OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR

Transcription

1 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY S PERMITTING PROCESS PERFORMANCE AUDIT FEBRUARY 2005 Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor

2 Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor City and County of Denver 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. 705 Denver, Colorado , FAX February 9, 2005 Mr. Peter Park, Manager Department of Community Planning and Development City and County of Denver Mr. Bill Vidal, Manager Department of Public Works City and County of Denver Dear Mr. Park and Mr. Vidal: This report contains the results of the performance audit covering all phases of the permit and licensing process for commercial applicants starting a new business or expanding an existing business in the City and County of Denver. The audit period is from January 1, 2003 through March 31, Performance audits are an objective and systematic examination of a process or function in order to provide information to make improvements in that process or function. I believe you will find this report to do just that. It is a guideline a roadmap, if you will not only detailing areas in need of improvement in the City s permitting and licensing process but making specific recommendations regarding those improvements. I think you will find it an invaluable tool to use in improving the process. As you may know, I am expanding our performance audit process because I believe it is critical to enhancing the overall performance of Denver s government. This is a prime example of the value of the performance audit and why its increased use in Denver is necessary. Let me also say, that in issuing this report I have noted your efforts to make necessary changes and improvements in some areas of concern originally cited in our interim report, issued to you in July of One finding, however, is of particular concern to me. That is the issue of unpaid overtime for non-exempt staff. I understand that this overtime is being done voluntarily and it is certainly commendable that those employees working this unpaid overtime are so committed to their work and providing service to the citizens (it certainly speaks to the dedication of our public employees). However, the potential liability to the City is very real and I encourage you to take particular note of our finding and recommendation related to this. The City s development review services help ensure that development within the City is consistent with land use, building laws, and regulations that are intended to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Denver, and to ensure well-planned, livable, and economically vital communities. 1

3 Mr. Park and Mr. Vidal Page 2 February 9, 2005 Our audit results are based on analysis of the existing development review operations. Also, we audited the planning and review process, and not the validity of the development review decisions. Denver s City Council has passed ordinances for zoning requirements to protect Denver s communities. Over the years this has developed into a complicated zoning code that frequently requires time-consuming amendments before any building can begin. This is creating an environment that discourages builders and developers to do business in the City of Denver. Overall, the permit process must look to add more value for customers. Creating value is likely to take the form of skilled training for employees, increased online services, less review, and a simplified code. The permit process needs to be streamlined so that customers quickly get results. This may mean that not everything in a particular project will be able to be reviewed or inspected. Expediting the permit approval process is of particular importance for developers. This may require rezoning established neighborhoods to mixed-land use combining commercial, residential, recreation, and educational development, accessible by bike or foot, intended to create more vibrant diverse neighborhoods and contributing to City livability and development goals. The entire permit review process involves Community Planning and Development, Excise and License, Public Works, Wastewater Management, Parks and Recreation, Planning Division, Environmental Health, and the Fire Department. Cooperation and commitment on the parts of all of these departments and agencies will be required in order to implement the recommended changes contained herein. Because of the various departments and agencies involved in this process, we recommend Mayor Hickenlooper assign a representative to oversee, coordinate, and mediate any changes made. We have noted through observation, responses to questionnaires, interviews, and testing, the following areas that should be addressed: Customer service is lacking in some areas. The zoning code is overly complicated. Cooperation and communication existing between the various City departments and agencies within the overall permit process is weak. Information available to the permit customers is limited and often outdated. Case managers lack updated guidelines, training, and authorization to provide assistance to customers from the beginning of the permit process to the completion of the project. Employee training and certifications are not maintained on a current level. Signage in the Webb Building is inadequate and confusing. Information on the City web site is not easily accessible and some is outdated. Furniture, computer equipment, and scanning equipment do not provide the necessary tools to City employees for plan review. There are logistic problems that cause delays in issuing wastewater permits. 2

4 Mr. Park and Mr. Vidal Page 3 February 9, 2005 Supervisory staff have regular operational workloads preventing adequate review of staff work to ensure consistency. There is a lack of quality assurance via written policies and procedures, and record keeping of interpretations and precedents. Inspectors lack necessary equipment to efficiently conduct their jobs. Non-exempt inspectors work unpaid overtime to complete their assignments. Included herein are an outline of the permit process, flow charts, and an outline of the most significant regulatory requirements, beginning on page 11. The details of our findings and recommendations follow on page 16. The American Institute of Architecture (AIA) prepared a whitepaper expressing their concerns with the City s permit process. We have addressed how our recommendations will help eliminate their concerns in attachment A. We appreciate the cooperation received from managers and staff in the various departments and agencies involved in the zoning, licensing, and plan review phases of the City s permitting process. Sincerely, Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor DJG/kh cc: Honorable John Hickenlooper, Mayor Honorable Members of City Council Members of Audit Committee Cole Finegan, City Attorney Chief Larry Trujillo, Fire Department Kim M. Bailey, Manager, Parks and Recreation 3

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Transmittal Letter 1 Table of Contents 4 Internal Auditor s Report 5 Executive Summary 6 Background, Scope, Objective, and Methodology 9 Introduction to the Permit Process 11 Flow Charts 14 Findings and Recommendations 16 Responses 32 Attachment A 37 4

