edge. They are widely in practice and becoming a standard industry approach.



The Cornwall Building Division employs a permit/inspection workflow management software package called City View. Workflow software packages like City View function as an essential tool for mid-size & large Ontario municipalities overseeing complex processes involving i) application intake, ii) plans examination, iii) inspection processes involving numerous simultaneously active files.

Cornwall currently uses an older version of City View that pre-dates significant Bill 124 amendments to the OBCA that took effect in 2006. Bill 124 amendments created rigorous, mandatory permit decision & inspection notification timeframes for specific application categories. Various business processes are “double documented” in City View and paper file records – clearly a sub-optimal situation in terms of staff productivity and records management.

The newer post-Bill 124 version - City View 9 - features valuable new functionality around turnaround time reporting & file logistics management. Evolving industry practice is to utilize newer post-Bill 124 workflow management software to drive productivity improvement, support work load priority setting and enable easy results based accountability reporting. Cornwall has just committed to a City View 9 upgrade.

Recommendation 5

Having executed the necessary “due diligence” cost-effectiveness review concerning a City View 9 upgrade, the 2009 Building department review/audit endorses the City’s decision to immediately proceed with purchase and implementation of the software in tandem with new improved workflow management practices.

The implementation should commence in Q1 2010 and be completed by year-end. Dedicated full-time IT resources (in-sourced or out-sourced) should be deployed to the upgrade and charged against a City View upgrade capital project budget. The City View 9 software purchase & implementation resources should be funded in its entirety from a 2010 OBCA reserve fund draw applied to the capital project.

Development industry stakeholders should be consulted on matters involving major process change & turnaround time accountability report design.



Cornwall Building Division inspection staff currently deploy in the field with cell phones but no access to productivity enhancing IT tools. On a daily basis, background information on potential inspection sites must be gathered in advance from various sources before staff deploy into the field. Inspection information is recorded in the field on paper, and then subsequently entered into both City View and paper files back at the office – a process requiring early departure from the field by inspectors on a daily basis. The opportunity for more efficient “one touch” data entry exclusively into City View 9 while in the field is not available. The opportunity to access critical data already present in City View 9 (while in the field) is not available.

Evolving industry practice across Ontario’s mid-size & large municipalities is for inspectors to use laptop, Blackberry or other handheld devices to achieve on-line mobile access to/entry of inspection & enforcement data in the field. Performance Concepts operational review experience in other Ontario jurisdictions suggests a 20% productivity dividend (i.e. more field hours versus fewer office data entry hours) associated with investing in internet enabled mobile computing tools deployed in the field. While only recently considered a cutting-edge productivity “experiment”, the benefits of remote data entry/access are now widely understood across the Building and By-law enforcement communities & are being been widely implemented across the Province.

Recommendation 6

As part of the 2010 rollout of the recommended City View 9 upgrade, a mobile data access/entry solution should be addressed.

Mobile “Tough Book” laptops are a proven front-end data management tool that should be deployed in the field.

Building and By-law field staff should be required to maximize in-field productivity by entering data directly on site following inspections (same day). As per the rest of the City View 9 upgrade, the mobile field technology (including purchase & implementation) should be funded by a 2010 OBCA reserve fund draw applied to the capital project.

4. Re-engineering Service Delivery Processes & Practices

Generating Productivity, Compliance & Customer Service via Improved

Execution

Re-engineering Processes to Generate Productivity & Compliance Improvement

Bill 124 amendments to the OBCA require Building departments to execute due diligence on application files within specified timeframes. Meeting mandated turnaround times for permit decisions requires efficient processes and productive staff. Building departments need to properly balance applicant access to staff and customer service support against the need to review complete applications in a timely and rigorous fashion.

Municipalities must also consider the need for consistency between legislated customer service standards and their own historical service standards that often reflect existing community expectations. Legislated standards need not compromise local standards based on community expectations – the two perspectives can be reconciled. A common example of the OBCA creating tension with local expectations involves the mandatory timeframes for a permit issuance decision. In cases where applications are deemed deficient/incomplete within the specified OBCA timeframes, the “clock” in the legislation is turned off on the date of applicant notification. It never turns back on again even after the file becomes complete. While Cornwall staff make every effort to try and process these “clock stopped” files in a timely fashion, there is no City service standard preventing these files from progressing slowly in the face of other competing files coming in the door after them.

