00-496o�������.
COUncil File # 00-496
Green Sheet # 104503
PAUL, MINfVESOTA
Presented
Refe[red To
Committee Date
ZO
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COUNCIL RESEARCH
PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL'S
BUILDING PERMIT, PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTIDN FUNCTIONS
1 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council directed the preparation of the Council Reseazch Performance
2 Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions, as a part of
3 its Performance Audit Program established in Council File # 95-1392; now therefore be it resolved
4 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council hereby accepts the Council Research Performance Audit of
5 ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions.
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Adopted by CounciL• Date p
� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Adoption Certified by Council Secretaij
By: `"'� d '� ,,�-0 �
Approved by Mayor: Date
B Y' � � � --
O� z
�ErartrtnenrrroF�cErcourici�
Council Research
XMJTACT PERSON & PFiONE
Marcia Mcermond, 266-8570
AUST BE ON COUNCIL AGEPIDA BY (DAiE
5/24/2000 �ikuff�sv�i
TOTAL # OF SIC,NATORE PAGES
DATE INRLITED
5/17/2000
�3
00-496
GREEN SHEET
No1C4�03
� �.,�,�.�.� � �� _
� arcwnomEr ❑ anara�c
❑ RL1xCLtkaNCFSOR ❑ AMNtl�laFmlutta
❑ WYDRI�M�iCSfAMI) ❑
(CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Council acceptance of the Council Research Perjormance Audit ojthe Crry of Saint Pau!'s Building Permiy Plan Review and InspeMioas
FunMions.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIBCAMMITTEE ,
CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION
OF TRANSACTION
SOURCE
tias tnis a��irm ever woncea under a conhau ta th� deparhnem7
YES NO
tias tliis v��rm ever teen a cdy empwyee7
YES �
Doec this peisorvhrm posaess a sldN not rwmullypoasessed by arry current cRy empbyee'7
YES Ntr
is ihis pe�soNfirm a targeted ventloYt _
YE3 NO
COST/REVRIUE BUD6ETm (CIRCLE ONE)
ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
(IXPWN)
0 0 - �1�1�
CITY COUNCIL RESEARCH REPORT
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan Review
and Inspections Functions
��
�
:n.
��
�� _,
,� .:
a�.
,
�:.
�,.
�
�
Saint Paul City Council
Council Investigation and Research Center
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Saint Paul City Council
City Council Investigation &
Research Center
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
651.266.8560
http://www. stpaul. gov/council/circ. html
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan
Review and rnspections
Functions
May 2000
Director
Gerry Strathman
Policy Analysts
Jennifer Dunn
Marcia Moermond
Kenneth L. Smith
Questions?
If you have questions regarding this
report please contact
Gerry Strathman at
651.266.8575 or
c�errv strathman(a�ci.stpaul.mn.us
City Council Research Report
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan Review
and Inspections Functions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
OVERVTEW OF LIEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 5
Permitting, Plan Review, Site Plan Review &
Inspections ......................... 5
LIEP Organizational Chart , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 6
Permit, Ptan Review & Inspection Process
FlowchaR ..........................8
PLANNING ............................9
Planning Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Quality of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Planning Quality Findings & Recommendations 13
INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . 33
Information & Analysis Policy Compliance
Findings & Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 34
Quality of Information & Analysis . . . . . . . . 35
Information & Analysis Quality Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
[MPROVEMENT PRACT[CES . . . . . . . , . . . 38
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance
Findings & Recommendations . . . , . . . . . 40
Quality of Improvement Practicas . . . . . . . . . . 41
Improvement Practicas Quality Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
LEADERSHIP ....................... 15
Leadership Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations ................... 21
Quality of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z2
Leadership Quality Findings
& Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
TRAINING ............................. 25
Training Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Quality of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Training Qua�ity Finding 8t Recommendations 27
DEVELOPMENT ........................ 28
Development Policy Findings
& Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Quality of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Development Quality Findings
& Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CUSTOMER FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Customer Focus Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Quaiity of Customer Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Customer Focus Quality �'indings &
Recommendations ................... 48
RESULTS .............................. 50
Results Measurement in L[EP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Results Quality Findings & Recommendation . 52
PERFORMANCE MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Permitting/Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Zoning and Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Plan Review .......................... 56
Inspections ........................... 59
CONCLUS[ON .......................... 62
APPENDIX A: List of Resource Documents ,... 65
APPENDIX B; List of Recommendations ...... 67
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and [nspec[ions Functions
INTRODUCTION
The City Council, as the governing body of the City of Saint Paul, is responsible for establishing
City policies and ensuring that City practices are consistent with these policies. As the body
responsibte for approving the City Budget and aathorizing Yhe tax levy, the Counci] must also
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of City operations. Therefore, the City Council
established a Performance Audit Program in the fall of 1996 to help it fulfill these legislative
oversight and budgetary responsibilities and it directed Council Research to conduct performance
audits of City operations. Performance audits analyze the consistency of departmental practices
with City policies, as well as provide insight into how policy directives are implemented. The
performance audit also examines whether an organization's practices are efficient and reflective
ofthose used by high-performing organizations.