6 Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor City and County of Denver 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. 705 Denver, Colorado , FAX INTERNAL AUDITOR S REPORT We have completed a performance audit that covers all phases of the permit and licensing process for commercial applicants starting a new business or expanding an existing business in the City and County of Denver. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether the process of issuing permits is being completed in a timely, efficient and helpful manner. In addition, the audit is intended to provide management with an oversight of the entire permit process including all departments and agencies. The audit period is from January 1, 2003 through March 31, This audit was included in the Auditor s Office Internal Audit Division s Annual Audit Plan and is authorized pursuant to the City and County of Denver Charter, Article V, Part 2, We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. While the Department of Community Planning and Development is the City s lead agency for development review, the Department of Public Works, the Wastewater Management Division, the Fire Department, the Department of Parks and Recreation s Planning Division, and Environmental Services are also involved in the review and approval of development proposals. Our recommendations for improvement will require the cooperation of all those involved in the permit process. We examined the policies and procedures followed by the various departments and agencies involved in the process. Based upon observation, responses to questionnaires, interviews, and testing, we have noted areas that should be addressed. Specific findings and recommendations are contained herein. We appreciate the cooperation we received from managers and staff within the Department of Community Planning and Development, the Department of Public Works, and all other departments and agencies that were a part of this audit. Internal Audit Division Date: February 9, 2005 Staff: Dick Wibbens, CPA, Audit Manager John Finamore, CPA, Audit Supervisor Sonia Montano, Lead Auditor Jane Harlow, Senior Auditor Norine Reigan, CPA, Senior Auditor Michael Clark, CPA Director of Internal Audit 5 The prudent stewardship of Denver s finances, resources and financial records! We are also committed to improving accountability, efficiency, effectiveness and performance in city government. We will scrupulously protect the taxpayer s interests and work collaboratively with all concerned to improve our city and its government

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2003 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2004 This summary briefly highlights the findings of the Permit Audit which are more fully described in the Findings, Recommendations, and Responses section beginning on page 16. Responses from the various agencies begin on page Customer Service We noted through observation, responses to questionnaires, and interviews that customers of the permit process are frequently dissatisfied with the customer service they encounter. 2. Lack of Information for Customers Customers do not receive adequate and current rules, and regulations to follow in order to provide for an efficient and expedited review process. 3. Case Managers Projects are assigned to case managers based on the size of land involved and not complexity of the projects. Although case managers assist and coordinate projects, they do not follow projects to completion and obtain the certificate of occupancy. 4. Application of the Zoning Codes is not Consistent Through responses to questionnaires, interviews, and letters we have noted customer complaints concerning the lack of consistency in applying zoning codes. Due to its complexity there is not a thorough understanding of the code by all employees assigned to zoning, therefore the rules are not applied in a consistent manner. 5. Inter-Agency Cooperation We noted that the various departments and agencies within the overall permit process do not function as a team working towards a common vision of how the permit process should occur. 6. Utilization of Automated Systems The lack of utilization of the Geographic Information System (GIS) and the CityView System by City staff reduces the efficiency of the permitting process and customer service. 7. Certification and Training of Staff Obtaining or renewing professional certification by the City staff involved in the various aspects of the permit process is not encouraged or budgeted for reimbursement on a regular basis. There is no ongoing inter-agency training or meetings for City staff involved in the permit process that includes all departments and agencies involved. 6

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY continued 8. Training for Customers We noted other cities have programs in place to routinely conduct customer training sessions related to their permitting process. Denver has no such training. Training sessions could result in time savings for the planning, zoning, building permits, and inspection groups. 9. Permit Process Website The pages customers must navigate to find information on the permit web site on Denvergov.org are not easy to use. Although there is good information on various sites, the information can be difficult to find. 10. Wastewater Management Division The engineering staff of the Wastewater Management Division should be located in the same building as the counter staff to help reduce wastewater permit processing time and improve overall customer service. 11. Lack of Adequate Signage Through observation, interviews, and responses to questionnaires we noted that because of inadequate signage at the Webb Building there is confusion concerning where customers should go to conduct permit business. 12. Zoning Research Files Before a zoning use permit can be issued, three separate manual record sources must be searched for any information regarding the property in question. This is a time consuming process. The search process could be improved by electronically imaging records that could then be accessed by computer. 13. Furniture and Computer Equipment Much of the furniture and computers available to employees do not provide the necessary tools for the staff to conduct their jobs in the most efficient manner. 14. Internal Controls Internal controls surrounding employee productivity within Community Planning and Development (CPD) are not adequate. Supervisors have full operational workloads that do not allow time for them to review staff work to ensure quality and consistency in their sections. Policies and procedures available to employees are not current. Some non-exempt staff are allowed to work unpaid overtime. Resource documentation is not readily available to counter staff. 7

9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY continued 15. Restaurant Review There is a lack of segregation of duties and adequate backup for the health inspector at CPD who reviews restaurant plans and inspects the facilities prior to opening. Information documentation the City provides to restaurateurs does not adequately explain all they must do in order to comply with the City s requirements to open. 8

10 PERMIT PROCESS PERFORMANCE AUDIT BACKGROUND, SCOPE, OBJECTIVE, AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2003 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2004 Background The City and County of Denver s permit process involves the efforts of the following departments and agencies: The mission of the Department of Community Planning and Development (CPD) is to manage the planning, building, and maintenance of a safe and beautiful Denver. CPD - Development Services reviews building plans, site plans and urban design requirements; processes rezoning applications; prepares zoning map amendments; and conducts inspections. These responsibilities comprise approximately 80 percent of City functions related to the development of private land. The Transportation Division of Public Works Development Review Division monitors all design phase concepts and plans for conformity with the City s adopted standards, regulations, and ordinances. This division also manages the City s street right-of-ways. The Wastewater Management Planning group reviews citywide development plans that impact major components of the sanitary and storm sewer system. The Fire Department - Prevention and Investigation Unit ensures the construction of safe buildings and structures through plan reviews, enforcement, and the issuance of occupancy permits. The Department of Environmental Health conducts inspections of all eating and drinking establishments. They ensure compliance with regulations and attempt to minimize outbreaks of disease due to food and water contamination. Additionally, the department, along with Environmental Services and Environmental Protection Divisions, evaluates potential environmental concerns at known impacted areas, such as Lowry Air Force Base or land dedicated to the City as right-of-ways. Scope The scope of the audit is to review the process an individual or corporation has to go through when dealing with the City to obtain applicable permits to open or expand a business in the City and County of Denver. We will also review the internal controls in place for monitoring the zoning and development review process intended to ensure compliance with zoning regulations, the guidelines of Blueprint Denver, and City ordinances. 9