Process improvement investigation should also consider the relationship between applicable law approvals required before a building permit can be issued, and the timing of a building permit application - before or after an applicable law process is completed. This question of appropriate/inappropriate applicable law overlap with building permit processes should be carefully considered. For instance this review has determined that the Site Plan process delegated to staff is extremely efficient. From the time of Site Plan approval, the development agreement is produced so quickly that no value-added overlap with Building permit process is possible. Staff productivity should be commended in this regard. Overlap productivity improvements are possible in other applicable law situations.

Finally it needs to be understood that successful process re-engineering is a product of a partnership between applicants and City staff. The quality of application inputs in large part determines the timeliness of Building department outputs. In this regard, continuous improvement must address both element – inputs and outputs – to generate quality, productivity and turnaround time performance results.

Client-focused Process Re-engineering: Create Application Intake Permit Technologist Position


Building permit application work flow in the Department (i.e. dealing with complete applications) is routinely compromised by the requirement for Plans Examiners to frequently approach the counter to service public enquiries, assess application completeness, execute “intake” of technical drawings, and process simple applications. Staff have tracked counter time over fixed periods of time in detail (during 2008-09) and have determined a 40% erosion of productive application processing time. This level of erosion in file review time is not sustainable in the face of forecast permit volume increases.

Other jurisdictions across the Province have encountered the same productivity problem posed by disruption at the counter. The industry “best practice” response has been the creation of a Permit Technician position to deal with the above noted sources of work flow disruption. Permit Technicians assess application completeness for all submitted files, update files with revised technical drawings, react to public enquiries, and process very simple applications at the counter. Permit Technician positions can also provide vacation and sick time coverage – a critical value-added function in a small department. Most critically, Permit Technicians protect the time of the Plans Examiners to provide timely, high quality review of complete applications already “on the clock” in terms of legislated turn around times.

Recommendation 7

As part of the 2010 City budget process, Council should approve a fulltime Permit Technologist position with duties as described in this report. The position should initially be funded from a 2010 draw on the City’s OBCA reserve fund until “full cost” fees have been installed as an ongoing source of funding as per Recommendation 1. No property tax impact should occur as a result of creating this position. The position should be advertised, recruited and filled on a priority basis during Q1-3 2010.

Business Process Execution: Provide Access to Plans Examiners Via Appointments/Open Hours


Permit application work flow in the Department (i.e. dealing with complete applications) is routinely compromised by the requirement for Plans Examiners to frequently leave their files and spend time at the counter to service a diverse set of public enquiries, assess application completeness, execute “intake” of technical drawings on incomplete files already under their review, and process simple applications. The result is a “stop and start” approach to complex complete files that already pose a significant challenge due to legislated timeframes. Plans Examiners have docketed counter time over fixed periods of the day in detail (during 2008-09) and have determined a peak 40% erosion of daily productive application processing time.

In order to optimize necessary “protected” time from the counter in order to properly serve applicants submitting complete applications, a number of Ontario municipalities have implemented i) Plans Examiner appointment scheduling and ii) Plans Examiner “open” customer hours. The two “protection” concepts are consistent with the private sector’s approach to managing public demand for immediate access to professional services (e.g. doctors, dentists, lawyers). The “protection” approach is mutually beneficial – it results in no line-ups and prompt service for the applicant and uninterrupted, focused plans examination time for Plans Examiners. It improves the probability of legislative turnaround time compliance and “made in Cornwall” turnaround time compliance.

Recommendation 8

During Q3-Q4 in 2010, the City should conduct a pilot implementation of mandatory Plans Examiner scheduled appointments for discussion of existing “new” residential and ICI permit application files.

The pilot should also test the concept of “open counter hours” for each Plans Examiner. The open hours for “by request” counter service should rotate between mornings and afternoons – with Examiner A available for mornings and Examiner B available for afternoons.

The results of the pilot should be evaluated at the end of 2010 for potential permanent implementation.