The City Council is very interested in the value received by citizens for the money expended.
Taxpayers rightly expect that money provided for services will be spent to achieve the best result
possible with the least expenditure of public funds. The efficiency and effectiveness of
goveroment operations and processes can be assessed in many ways. One common approach is
for auditors to examine an organization at a micro-level to try to detertnine if the organization is
following sound procurement practices, properly protecting its resources, and complying with
laws and regulations. This micro-level approach to auditing is closely related to financial auditing
and is often conducted by accountants who spend a great deal of time and effort examining the
inner workings of the organization. While we accept there are situations where this type of micro-
level auditing is appropriate, such as when fraud is suspected, we believe a higher level audit is
most appropriate here. The City Council is less concerned with the minutia of daily operations of
its departments and more concemed with knowing if its departments and offices aze top-quality
organizations whose operations are efficient, effective and in compliance with appropriate laws
and policies. If they are not, the Council is interested in knowing what can be done to remedy any
deficiencies preventing the department or office from achieving a level of excellence.
SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT
This audit is an examination of the policy compliance, efficiency and effectiveness of the
permitting, trade inspections and plan and zoning review activities of the Office of License,
Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP).' Future references to LIEP in the audit will
refer to only these activities, not the entire organization. The office and functions selected for
review were identified by the City Council because of the importance of LIEP's activities in
relation to promoting and protecting the City's housing and building stock. The structure and
functions of LIEP will be described in more detail in a following section.
� The audit does not examine other Ponc[ions performed by LIEP, which include Mimal Control, Gambling Enforcement,
Environmenlal Health, License Inspections or License Imestiga[ion and Compliance Checks.
2000 Satnt Pau! Ciry CouncJ Reseprch
Perfortnance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permil, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
RESEARCH METHODS
Policies peRaining to the functions of L[EP were gathered from the Saint Paul Administrative
Code, the Saint Paul Legislative Code, City Council resolutions, the Land Use and Housing
Chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as LIEP's own internal plans, policies and
budget objectives. It is not Council Research's intent to make specific findings on every
individual policy statement. Rather, we focus on groups of policies that relate to specific
functional areas within LIEP (permitting, plan review or inspections), and have grouped them
according to the most relevant quality category. It is our belief this approach is more useful to
both policy makers and participants in understanding how to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness and compliance of the organization.
We believe the best way to assess the level of organizational development is to ask those most
knowledgeable about the organization—the people who work in the organization. We believe
that the people who work in LIEP best know the strengths and weaknesses of their organizations
and will, when asked, candidly report their opinions. Therefore, we have gone directly to LIEP
staff to ask them about their work. We were able to survey 67 of 73 (92%) LIEP staff involved
in the permitting/ customer service areas, plan review and zoning and trade inspections, and we
also conducted 35 interviews with LIEP staff inembers. The findings and recommendations in
this report are based on these surveys and interviews as well as an examination of written
materials on LIEP's practices.
ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT
A key aspect of an organization's performance is its compliance with the laws and directives
under which it is required to operate. Governmental agencies have a high level of responsibility
to operate within the parameters established by governing bodies, as well as within pazameters
established by the organization itself. Because LIEP is a regulatory agency, it not only has to
comply with regulations as do all City depaRments, it also has to enforce regulations to which
developers, builders, home and business owners and contractors have to comply. Quite often,
these policies can be closely linked to the quality of an organization's operations. Throughout
this repoR, we will illustrate how wmpliance with certain policies does or could enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of L[EP. A listing of policies, practices and documents reviewed is
in Appendix A of this report.