11 BACKGROUND, SCOPE, OBJECTIVE, AND METHODOLOGY Objective The objective of our audit is to determine whether the process of issuing permits by the City is being completed in a timely, efficient, and helpful manner. In addition, the audit will attempt to determine if the process of issuing permits is performed in a manner that complies with applicable rules and regulations, ordinances, Blueprint Denver, and sound accounting and administrative internal controls as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Methodology To meet the audit objectives, the following evidence gathering and analysis techniques were used: documentation of internal controls, review the permit web site on Denvergov.org and compare it to other municipalities, observe and document the flow and activity of counter operations, obtain and analyze responses to questionnaires submitted to City customers, attend and observe meetings held with case managers and developers, review the automated systems used by City agencies (CityView and GIS), interview City management and staff. 10

12 PERMIT PROCESS PERFORMANCE AUDIT INTRODUCTION TO THE PERMIT PROCESS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2003 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2004 Introduction to the Permit Process In general, the permit process is intended to ensure that land in the City and County of Denver is used and developed appropriately for the orderly growth and harmonious development of the City and the metropolitan area. Once appropriate land uses have been approved, the development review process also helps ensure that structures, streets, sewers, and water facilities are built safely. The development review process is guided by a number of policies, plans, and regulatory requirements. The most significant of these policies and their major features are as follows: State and Local Building Codes Local governments must ensure that builders and contractors follow codes covering a variety of building procedures including plumbing, electrical, mechanical systems, and structural. Currently, the City and County of Denver follows the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), the 1999 Denver Amendments to the UBC, 1997 Mechanical Code, 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code, 2002 National Electrical Code, and The 1994 Uniform Fire Code with Amendments. Comprehensive Plan The City and County of Denver s Comprehensive Plan 2000 provides guidelines for the future growth and development of the City. The Plan addresses a number of goals and policies in housing, land use, economic vitality, transportation, and community life. Blueprint Denver Blueprint Denver, a legal part of the City s Comprehensive Plan 2000, is the City s first integrated land-use and transportation plan. It blends the City s transportation and mobility needs with jobs, housing and urban design intended to improve the quality of existing neighborhoods and create new neighborhoods that are desirable places to live. Additionally, Blueprint Denver is expected to provide a spark to economic development in support of the plan. Uniform Fire Code with Amendments The Fire Prevention and Investigations division of the Fire Department strives to ensure the construction of safe buildings and structures by performing plan reviews, enforcement, and the issuance of occupancy permits. The plans are reviewed to meet the standards of the Uniform Fire Code with amendments (changes to the International Fire Code as of October 2004). 11

13 INTRODUCTION TO THE PERMIT PROCESS City Zoning Ordinances According to the Denver Revised Municipal Code (RMC), the planning review conducted by Community Planning and Development will administer City zoning laws and other laws regulating land development and construction within the City. Categories of Development Review The City reviews and approves development and building proposals to ensure that City ordinances and building codes are being followed. The three basic kinds of reviews and approvals in the development review process are: (1) land use and zoning review, (2) development review, and (3) construction permits approval and inspections. Following is a brief description of each category of development review. In addition, there is a flow chart on page 14 that provides an overview of the entire development review process. 1. Land Use and Zoning Reviews - Review of land use proposals ensures that the planned use of the property conforms to existing zoning and land use requirements. Zoning Administration administers the zoning ordinance by: providing information about zone districts, permitted uses and development standards; issuing construction and use permits; managing rezoning requests and the review of site plans. 2. Development Review - The development review team assists people who submit land development plans and subdivisions for review and approval. A case manager is assigned for each submittal for sites larger than 10,000 square feet. The case manager will coordinate the review process with other agencies that have development requirements. The case manager also participates in the review and approval of each case. Subdivision usually requires City Council approval of land subdivisions if streets are being dedicated or if the land is located in the Gateway area. The various agencies and departments that compose the development review team are as follows: Development Engineering Services Public Works transportation Wastewater Management Surveyor Public Works Fire Department Department of Parks and Recreation, Planning Division Planning Services CPD Urban Design Water Board Building CPD Environmental Services 12

14 INTRODUCTION TO THE PERMIT PROCESS 3. Construction Permits - Assuming the planning application is approved, the applicant must submit a detailed application for a building permit to the Building Division (Development Services). The Building Division and other City departments review the detailed construction plans for conformance with planning approvals, building code, fire code, and other applicable regulations. The initial review takes four weeks and each resubmittal review requires ten working days. Prior to obtaining a construction permit, Wastewater Management requires a Sewer Use and Drainage Permit. After all departments have reviewed and approved the construction plans, a building permit is issued and construction may start. In addition to the construction permits, customers may be required to obtain additional permits for wastewater (these are indicated on the Wastewater flow chart found on page 15), and for right-of-way improvements. Permits are required for any construction in the right of way, which includes, but is not limited to driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutters, or excavations. If there is a need to block traffic flow during construction, customers must obtain a Revocable Street Occupancy Permit. Street cut permits are required for any excavation within the right-of-way. During the various stages of construction, building inspectors will routinely perform many different types of inspections to ensure compliance with the building and construction codes. If the inspector approves the work, the inspector will record the approval on the building permit and the building division s record systems. After all the intermediate inspections are completed, a final inspection is performed. If it is approved a certificate of occupancy is issued. Certain businesses are required to obtain fire permits, such as restaurants. They may also be required to have fire alarms and sprinklers. If any business has power backup in the form of lead acid batteries or flammable or combustible liquids for generators, a permit must be obtained from the fire department. 13