Business Process Execution: Reset Turnaround Times When Deficient File Becomes Complete


The current version of the City View work flow management software does not create performance reports concerning compliance with legislated OBCA turnaround times. Therefore the consulting team executed a comprehensive file audit of almost 50 mostly residential permit applications to measure legislated turnaround time compliance. This file audit was followed up by a more intense review of larger complex commercial and institutional applications.

The residential file audit demonstrated a high degree of City compliance re. OBCA permit decision turnaround times. This is a substantial achievement for the City and staff’s performance should be positively recognized in this regard. However, it also needs to be recognized that legislative compliance on timeframes can be achieved in many cases by simply identifying all application deficiencies and informing the applicant. Doing so effectively “turns off the OBCA clock”. Once the identified deficiencies are addressed by the applicant, the OBCA legislative compliance “clock” does not turn itself back on. The positive pressures in the legislation for timely application processing simply disappear with the initial documentation of deficiencies.

From a customer service perspective, we believe it is reasonable that the City voluntarily re-start the clock once deficiencies have been addressed by applicants, and the application is deemed complete by staff. This approach constitutes a commitment to genuine customer service beyond the perfunctory version contained in the OBCA.

Recommendation 9

The City should adopt it’s own building permit application processing turnaround time standards for all complete applications. The duration of these “made in Cornwall” turnaround time standards should be identical to those contained in the OBCA.

For purposes of the “made in Cornwall” standard, a permit application will be deemed complete when it contains no identified deficiencies at the point of intake by staff – a definition already present in the OBCA. A permit application will also be deemed complete when any previously identified/notified deficiencies (i.e. that turned off the OBCA clock) have been remedied by the applicant to the satisfaction of City Building staff. In this case, the City staff will adhere to its own customer service “clock” and re-commit to the OBCA turnaround times. The City “made in Cornwall” customer service clock will be activated at “Day 1” on the business day following a staff documented decision that all previously notified deficiencies on the file have been remedied, and the file has been deemed complete.

Business Process Execution: Reduce Technical Drawing Revisions “Ping-Pong”


Development & construction industry representatives have noted a tendency for required technical revisions in submitted plans to “ping pong” back and forth between City staff and the applicant – the result being a slower, cumbersome effort intensive compliance process. In order to minimize technical “ping pong” construction industry representatives have requested specific “best practice” examples of technical drawings that have received timely approval from the City and can be emulated by other applicants.

The consulting review team feels this request has merit. City staff are in agreement as well. The need for a quality control toolkit was confirmed by our performance audit of a sample of commercial and institutional applications. The performance audit documented a significant erosion of turnaround time performance attributable to technical deficiencies ping pong.

Recommendation 10

The proposed Building Industry Liaison & Advisory Committee will develop a catalogue of “best practice” technical drawings that can be utilized by the construction industry as a quality control tool. The catalogue should reduce submission deficiency rates, red line corrections and lost processing days.

The catalogue should be developed, reviewed and circulated by the end of Q3 2010.

Business Process Execution: Allocation of Permit Applications Between Plans Examiners


Currently residential permit applications are handled exclusively by one of the City’s Plans Examiner positions while commercial/industrial permit applications are handled by the other Plans Examiner. The application processing roles flip annually.

Since the relative volume of residential and commercial permit applications (and resulting processing work load) fluctuate over time, one position may be required to function above its processing hours capacity while the other position may be required to function below its processing hours capacity limit. The result can be a sub-optimal staff utilization pattern that does not take advantage of the total available processing hours.

An alternate approach of allocating a mix of both residential and industrial/commercial applications to each Plans Examiner can potentially yield improved productivity and utilization. Any gaps in permit volumes in either the residential or industrial commercial streams will be off-set by both staff re-focusing effort “real time” on the actual files coming through the door.

Recommendation 11

Plans Examiners will be required to process an ongoing and equitable mix of both residential and commercial/industrial applications, rather than specializing in one application stream or the other.

This file allocation approach should be implemented immediately and its potential productivity improvement results objectively evaluated at the end of 2010. In order to do so, application file specific processing hour docketing should be considered as a productivity tracking tool.