The efficiency and effectiveness of LIEP's permitting, plan review, zoning, and inspections
functions aze evaluated using an Organizational Quality Assessment. While there aze several
methods to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency, our approach is based on work done by the
organizers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awazd who identified the characteristics of
a high-performing organization.
The study of high-performing organizations has typically identified seven characteristics believed
to be essential for an organization to achieve excellence. These criteria have been identified from
W�
2 For a complete listing of all policies reviewed, please see Appendix A.
1000 Saint Paid City Cotmcil Research
Performance Audi[ of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions
studies over many years and are widely accepted as indicators of organizational excellence. The
criteria used by the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and the Minnesota Quality Award
to assess organizationai development and to identify quality organizations are summarized in the
table below. For the purposes of this audit we have split the category of Training and
Development into two separate discussions for a more useful discussion of both areas. None of
the quality categories stand alone. Each impacts the other, and all are essential to achieving a
high level of performance. Quite often improvement in one quality category will positively
impact another. For example, improvement in the category of Information and Analysis often
significantly impacts both Results and Improvement Processes.
Assessment Categories
Quality Category Key Concepts Discussed on Pages:
Planning
Intemal Plans
Plan Development
Plan Dissemination & Implementation
9-14
Leadership
Training
Development
Information and
Analysis
Improvement
Practices
Mission, Vision, Values
Stakeholder Relationships
Staff Recognition
Training & Education Resource Allocation
Employer Commitment
Employee Contribution
Work Environment
Labor-Management Relationship
Employee Evaluation
Cotlection of Data
Malysis of Data
Effective Use of Automation Systems
Identification of Potential Improvements
Implementation of [mprovements
Evaluation of Improvement Practices
Customer ldentification & Knowledge
Customer Focus Managing Customer Relationships
Customer Service Practices
Customer Service Standards
Organizational Outcomes
R0SU1tS FinancialOutcomes
Customer Satisfaction
Use of Pedormance Indicators
15-24
25 - 27
28 - 32
33 - 37
38-41
42 - 49
50 - 52
Each of these quality categories is a chapter in the report, and each chapter is comprised of the
following discussions:
❑ Ratings
❑ Policy discussion, Findings, Recommendations
❑ Quality discussion, Findings, Recommendations
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Counci! Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
In addition to the Results chapter, which focuses on organizational outcomes, an overview of
performance measures and their potential application in LIEP is provided in the Performance
Measures. Performance measurement in this performance audit means the regular collection of
specific information about the effectiveness, quality and efficiency of services and programs.
The suggested measures will enable LIEP to eva{uate on its own whether the resources expended
(labor or financial resources) on an acYivity are used efficiently, have the intended effect and
result in a quality outcome. Measures can be based on information obtained from written
records, observations by specially trained staff or through surveys of customers. This
performance audit will examine existing performance measures and suggest other performance
measures. However, the audit will not perform the actual measurements.
Criteria Ratings
We have gathered a wealth of information about the permitting, plan review, zoning and
inspection activities of LIEP while conducting this performance audit. Although capturing all of
this information in any rating system is impossible, we believe a rating system will help
decision-makers grasp the essence of the information. We have developed a simple summary
rating system we believe conveys the essence of our findings. We intend these ratings to reflect
what interview subjects have told us about LIEP. While organizations and processes consist of
individuals, we intend the ratings to reflect current organizational practices and they should not
be interpreted as judgements about individuals.
The rating system used for policy comQliance is simple and straightforward using a plus (+) sign,
indicating LIEP is substantially in compliance with the relevant policies, or a minus (-) sign
indicating LIEP is not in compliance. If it is not found in compliance, recommendations will be
made to assist the organization in achieving wmpliance.
The summary ratings for the quality categories are intended to portray both the level of
development and the level of integration of each quality criterion. Development, in this
performance audit, means the extent to which high-valued characteristics are in evidence. High-
value characteristics aze ones in which the criteria being examined are systematic, manifest, pro-
active, fact-based, and evaluated. Integration refers to the extent criteria are practiced. It is
possible, indeed likely, for criteria to be practiced in some parts of the organization, but not in
others.
The summary ratings used for quality assessment are:
**** Criteria fully developed and practiced throughout the organization.
*** Criteria well developed and practiced throughout most of the organization.
ic * Criteria present and practiced in some parts of the organization.
* Criteria sometimes present, occasionally practiced in parts of the organization.
3 The Urban [nsti[ute Q980). Performance Measurement A Curde for Local Elected OfficiaLc. Washington D.C.:
The Urban Institute, p. 1.