15 FLOW CHARTS 14

16 FLOW CHARTS 15

17 PERMIT PROCESS PERFORMANCE AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2003 THORUGH MARCH 31, Customer Service Through observation, interviews, and responses to questionnaires, we noted the following situations that adversely affect customer service: There are no written procedures detailing acceptable protocol for conducting meetings between program managers and developers. We observed instances of meetings that were not conducted in a professional manner. Additionally, the physical space used for meetings does not provide the developers with sufficient room. Conversations between developers and City employees were not always conducted in a courteous and professional manner. We observed a meeting with members of a joint venture between Aurora and Denver where a developer asked for an informational packet similar to one he had received from Aurora. The City did not have any such information to provide the developer. Comments submitted in response to questionnaires included details of instances where City employees had not returned phone calls on a timely basis and did not address customers in a courteous manner. Some customers commented on the length of time it takes to process a permit. There were many requests to have more accountability of the time spent on the review process. Customers would like to know more about the supervisory review of problem areas and errors. Customers generally would like to have the same case manager assigned to their projects from start to finish rather than having multiple changes in personnel. Many customers complain about the parking situation at the Webb Building. When using the metered parking spaces around the building, customers frequently must find change for the meters. There is no source of change available. This problem has been known for some time now but no solutions have been attempted. According to responses on the questionnaires, the zoning department keeps customers on hold on the telephone for long periods. Although it is unknown how many calls are in queue, zoning does know how long the next customer has been holding. In December 2003, approximately 30% of the 1,360 incoming calls were abandoned. The reason for the large number of abandoned calls was undeterminable. While it is difficult to assign staff to the unpredictable workload of telephone service, the public expects their calls should be answered in a timely manner. There is no drop-off location in CPD for customers to leave plans for re-submittal. Currently, they must sign in and wait their turn in line in order to leave their revised plans. Recommendation To help improve customer service and provide a more professional environment to do business with the City, we recommend the CPD should develop a clear statement of its customer service performance standards, including specific goals and objectives for timely processing of applications, meeting time schedules for approving projects, and holding staff accountable for their actions and decisions. Specifically, the following should be addressed: 16

18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Written procedures and guidelines should be established explaining acceptable meeting protocol. Additional customer-service training should be pursued for all personnel to improve customer service during the plan review process Project specific information should be made available to customers as early as possible. Such information should be dated and signed off by both the City and customer to demonstrate a commitment and understanding of the project s requirements. CPD should develop procedures to provide telephone assistance when waiting phone calls exceed acceptable levels. A designated drop off location should be established to prevent customers from waiting in line only to drop off revised plans. The planning and review staff activities should be monitored by reviewing time sheets to ensure an equal work load for all. This would allow CPD s management to develop reports to quantify and summarize workloads and activities identifying the time and costs expended on various types of projects. Consideration should be given to posting the work hours of the CPD personnel so that customers will know whether or not the staff they need to speak with is available. Posting of any staff information should also include telephone numbers and assigned areas of the City for each individual. Staff should be reminded to return phone calls and s within a 24 hour period. Supervisors should take steps to monitor this activity. Supervisors should also monitor and document the resolution of all complaints made by customers. We recommend that a change machine be installed on the second floor of the Webb Building to provide a source of change for customers to use in the parking meters. The Treasury Division would have to approve the use of a change machine and should be able to assist in obtaining installation of one. 2. Lack of Information for Customers The PUD/PBG Site Plan Rules and Regulations book, compiled in 1989, is intended to provide guidelines for all aspects of the permit process. These guidelines, which are for sale to the public, should document the current process and requirements for site plan review so that customers and employees have available to them clearly stated expectations for the preparation and review of site plans. Although a few updates have been listed in the front of the book, it has not been thoroughly updated since its inception; consequently the book provides some incorrect information, phone numbers, and agency contacts. No one in the City takes ownership of this book and keeps it updated. We observed that there are many supplemental regional guideline and review books City agencies have written providing design guidelines for specific areas subject to design review. These supplemental guidelines are well written and updated as needed, thus demonstrating that such information can be kept current. 17

19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The City provides applicants with other information and assistance in the development review process in the form of manuals, a web site, and informational brochures. Unfortunately, much of the information is not current, thus providing incorrect information, outdated requirements, and wrong contact names. Much of this information is in the form of free handouts, however some information the customers are required to purchase. Contractors are provided with a list of required inspections for their projects; however, it is not clear what the level of building completion is required for the inspections. As an example, during a ride-along on an inspection, we observed customers who had to remove drywall to qualify for a rough electrical inspection. Surrounding counties provide customers with the building completion stage requirements and inspection code to request in each case. During interviews, we have been told that project owners frequently become frustrated with the way the City processes plan reviews. Often the problem is that the architect or contractor is not submitting all the information that has been requested, requiring several returns and resubmittals. Owners are not kept up-to-date on the requests for additional information and the reasons for subsequent re-submittals. Recommendation Representatives from each agency responsible for the various topics in the PBG/PUD Site Plan Rules and Regulations should form a committee to meet quarterly, or otherwise as needed, with the purpose of routinely updating the rules and regulations. If the agencies involved do not feel they can commit to such an endeavor, then consideration should be given to outsourcing the updating of the rules and regulations. Not only do customers deserve to have available to them accurate information about the process, but the availability of such information should reduce the amount of time City staff spend answering questions about the process. Data from other municipalities (i.e. San Jose and Portland) that generate similar kinds of information as the PBG/PUD Site Plan Rules and Regulations shows they experienced significantly reduced phone calls and personal visits once accurate and timely information was available to the public. In addition to the overall process information contained in the PBG/PUD Site Plan Rules and Regulations, project-specific information describing the requirements and process to follow should be developed and made available to customers. For example, the availability of customized checklists detailing specific requirements and the timelines for different types of projects would help ensure that site plans submitted contain all required information and documentation needed for expedient approval of plans. Following the issuance of the building permits, customers should receive an outline of all necessary inspections, related required conditions, and automated inspection system codes to request the appropriate inspection. Owners of projects should be kept informed by the City s review staff. It should be clearly understood by both contractors and owners what is required and why re-submittals are necessary. 18