The Cornwall construction industry supports a fast track process to deliver a superior level of service for experienced applicants submitting high quality “clean” applications. In order for a fast track process to function optimally, it needs to be structured in such a way to avoid consuming processing effort from the “normal” stream of application processing. An after hours fast track process modeled on the City of Burlington version is appropriate. In the Burlington model staff are paid overtime to process applications and a premium fee is charged to applicants. Turnaround time standards are somewhat faster than the normal application stream. Clear applicant eligibility criteria are also required to properly administer a fast track process. Finally, the CBO has discretionary authority to accept or reject fast track requests based on staff/contracted resource availability. In addition to reviewing the Burlington model, staff are advised to consider fast-track model design advice from OBOA during their implementation efforts.

Recommendation 12

The City should develop a fast-track building permit process with a premium permit fee structure and objective criteria to determine fast-track eligibility. The fast-track eligibility criteria must be designed so that the fast-track is accessible to Cornwall’s core clients, based on:

Professional qualification of applicant (BCIN, P.Eng., or OAA) Construction value (res/ind/com) Sq. footage of proposed development (res/ind/com).

The City is encouraged to establish a performance objective, e.g. “X% of all complete and OBC-compliant building permit applications should be approved within X staff working days from the date of submission.” The number of staff working days should relate to the timeline in Recommendation #9.

The CBO should retain discretionary authority to decide if an application may not be allowed in (or taken out of) the fast-track.

The fast-track system should be developed, reviewed and implemented by the end of Q2 2010.

Business Process Execution: Allocation of Permit Applications Between Plans Examiners

Business Process Execution: Overlap with Minor Variance Process to Reduce Turnaround Times


As is the case with many Ontario municipalities, Cornwall’s CBO currently requires applicable law to be in place before an application for a Building Permit is accepted at the counter by staff - and the OBCA turnaround time “clock” turns on. This sequential approach to applicable law increases the probability that legislated turnaround times will not be compromised by prematurely turning on the clock prior to applicable law Planning Act processes being completed. Planning Act site plan and/or minor variance processes are a case in point. In neither case do Planning Act approvals and OBCA approvals currently overlap on purpose – overlap now only occurs when Building staff do not detect the need for a prior Planning Act approval when reviewing an application at the counter.

However, during the 20 day appeal period at the end of a successful minor variance approval process, there is an opportunity for the City to reduce the timeframes required for issuing a Building permit. If the CBO agreed to accept a Building permit application during the final 10 days of the 20 day minor variance appeal period (when the technical land use matters have been resolved to the City’s satisfaction), then a residential building permit could potentially be issued immediately following the end of the minor variance appeal period. The result would be a “just in time” permit issuance system and very high levels of customer service. In contrast, the current strictly sequential approach to minor variances as applicable law only allows an application for a building permit to be made after the end of the minor variance 20 day appeal period. The permit itself could take an additional 10 business days. If an appeal on the minor variance is received during the final 10 days, the building permit application would be deemed deficient (i.e. not meeting applicable law requirements) and the OBCA clock would turnoff and no building permit would be forthcoming.

Recommendation 13

The CBO should be encouraged to exercise his statutory discretionary authority to accept building permit applications associated with approved minor variances that have entered the final 10 days of their public appeal period. The CBO should make use of an OBCA waiver process as required to manage any perceive turnaround time compliance risk associated with an accelerated review of minor variance related building permit applications.

The CBO should track saved permit processing days associated with minor variance accelerated permits, and report these saved days as part of the recommended annual OBCA report card.

5. Managing Risk & Promoting Accountability

Protecting Service Delivery Continuity, Partnering with the Industry & Setting

Measurement Derived Targets

Managing Risk & Promoting Accountability

From a risk management perspective Cornwall faces a number of significant challenges. The City is relatively isolated as an employee market for the relatively scarce, provincially certified Building staff it requires to discharge its legislated OBCA responsibilities. As a relatively low wage employer verses markets like Ottawa or the GTA, Cornwall faces staff retention and staff recruitment obstacles. Recent recruitment efforts are instructive in this regard. Multiple recruitment attempts resulted in less-than qualified staff being hired and extensive training being required. The relatively lean City staffing model – combined with the isolated employment market will result in significantly reduced permit application or inspection capacity for an extended length of time. Thie risk to service delivery continuity is further exacerbated by the legislative requirement (no excuses) to deliver permit decisions and inspection according to rigorous timelines.