Z000 Sain/ Pu+J Ciry Counci) Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni[, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions
OVERVIEW OF LIEP
Before discussing the findings of the audit, it is necessary to give a brief overview of the Office
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP). LIEP was forcned in 1992 as a
result of the consolidation of Environmental Health, the Building Inspection and Design Division
(BIDD), the License Division and Animal Control. Four reasons were offered for the merger:
"L The need for improved customer service and the creation of a bne-stop-shop' for
businesses.
2. The desire to provide customer service training for inspectors and to improve the
coordination of seroices.
3. The need to review and update the City's regulations.
4. A desire to reduce the overall costs of enforcement in order to save money."
The graph on the following page illustrates the cunent organizational structure of LIEP. The
blue boxes indicate the areas of LIEP that were examined in this audit. LIEP currently has just
over 100 employees, and an adopted year 2000 budget of $9,136,890. The vast majority of
L[EP's revenues are from license and permit fees collected. Only about 15% of LIEP's year
2000 budget is money allocated from the City's general fund.
Permitting, Plan Review, Site Plan Review and Inspections
The graphics on the page 8 iliustrates the permitting process, from entering the office to filling
out a permit application to completing the work and receiving a ceRificate of occupancy or
compliance, if required. The permitting, plan review and inspections activities are closely
intertwined. Typically, the first point of contact for a customer is with a member of
permitting/customer service staff. A customer will either call with questions or come in to obtain
information and apply for a building permit. A permit is required for all structural revisions for
residencas, garages, carports, decks and similar structures or buildings. Non-structural revisions
or remodeling projects may also require a permit if the labor value and the cost of the materials
exceeds $300. Permits can be paid for with cash, check or charge, and payments aze accepted in
person or by fax, phone or mail. The fee schedule is established in City Code, and is based on
the fee schedule in the 1994 Uniform Building Code.
Staff must verify the information contained in the permit application, such as the address, the
contractor's license, whether the building is a dangerous structure or nuisance building. The
address file is currently used to verify this information, but it will be eventually availabte through
the new computer systems.
4 Information taken from Robert Kessler, Director of LIEP, letter to employees, May 18, 1992.
5 City code s[ates that refunds can be given for permit fees if the work was no[ started within a given amount of
time, and or if the fee was calculated incorcectly. Project values can also be ceassessed according [o Code, and new
fees cfiarged or refunds given. Finally, fees can be imposed for work that is started prior to obtaining a permi[.
Typically LIEP finds out about such work through contractors, neighbors, or when inspec[ors are out in the field and
[hey see work occurcing wi[hout a permit.
2000 Sainl Paul City Council Research
6 P erfurmance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPS Bnilding Permit, Plan Review and lnspections Functi�
LIEP ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Director, ?�
Robert Kessler �
a
.n.....u"xwt$a"vn: :'r`:`y �.5�'::;%`
Building Code Official,
Thomas Riddering
Environmental
Health and
License
Inspections
Trade
Inspections
Program
Analyst
Zoning
Plan Review
and BZA
BudgeG
Accounting
Legislafionl
Poticy BRC
Customer Services
Manager, Christine Rozek
L'fcense
Invastigation
&
Compliance
Checks
Computer
System
Devalopment
Help Desk
Plan Review
& Historic
Preservation
Housing
Initiative
IndicndesArea Covered by
Performance Audit
Animal
Co�trol
Gambling
Entorcement
Clerical Support
and Payrotl
Hearing
OKcer
2000 Sain� Pa�d Ciry Counci( Researeb
Plrfortnence Audil of �he Cily of Saint Paul's Building Pettnit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Fwctions �
In most cases, a customer must submit building plans and possibly site plans for review in order to obtain
the necessary permits. The few cases in which plans are not required include roofing, so�t and fascia
improvements and furnace replacements. LIEP staff involved in plan review include the plan reviewers,
site plan reviewers, the structural engineer and the inspectors, though they are not all involved in
reviewing every plan. The following table shows their involvement.