20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3. Case Managers Major projects that encompass more than 10,000 square feet of land area are assigned a CPD case manager to simplify and coordinate the interagency review of the permit process. With respect to this practice, we noted the following based upon observation, responses to questionnaires, and interviews of City staff and customers: Projects are assigned a case manager if the land area is greater than 10,000 square feet giving no consideration of overall complexity. Some projects that encompass more than 10,000 square feet of land area are basic and do not require the additional assistance of a case manager. One customer described a complex small project, less than 10,000 square feet, that benefited significantly from the review and coordination provided by a case manager. The size of land area does not necessarily determine complexity or the necessity of the assistance of a case manager. Case managers do not follow initially assigned projects to a close, i.e. obtaining the certificate of occupancy. Although case managers are able to contact other City agency representatives more easily than customers, this responsibility remains with the customer. Distribution of plans is done via inter-office mail, which is not an efficient manner of delivery. There is no obvious reception area to meet with the case managers. Case managers are not able to request ing of changes and corrections to plans from customers. Listing of comments or additional information on plans is presented in many different forms (i.e. typed or handwritten); much of this information is difficult to read. Case managers (zoning and planning personnel) do not have budgets for professional development; nor are certifications maintained. Recommendation For customers to benefit most from the assignment of a case manager to assist and coordinate the review process, we recommend the following changes: Case managers should be assigned to assist customers in the review process depending on the complexity of the project and not the size of the land. Assigned case managers should assist customers through the construction permit process, inspections, and the issuance of the certificate of occupancy in order to provide one contact person for the entire permit process. There are concerns about delays and loss of mail when using the City s inter-office mail system, therefore, the plans should be hand delivered to the appropriate agencies. There is a reception area on the 2 nd floor of the Webb Building that is not currently used. This area could be used as a reception area in addition to an information center for the permit process. Consideration should be given to develop the plan review process for electronic submittal. The acceptance of electronic files for review, corrections, comments, and requests for changes and inspections processed through hand held computers, for example, could greatly enhance the permit process for customers. 19

21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS All comments and requests for additional information concerning site plan review made by departments and agencies should be submitted in a standard, typewritten format. CPD should request additional budget to provide for staff professional development. 4. Application of the Zoning Codes is Not Consistent The City s zoning code is complex. Although it was written to ensure compliance with the overall comprehensive plan, there are also sections to accommodate and protect individual neighborhoods. Developers often must comply with more than one layer of district requirements. This sometimes requires an interpretation by zoning staff to determine if the code is being met. Developers and zoning staff are not advised of the intent or the interpretations to assist them in predicting if planned projects will be in compliance. Through responses to questionnaires and letters from customers sent to CPD, we noted complaints that zoning s interpretations lack consistency when applying the zoning code from one project to the next and/or one zoning staff to another. Customers state that because interpreting the code is subjective, the code is not applied in a consistent manner. Recommendation The zoning department staff should have regular meetings to communicate zoning problems and interpretations that may exist to help ensure the consistent application of the zoning codes. The zoning code has become overly complex. The City should establish a plan to simplify the zoning code. Although City Council passes ordinances to protect their districts, this has a tendency to create a difficult environment for attracting business into Denver. The intent should be to streamline the zoning code to remove the need for complex interpretations. 5. Inter-Agency Cooperation We noted that the various departments and agencies within the overall permit process do not function together as a team working towards a common vision of how the permit process should operate. Management has not built a cohesive cooperative work unit with effective interaction between the agencies. The permit process involves several agencies in four departments that do not always share information or attend requested meetings about specific projects. Also, the Wastewater Management Division does not cooperatively accept applications as they are passed through from CPD. CPD staff does not always alert customers to other agency permit requirements. For example, customers frequently do not apply for wastewater permits until after they have logged in their construction plans and have gone through the review process, whereupon they are told that a building permit cannot be issued without the wastewater permit. This causes a delay of approximately one month. 20

22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation Management effort is necessary to improve the City s inter-agency culture surrounding the permit process. Employees need to have a better understanding of each agency s responsibilities in the permit process. Each agency and its employees should all be working towards the same outcome of getting the customer their required permits in the quickest, most efficient manner possible. It is our recommendation that the managers of the CPD, Public Works, and Parks, along with the Fire Department, require their respective personnel to attend requested meetings and submit their comments concerning a customer s plans to the case manager or customer on a timely basis. If staffing constraints are preventing the timely processing of permits, management should consider whether staff reductions inhibit future collections of revenue for sales tax, head tax, and permit fees. Many cities have performed evaluations that show the reductions in staff cost more in lost revenues than save in reduced costs. 6. Utilization of Automated Systems The City has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) system bringing together geographic, infrastructure, and other information into a single source that can be used by City personnel. This system should speed up the review work associated with the permit process by making information on a given property (e.g., zoning, existing public facilities, etc.) more readily available. It is the City s intention that the public will be able to use information in the GIS, as well, to help in their efforts to develop property and prepare permit applications. We observed that many City employees with access to the GIS are reluctant to use the new technology. They continue to pull paper copies of maps and charts for review and have not adapted to the use of the computerized system. The City has purchased a system called CityView 8.NET. This automated software system is designed specifically for local government and provides for easy automation of business processes. This centralized management system offers diverse services such as planning and licensing management, database capability, and tracking status of permits. Just as noted with the GIS system, this is another system employees have avoided using to its full potential. CityView allows changes to be made to permit applications, however once the permit has been issued, viewing the permit should be read-only. The CityView system has the capability to set read-only after the permit has been issued but CPD has not implemented this feature. The permit form generated by CityView is a general form that contains unnecessary information to the specific permit requested. This leaves insufficient space to provide the relevant details to the inspectors to know where to go and what they are to inspect. While CityView tracks projects approval status, customers do not have access to this information on line. This lack of understanding where the project stands inhibits developers in their planning for the continuing stages of development, as well as knowing who to contact for problem resolution. 21