From an accountability perspective, performance measurement and results reporting is required by the OBCA as well as results based management principles. Ideally, Building departments measure turnaround times to both report on timely service delivery, but more importantly, to generate timely service delivery. Performance measurement scorecards are most helpful in this regard. Scorecards are being implemented by municipalities across Ontario – in many service areas including Building departments.

Accountability is also promoted via transparent construction industry dialogue and partnership – not to dilute compliance but rather to support innovative approaches to achieving compliance. Mechanisms to promote dialogue are required in Cornwall, given the historic difficulties between the industry and Building department senior staff. Partnership will strengthen compliance, not circumvent it. Customer service – to both applicants and the broader community – should not be inaccurately understood to signal compromise on enforcement nor should it be understood as a rationale for accepting poor quality applicant submissions. Customer service requires a mutual level of respect, technical understanding of the Building Code environment, and a willingness to be innovative and flexible within the context of compliance. Both the City and the applicant community need to work hard to improve these requirements.

Reduce Risk & Safeguard Service Levels: Execute a Service Continuity Staffing Strategy


The Cornwall Building department is a relatively lean operation in terms of plans examination and construction inspection staffing. There is very little staffing redundancy/back-up in terms of the mandatory credentials/qualifications required to process the various categories of complex applications. In addition Cornwall’s geography creates a small, somewhat isolated employment market for accredited building staff. Recent drawn-out job searches have confirmed the difficulty in attracting appropriately qualified out-of-town individuals. Municipal peer benchmarking analysis confirms Cornwall to currently be a below-the-mean cost employer in the province-wide building officials market. Job evaluation/equity may be a preferred route to address this systemic employee retention risk.

Finally, this review has encountered a widespread perception among staff that persons outside the department may not have a complete understanding of their mandated role, and therefore may not be fully supportive of when strong public enforcement action comes into conflict with some citizen’s perceptions of “customer service”. Morale may suffer accordingly.

Taken together, these staffing and morale factors constitute a significant service continuity risk for the City in the event any key staff depart from their current positions. The result would be widespread non-compliance with legislated turnaround times, potential cash flow damage to the local construction economy, and reputation damage to the municipal “brand” in the eyes of local stakeholders. In order to mitigate this service continuity risk, a number of staff retention and proactive human resource planning issues require immediate attention.

Recommendation 14

The City will develop a proactive service continuity staffing strategy including the following elements:

A Council endorsed Mission Statement endorsing the importance of Code compliance and a safe building stock – executed in an efficient, practical and respectful fashion by staff

Implement appropriate HR and compensation policies/measures required to improve the likelihood of retaining key plans examination and inspection staff.

Aggressive advance recruitment of mission-critical Building staff in anticipation of predictable retirement dates.

Strong scheduling and budgetary support for advanced credential achievement by staff - indicating a desire by the employer to commit to a deeper departmental pool of credentialed talent and cross-trained competencies.

Reduce Risk & Safeguard Service Levels: Solution Package for Open Permits


As is the case with numerous Ontario municipalities, Cornwall is currently challenged by high numbers of “open” residential building permits – a situation where a successful occupancy inspection has taken place but a final inspection has not. This may not present a problem for the initial homeowner. However, in the event that the residential property in question is sold, the sale transaction can be disrupted up by the open permit (title insurance is increasingly excluding OBCA problems from coverage). The City then faces significant pressure to immediately close the permit in order to allow the transaction to proceed. However, a final inspection may or may not permit staff to close the permit, depending on the state of the property and the ease of dealing with documented final deficiencies. Clearly, avoidance of prolonged open permits is desirable from both a public safety risk management perspective and a post-sale customer service perspective.

Recommendation 15

On a go forward basis commencing in Q1 2011, the City will implement a $500 final inspection refundable deposit (per new residential unit). The final inspection deposit will apply to new residential structures. It will not apply to additions and renovations. The deposit will be collected at the point of building permit fee payment. The deposit will be returned at the point of a successful final inspection. An administration fee of $100 will be deducted annually from any open permit deposit that is being refunded later than 1 year after the date of the successful occupancy inspection.