LIEP Staff [nvolved in Plan Review -
Plan Revlewers
3ite Plan Reviewer
Structural Engineer
Trade Inspectors
All plans not requiring sigmficant structural changes or changes in use of the proper[y
Commercial, multi-family additions, new construction, changes in use of the property
All significant struc[ural changes or additions
Complex building plans
The site plan reviewer also coordinates an interdepartmental review team that includes representatives
from Zoning, Public Works, the Water Utility, and Police and Fire departments, as appropriate. The
applicant will meet with staff two to three weeks after the site plan is submitted. At this meeting
questions can be answered and revisions offered. Staff also work diligently to assist applicants if their
plans do not meet code standards.� District Councils may also be involved if the project will have an
impact on the surrounding area. While site plan review is occurring, the trade inspectors may be
involved in reviewing specific plans designed to show the electrical, plumbing, mechanical or other
relevant work. In some cases, the plan review process is on-going, such as for the Minnesota Wild Arena
which is a lazge construction project and requires a variety of different plans. The site plan reviewer also
prepares stafT'repoRS for site plans that are reviewed by the Planning Commission and he handles any
subsequent appeals to the City CounciL This staff person also serves as backup staff for the Boazd of
Zoning Appeals.
Once the plans have been reviewed and the permits issued, the inspectors will do an initial inspection.
Depending on the type of project, there ue given points at which a project must be inspected. The
contractors or property owners are responsible for calling LIEP to arrange for an inspection at the
appropriate time. In general, inspections are required at the "rough-in" stage and upon project completion.
However, inspections are done weekly at bigger construction projects such as the Lawson.Commons
building and the Minnesota Wild Arena. Once the work is completed and approved, the inspector signs the
back of the permit, signs the copy of the permit kept in LIEP's files, and submits it to clerical staff to be
formally closed out. LIEP issues the temporary certificate of occupancy, if required, upon permit closure.
If the Fire Department is also performing inspections of the project, they aze notified of LIEP's approval of
the project. The temporary certificate of occupattcy will not be issued until the Fire Department has also
signed off on the permits. LIEP issues only the temporary certificate of occupancy; periodic
(annualPoiennial) inspections and ongoing certificates of occupancy are issued by the Fire DepaRment.
6 Building plans indicate all intemal or structural work, site plans show existing and proposed condi[ions of [he
property (such as site layout, grading, drainage and utilities, landscaping), and building information (such as height,
type of construction, sprinklers, and elevation). [n limited cases, a[ree preservation plan must also be submitted.
� It is possible [hat plans cannot feasibly meet code standards. In [hose cases, �the zoning code provides a couple of
options to allow for uses other than those specifically stated in the code, namely variances and special condition use
permits (SCUPs).
2000 Sainf PatJ City Council Research
8
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Permit, Plan Review and Inspection Process
Informatton Provided on
Permit Application, Review
and Inspection Processes
Front Cowter, Rqect Facili[ator
(Potemtal FuMre Use af Web SiteJ
Permit Issued, Payment Made,
and (ifnecessary)Temporary
C oi O Issued
Building Official, Fire Marehall
�
Inspection at Rough-In and
Complete Stages, As
Necessary on Large Projects
Tradee Inspec[ore and Fire Prevention
�
SIgnAH on Permit(s) and
Issuance oi C o} O's
Tcadea h�apectois, Fire Preveatioq
Building Official
Soard of Zoning Appeals, Herilage Preeerva�ion
Commiesion, Planning Commiesion
could aleo be appealed [o [he Cily Council,
and poeaibly dielrict court
Plans Fail
Review and
Are Not
Modified to
Pass Review
�
Appeal(s) of
Plan Review(s) Denied
�
Permit Application Danied
contractor/owner prepares
materials for permit
applmation (plans, e[c.)
Potential Use of
Preliminary Plan Review
�
if small/simple project,
such as roof or fence
�
�
Plans Approved
8
SCUPs and variances
granted if needed
� Appeal(s)
of Plan
Review(s)
Granted
V
Permit Application Submitted
(if partial project permit,
repeat process for
other project phases)
Pront Counler, Experl on Duty
Revlew of Permit Appllcatlon
Pian Review - alI non "eimple" projecle
Zoning Review - new eWCturee, new use, complex zoning
9ite Plan ReWew - multi-unit reeidentail or commercial
Siructural Plan Revlew - mulli-mil reeidenlial, commercial,
or complex eWClw'e
Heritage Pr¢serva[fon Revlew - in heritage preaervation
dia[ricl or deeignated hiamric eWCture or eite
V
Public hearin9s for zoning, site plan,
heritage preservation or plan reviews
1000 Saint Paul City Couneil Research
ins perfonnnnce Audil of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 9
PLANNING
Policy Alignment: —
Quality Rating: ��
KEY PLANNING CONCEPTS:
O Intemal Plans
❑ Plan Development Participation
❑ Plan Dissemination & Implementation
Planning is an activity that incorporates a strong future orientation and a willingness to make
long-term commitments to stakeholders. High-performing organizations actively engage in
planning and recognize the impact not only of intemal changes, but also of environmental factors
on the organization. Planning considers resource allocation, economic projections, future needs
of employees, future customer needs and expectations, technological developments, and
stakeholder requirements. Plans can be long- or short-term, and can be issue specific,
organization-wide, departmental-wide or unit-wide. In order to be effective, plans need to be
carried out and updated frequently. Comprehensive plans are also considered policy documents.