23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation Utilization of the GIS and the CityView systems by staff should provide for a more efficient permitting process on their part, as well as enhance customer service. We recommend that management should take steps to ensure a more thorough utilization of these automated systems by City staff. Actions such as providing staff with increased training on how to use the systems, incorporating the use of the systems into performance plans, and discouraging the use of other non-automated systems or processes should be considered. The changes that would make CityView a more useful tool are as follows: CPD should request the Technology Services representative establish a read only function that can be turned on after a permit has been issued. The format of the permit used in the CityView system should be simplified. Since the inspectors use the information that is on the permit form, they should review it and indicate what information they require. Unused information should be removed from the permit. All users of CityView should share information concerning the generation of reports and the most efficient ways to use the system. Recent cross training has been conducted with positive results saving time for City employees and customers. Read-only access to customers would allow tracking of projects. This would enable them to contact the appropriate city representative to resolve problem areas in addition to planning the continuing work of the project. 7. Certification and Training of Staff Obtaining or renewing professional certification by the City staff involved in the various aspects of the permit process is neither encouraged nor budgeted for cost reimbursement on a regular basis. Professional certifications provide an impetus for staff to obtain ongoing training to maintain such certifications. Certifications also are an indication of the level of qualification of the City staff to correct plans submitted by external customers. There are training classes for inspectors concerning building code changes. Denver only sends a few inspectors to the classes and they do not have the time to share information gained with fellow workers. Surrounding counties in the metro area require their entire staff to attend these classes. The City requires electrical and plumbing inspectors to maintain their respective licenses however; the CPD does not budget or reimburse such costs. There is no on-going inter-agency training or meetings for City staff involved in the permit process. Such meetings or training would provide an opportunity for staff to understand the inter-relationship between the agencies and departments and be able to understand and explain why certain information is required by other agencies. 22

24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation Your respective departments should support and require staff involved in the permit process to obtain and maintain professional certifications. Training by outside accreditation entities and memberships in national organizations should provide employees with up-to-date information about industry standards impacting their areas of expertise. CPD should request budget funds for training classes and reimburse inspectors for the cost of maintaining required licenses. Intra-agency training should also be developed and implemented to help the staff in each agency understand what other agencies do and what they are responsible for throughout the permit process. The understanding of the relationship between the departments and agencies that make up the permit process should become part of a team approach and ultimately help to assist customers. 8. Training for Customers We noted other cities that have programs in place where they routinely (annually or semiannually) conduct customer training sessions. It was indicated that information provided to customers at these training sessions often answered many questions that might otherwise have to be addressed via phone calls or by visits made to the planning and permit offices. Consequently, such training sessions can result in time savings for the planning, zoning, building permits, and inspection groups. Recommendation The departments and agencies involved in the City s permitting process should get together and develop a customer training session to be held at least annually. The training sessions should cover the requirements customers need to know to be able to prepare for an efficient plan review, obtaining a building permit, having a fire inspection, building inspection, etc., all the way through to obtaining the final certificate of occupancy. 9. Permit Process Web Site On the main Denvergov.org web site there is a link titled Doing Business. Following this link connects the user to a listing of links that includes information for operating or opening a business in Denver. These links then connect the user to details about city permits, licenses, records and inspections. However, it is not intuitively obvious how to proceed to find needed information. Many of the agencies involved in the permit process maintain up-to-date information on their own web sites. However, it can be difficult to find these sites from the main Denvergov.org web site. Responses to questionnaires we sent out indicated that customers think the information available on the City s web site is difficult to find. Customers state they cannot find the forms they are required to file with their plans. 23

25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A representative from Technology Services said that the access point from the main page of the Denvergov.org web page will not be changed until all changes are made to the permit process. This process will always be a work in progress. In addition, we noted that some nearby districts provide the convenience of applying for some permits and licenses online using credit cards to pay the fees. Denver does not have this capability. Recommendation We recommend that an easier mechanism, for example an online guide, be developed to assist customers in finding the information they seek on Denvergov.org regarding the permit process. The online guide should provide a brief description and flow chart of the general steps required to get through the permit process. The flow chart then could provide links to more detailed information such as timelines, document submittal requirements, and the appropriate forms that must be completed for each step. We also recommend CPD request Technology Services to update the main Denvergov.org web page to meet today s customer s needs. Then the web site should be updated as changes in the permit process occur. The convenience of online applications for licenses and permits being made available to customers to the extent possible should be considered. 10. Wastewater Management Division Sometime ago, the decision was made to move Wastewater s engineering staff to the main Public Work s office downtown. This move separated the engineers from the counter staff at the Wastewater Building on 3 rd Avenue. The primary intent of this move was to provide crosstraining to all City engineers. Instead it appears to have caused an increase in the amount of time to process wastewater permit applications. When the engineers were at the Wastewater Building they were available to quickly review any problems that might arise in the process. Also, oversight was provided by the engineering staff to be certain the information given out by the counter staff was valid. When counter staff took vacations the engineering staff would assist the permit section thus minimizing the staffing impact. The counter staff frequently need the advice of the engineers when addressing customers and such information cannot always be discussed over the phone, or via computer, requiring one-on-one discussion. Consequently, meetings must be scheduled causing delay in the process. In the next few months, there is expected to be a major reduction in experienced Wastewater counter staff because of retirements. Wastewater Management requires customers to submit their applications in person at the Wastewater Building on 3 rd Avenue for a Sewer Use and Drainage Permit (SUDP). These must be approved by Wastewater Management prior to receiving a construction permit. The SUDP requires a review of approximately four weeks. There are many steps required to be completed by the customer for the final wastewater connection and sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy. These steps are not clearly stated in the rules and regulations manual or on the City s web site. 24