Upgraded Dialogue & Accountability: Create Building Industry Liaison & Advisory Committee


An overarching and problematic observation made during our review has been the lack of ongoing dialogue and trust between the City Building department and the local construction/development industry. The existing relationship between the two “sides” is negatively impacted by counter-productive performance perceptions. Whatever the historical basis for these perceptions, the absence of an ongoing, positive, problem solving dialogue between the CBO and the industry needs to be addressed on an urgent basis. Dialogue need not imply a diluted commitment to regulatory enforcement. Nor does dialogue imply an expectation that “corners can be cut” when submitting applications that clearly must meet expected levels of technical competency. Customer service need not, and cannot, be understood to represent a diluted commitment to public safety and rigorous enforcement.

This being said, the successful construction industry “open house” conducted as part of this review suggests a new beginning is possible. Both City staff and industry leaders have seized upon this review exercise as an opportunity to work in partnership to improve both the quality of application inputs and the City’s performance in conducting its legislated “due diligence” regulatory role.

Recommendation 16

Council should create a Building Industry Liaison & Advisory Committee. The Committee should consist of five permanent members. Two of the appointed members should be development industry nominees approved by Council. Two City staff members – the Director of Planning/Building and be the CBO – should also be permanent members. The final member should be a nominated member of Council. The Mayor should be considered a permanent ex-officio member. The Chair of the Committee can rotate among members.

The mandate of the Committee is to provide a forum for dialogue, promotion of best practices among applicants and the City, educate the stakeholder community on Code compliance, review of the annual accountability report card, and consider other overall process performance improvement issues as they arise. The Committee will function by consensus and will be a non-voting entity. The Committee should meet quarterly and report to Council annually.

Upgraded Dialogue & Accountability: City OBCA Performance Report Card


The recommended new version of City View will equip the City Building department with the capability to track and report permit application and inspection notification turnaround times with relative ease. Automated performance reporting will, in turn, support staff in setting forward-looking performance targets on an annual basis. These targets can be organized into a business plan that integrates budget information and performance data in an annual business plan.

The need for accountability based reporting applies to both City performance in regulating building safety in a timely fashion – it also applies to the quality of application inputs supplied by the development/construction industry and the general public. In this respect, a measurement supported Report Card can be used to measure the overall performance of the entire Building permit process from both customer and regulator perspectives.

Recommendation 17

The City will prepare an annual OBCA performance Report Card. The report card will include results trends over multiple years re. the following elements of performance:

OBCA legislated permit decision turnaround times (average & % meeting standard) “Made in Cornwall” complete application turnaround times (average & % meeting completion) OBCA legislated inspection notification turnaround times % cost recovery of operating costs by fees versus cost recovery 100% target Application submission error rates by category (average # of material submission errors or submission gaps per application)

Report Card results from 2010-2011 will be used to set 2012 business plan performance targets that will be integrated with the 2012 budget submission to create a 2012 results based business plan.

Upgraded Dialogue & Accountability: Conduct One-Year “Progress Review” Workshop


The portfolio of Recommendations emerging from this review represent a fundamental and ambitious “change management” blueprint for the City. The implementation of this change management blueprint should result in significant objective (i.e. measurable) and subjective (i.e. customer feel, open dialogue) service delivery improvement.

As with any change management project there is a risk that flawed execution (or failure to execute) can dilute the expected performance improvement results. A brief but focused 3rd party interim evaluation of the implementation process and results is a proven approach to avoiding disappointing results and remaining on-track.

Recommendation 18

Acting in concert with the Building Industry Liaison & Advisory Committee, the City should commission a 3rd party interim evaluation of the progress made in implementing the findings of this review. The interim evaluation will focus on objective measurable service delivery results, subjective changes in the City/industry relationship and implementation work plan execution. This interim evaluation should occur during Q1-Q2 in 2011 and be funded from the City OBCA reserve fund.

Technical Appendix

Results of Detailed File Sample Reviews

Documents

City of Cornwall Building Services Operational Review/Audit