26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation In order to fully understand the wastewater permit process, the training time for counter staff is extensive. We recommend the Wastewater Management engineering staff be located in the same building as the counter staff. This should help reduce wastewater permit processing time and increase overall customer service. Wastewater Management should encourage the case managers to request the SUDP applications during their plan review process, therefore allowing adequate time for the SUDP permit approval prior to customer s submittal for a construction permit. To clarify all the steps involved leading up to the final wastewater approval, we recommend a flow chart outlining steps be listed on the City web site and in an updated version of the PBG/PUD rules and regulations book. 11. Lack of Adequate Signage Based upon observation, interviews, and responses to questionnaires, we noted that due to inadequate signage at the Webb Building there is confusion concerning where customers should go to conduct permit process business. The following are areas lacking adequate signage for the various agencies at the Webb Building: In the main lobby there are no directions for the permit section. On the 2 nd floor there are different types of permit processing identified, but the signage is unclear. Construction permit signs say Residential/Commercial but do not state construction permits. There is a sign for walk through but the qualifications sign for a walk through is hidden. There is a sign for quick permit but it is not clear what it applies to. The customer sign-in location is not obvious. There are no reminder signs on the permit counters stating that wastewater permits are required before building permits can be granted. Construction plans can be logged in, but a building permit will not be issued unless the customer has their wastewater permit. This creates confusion and frustration for both customers and City employees. Recommendation To help improve customer service, we recommend the following be considered at the Webb Building: The main lobby should have signs directing permit customers to the appropriate location on the second floor. Sign-in locations on the second floor should be more visible. Establish a location to drop off plans for re-submittal so that customers do not have to wait in line, if necessary. Notice should be made available at the construction log-in and walk through counters to remind customers they must acquire the applicable wastewater permit before a building permit can be granted. 25

27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12. Zoning - Researching Files Before issuing a Use Permit, the site plan reviewer must first check for any permit history on the property location. There are three sources of information to search for permit history: CityView, paper files, and microfilm. The reviewer must leave the counter in order to do the research. The reviewer could be away from the counter and out of the customers view for five to fifteen minutes. Performing this search costs time and frustration on the part of waiting customers, as we have observed. In addition, the numerous sources that need to be researched create possibilities for errors. A permit could be issued in error if important information is missed. The documentation in the paper files could easily be misfiled or misplaced. The paper files are not scanned nor are copies made for proper backup. The hard copies of support documentation could be destroyed in the event of water damage or fire since there is no permanent offsite storage. Recommendation The City should establish a system to be able to use computer accessible copies of the source documents required for processing zoning permits. CPD should coordinate with the Department of Technology Services (DTS) on scanning and imaging the paper files in the most economical and feasible way. In addition, CPD needs to inquire with DTS if acquiring the software for the OCE Digital Multifunction System is economically feasible for the department. 13. Furniture and Computer Equipment The permit counter staff do not have sufficient workspace for a keyboard, plan review, storage for personal items, and a telephone. Following the log-in of plans there is no place to keep them. We observed the use of garbage cans to hold plans waiting to be filed or to be picked up by customers. A storage area behind the permit counter was built to hold plans for review; however the shelves are not an adequate size. During the planning stages of the Webb Building, space and furniture needs of all employees were determined based upon each employee s job classification rather than the specific duties they perform. For architects and planners involved in the permit process it has since been discovered that the individual work and storage spaces provided to them in the Webb Building are inadequate in overall size and capacity. It is not uncommon for them to have to review, work with, and maintain copies of project plans that can be as large as 24 X 36. We observed in many work areas where plans were stacked on desks and there was no room available to open plans for review. The following photos provide examples of some conditions observed: 26

28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27

29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS At the start of this audit, we noted that many of the computers used by the staff in the Department of Excise and License and CPD were more than five years old. It was indicated to us that these computers experienced difficulty in running the software programs currently in use, which require larger amounts of computer memory and increased processing speeds. Consequently, both staff and customer time is lost waiting for these older computers to perform tasks that newer, more powerful computers could accomplish in much less time. There is a lack of computerizing of information at Excise and License. The agency maintains a card file with names and addresses of all businesses in the City. A time consuming, manual search is required to compile a list of those who may be affected by businesses applying for licenses. During interviews, several applicants requested the City consider allowing electronic submission of plans. Such an endeavor would require upgraded computer systems. Current budget constraints do not allow for the expenditure of funds it would take for such an upgrade. In our research, we found that some jurisdictions have adopted adding automation fees to their permit fees to pay for future upgrades that will directly benefit applicants. The inspectors do not have necessary equipment to perform their jobs efficiently. Unless they use their personal cell phones, they are unable to call to set meetings with contractors or call back to the city office for clarification of plan requirements. This can lead to the need for repeat visits to complete an inspection. Recommendation The furniture at the counter area should be expanded to allow for ease of keyboard use, plan review, storage of personal items, more comfortable seating, and storage of plans for distribution and customer pick-up. There are drafting insets used by some City employees that can be set on desks to allow additional space to review the large sets of plans. These insets should be made available to all City employees who are required to review plans. Management of the Webb Building has additional furniture available, such as filing cabinets, that may provide the additional space needed for filing plans. The departments should research the possibility of acquiring additional furniture that could provide for more efficient work areas. It should be noted that as of the date of this report, most of the computers have been replaced with newer more powerful models. In the future when there are computer problems, it should be communicated to the Technical Services Division. If Technology Services determines that the equipment cannot function at an acceptable level, the issue should then be presented to Budget and Management for early computer replacement consideration. Since it is necessary for Excise and License to maintain names and addresses of local businesses, we recommend computerizing this information in an Excel or Access worksheet that can be searched electronically as needed. It is also possible to establish this information as a layer on the Geographic Information System. This should save time compared to researching the manual cards. 28

30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Current budget restrictions prohibit the purchase of equipment necessary for electronic submission of plans; however, this is the direction of best practices in this area. A recent survey showed that although only 16 cities and states can currently accept plans via , 49 additional cities plan to be able to accept plans electronically within a two year period. CPD should work with Technology Services to assess the feasibility of adopting computer standards that allow for electronic submission of plans. Although the inspection department has received positive customer comments about the service they provide, additional equipment such as cell phones, would assist inspectors in doing their jobs more efficiently. 14. Internal Controls The internal controls surrounding employee productivity within CPD are not adequate. Supervisors usually have full operational workloads that do not allow them time for work review of their staff to ensure consistency, proper problem resolution, training as needed, and provide support for personnel reviews. There are insufficient documented policies and procedures that cause delays and uncertainty in job performance. When a permit application is completed at the log-in counter, it is important that sufficient information is provided to make the inspection process efficient. The following areas have been neglected, slowing the inspection process: There is no verification that the contractor s information is correct. The business license number is entered into the CityView system which populates the permit application with the contractor s relevant information. It is difficult to contact the contractor with questions if phone numbers and addresses are incorrect. There is not always enough information entered into the system so that it is obvious what must be inspected. As an example, for an electrical inspection, the inspector would need to know the number of new plugs, overhead fixtures, or appliances that were added. Finding the exact location of a construction site can be very time consuming especially in a multi-building, high-level complex. Information that will expedite the locating of the construction is not regularly noted on the permit application. There are no guidelines concerning how much information is adequate to accept plans to begin the construction permit review process. Plans brought to the log-in counter for construction permits are frequently incomplete. Although the inspectors are non-exempt staff, the department allows the employees to work unpaid overtime. Employees do this voluntarily to get their work done. However, this creates a potential liability for the City for the unpaid overtime. The engineering staff, who review projects at the counter for construction permits, do not have convenient access to informational data to perform their jobs efficiently. If they need to research information, such as ANSI requirements, the engineer must go to the City Library and copy the necessary information. 29

31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation To the extent possible, supervisors should not carry full operational workloads so they are allowed time to review their employees work for consistency and quality. We recommend CPD document their policies and procedures paying particular attention to the following areas: Employees should verify contractor information that is populated on the system is current and correct. There should be sufficient detail provided on a permit to indicate what inspection is required. We recommend the counter staff that enters construction permit information have one day of training as a ride-along with an inspector to understand their needs. Contractors should be asked if there is any additional address information that would expedite locating the construction site. This information should be entered onto the permit. In order to provide good customer service, management encourages the counter staff to accept plans to get the construction review process started. The counter staff should be provided with guidelines of what minimum amount of information must absolutely be present in order to be able to accept the plans for log-in. Although employees have job assignments that need to be completed, CPD should not allow unpaid overtime for non-exempt staff. If the work cannot be completed within a normal workweek, the department must either pay overtime when incurred by non-exempt staff, address the need for additional staff, or reduce the workloads, i.e., by not inspecting or outsourcing some of the inspections, such as installations of water heaters, ceiling fans, and furnace or air conditioner replacements. Other nearby counties have outsourced some of the more simple inspections. To expedite processing of plan reviews, a resource library should be established to provide easy access of information for the engineers at the walk through counter. 15. Restaurant Review There is one health inspector under CPD control who reviews plans for and inspects new restaurants prior to opening. This inspector ensures the restaurants have appropriate equipment and are prepared to perform the accepted cooking and cooling procedures to ensure public health. Because there is only one inspector performing this activity, there is not proper segregation of duties, nor is there any backup coverage in the event of illness or vacation. Once a restaurant is open, it is inspected ongoing by representatives from the Department of Environmental Health. This department ensures public health is protected through proper kitchen set up, care of food, appropriate storage, and refrigeration. Environmental Health employs several inspectors. 30

32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The City provides a restaurant guide that outlines specifications for opening a restaurant in Denver. Although the guide provides information concerning equipment, kitchen set-ups, and hot water requirements necessary to protect public health, it does not provide enough information to correctly inform customers of what is needed and why. Also the guide does not contain information regarding the Fire Department s requirements for restaurants. From interviews with restaurant owners, there is confusion concerning the City s requirements. Recommendation CPD should consider transferring their restaurant health inspector to the Department of Environmental Health. Assigning CPD s health inspector to Environmental Health will allow for better supervision and in addition, make back-up available in the event of an illness or vacation. Also, this could allow for segregation of duties so that different staff could review the plans and inspect the restaurant. More information should be provided to restaurateurs in the planning stages of opening a restaurant. Although there are handouts available, additional information would be helpful to customers, such as, fire department regulations that are specific to food establishments. There should be a cooperative effort amongst the various City agencies in preparing a more thorough handout on restaurants. 31

33 RESPONSES TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 32

34 33

35 34

36 35

37 36