LIEP's Internal Plans
L[EP has a history of engaging in planning activities. In the mid-1990's, LIEP developed a
number of plans to enable and enhance its streamlining efforts. While these plans were
reactionary (they were necessary to meet the objectives for consolidation and mandates from the
Mayor's Office), LIEP was addressing a problem, namely integrating functions, and did the
appropriate planning to manage the changing circumstances. The plans LIEP produced were:
O Business Process Redesign Project (1994-1996), which consisted ofthe following plans:
❑ Functional Redesign Report/P►an (Business Process Redesign Project), 1994
A high-level plan that identified common data and info used across all L[EP functions.
Its objective was to design work processes azound shared, property-based information. It
focused on customer service delivery and sought to replace repetitive, duplicative, and
labor intensive administrative processes. (The Business Review Council has in many
ways collaborated in doing much of the work of identifying unnecessary regulations and
duplicate processes.)
❑ Administrative Redesign Report/Plan, 1994
The focus of this plan was on service delivery processes and line employees as
customers. It sought to replace administrative processes that were repetitive, duplicative
and labor intensive through information sharing and technology support tools.
❑ Change Management Plan 1994-1996
This plan had 5 objectives for which steering teams were developed to work on:
❑ reduce processing time for permits and licenses;
❑ reduce number of and increase collections on delinquent license renewals;
a reduce cost to businesses by reducing time to obtain permit and license;
o eliminate redundancy and complexity in local codes; and
o reduce papenvork and eliminate forms.
❑ Strategic Action Plan, 1996
This plan was required as part of the O�ce's annual budget.
2000 Sarnt Paul Ciry Counci! Research
10 Performance Audi[ of [he City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions
Since 1996, LIEP has not done any long-term strategic planning. All recent planning is very
short-term and meant to address very specific issues such as the computer systems. However,
these plans focused only on the steps to make the new computer systems operational. They did
not include plans to help LIEP transition from the old methods of operation to new ones.
Extensive work on basic automation of L[EP's services appears to have consumed much of the
oftice's creative energy in recent years, and LIEP, in effect, has used the automation as an excuse
not to plan. An attitude also exists in LIEP that it is difficult to do planning because of the
regulatory nature of the Office's functions and the constraints LIEP faces as a govemmental
entity. However, a number of factors could have been considered in LIEP's planning such as the
growth in construction and the current vitality of the economy.
Overall, LIEP is currently engaging in very limited planning activities. However, L[EP held a
retreat in late 1999 to look at azeas that still need to be addressed. They identified three areas of
importance for focused improvement effor[s: communication, staff and training, and technology.
There is no clear product yet from this retreat, such as specific activities, or a clear commitment
from the organization to follow through. However, LIEP reports that individual staff member
commitments have been made to facilitate and lead committees to work on the areas identified
for improvement. Nonetheless, in light of the current City culture which does not value
planning, the fact they are still engaging in planning efforts is noteworthy.
The Saint Paul Zoning Code, in Chapter 64.40Q requires the zoning code be reviewed every five
years. LIEP and PED staff report that routine text amendments are done on a regular basis, but
the zoning code has not been examined or reevaluated. PED maintains primary responsibility for
fulfilling this requirement, though LIEP shares responsibility for implementing the requirements
of the zoning code. Had LIEP engaged in a planning process that considers its responsibilities
related to the zoning code, it may have addressed this and, therefore, been in compliance.
Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan
I
LIEP activities are directly related to the City's Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use
and Housing Chapters. For example, an objective of the Land Use Plan is to "ensure that
building supports broader city-building goals," and "make a contribution to the neighborhood
and public realm."$ Clearly, activities related to this goal would require permits, plan reviews
and site plan reviews, and inspections. LIEP's site plan review activities could easily incorporate
such objectives into their criteria. However, it is clear from staff statements that while certain
staff inembers try to incorporate these objectives, they feel they can only apply them to a certain
extent because the Comprehensive Plan is not adequately incorporated into LIEP's practices.
Not only does LIEP fail to actively pursue the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, they also
fail to use it to identify changing circumstances and priorities. L[EP does not see a direct
relationship between its activities and the objectives of the Plan. They do not consider the
Comprehensive Plan when preparing their own internal plans and look for areas of change or
growth in activities. Rather, it is used by a few select staff inembers to a limited extent as they
perform their duties. To LIEP, the Plan fails to have the same level of authority as the code,
though in reality the Comprehensive Plan has the same effect of ]aw when used in the review
process as justification for City actions and decisions.
$ Land Use Plan, page 17.
2000 Sain� Pau/ City Conncil Research
-�ns � Pedomience Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Punctions 11
LfEP tends only to minimally respond and react to the Comprehensive Plan, but is not a part of
the plan formulation process. I[ is also apparent there are conflicts between some strict
� requirements of the zoning code and the objectives of the Plan. If L[EP were involved in the
plan formulation process, these conflicts may be more readily and easily resolved, and the code
„, and Plan would be more compatible.
� Policy Compliance Findings
�e
F►nding #1: LIEP did a great deal of internal planning in the mid-1990's. Recent planning
activities have been very limited.
� Finding #2: LIEP followed through on many of its planning objectives. An example of this is
�' LIEP's 1996 Strategic Action Plan, where LIEP has done an admirable job of following through
t on many of its objectives, such as trying to respond to inquiries within 48 hours, providing
information to customers through meetings, written material, classes (such as the January 20,
2000 session held for small contractors), testing, and developing two project facilitator positions.
Finding #3: Many of LIEP's activities relate directly to the City's Comprehensive Plan, but
LIEP is not involved in developing the Plan.
�e
�or Finding #4: LIEP does not view the Comprehensive Plan as a policy document to which it must
comply.
- ts
Finding #5: LIEP does not use the Comprehensive Plan as a guide when making its own
organizational plans.
�te
Flnding #6: LIEP did not prepare adequate plans in regard to the transition from a system that
involved paper and an outdated, non-Y2K compliant computer system to a fully automated
system. This type of work process analysis and planning at all levels of the organization would
have assisted LIEP in its difficult and complex transition.
Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 1: PED should perform, in conjunction with LIEP, a thorough analysis of
the current Zoning Code. In order to be in compliance with current Ciry Code, this should be
done every five years. The analysis should consider the Code's conrpatibilities with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and other development priorities, and fhe Code should be modified
accordingly.
Recommendation # 2: Both PED and LlEP need to take more responsibility for including LIEP
in the development processes for the Ciry's Comprehensive Plan. By taking responsibiliry for
development, LIEP will feel more responsible for the objectives of the Plan, and will incorporate
the Comprehensive Plan into its own internal plans and practices.
9 One objective [hat has not been implemented will be discussed in the Development section.
�rch i 20(Xl Safnt Paul Ciry Cnuncil Research
!
4.v . .
��
12 Performance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspectiuns Functiuns p�
LIEP's involvement in the planning and implementation processes of the City's comprehensive
ptans witl enable it to make more recommended changes to the zoning code, so that the code and
the plans are compatible and mutually enforceable. In cases where the zoning code and the
Comprehensive Plan are not compatible, LIEP should consider granting variances,
equivalencies, or bringing the problem the to Business Review Council for further review and
recommendations.
Recommendation # 3: LIBP should incorporate objectives of the Comprehensive Plans into its
plans for its own operations. By doing so, LIEP will ensure it considers future changes and
remains flexible and uses opportunities to ensure the building stock of the Ciry is solid, safe and
contributes to the vitaliry of the Ciry.
The Quality of Planning
Planning was evaluated above on a policy compliance level, but an examination of planning from
a quality perspective is also essential to ensure that planning activities are effective and efficient.
If the activities are not evaluated, then the planning effoRs will be futile and the plans will mean
nothing to staff.
Knowledge of Plans
According to the survey results, there seems to be a disconnect between those who do not know
about planning efforts or are not involved in planning and those who are. According to the
survey, one-half the staff surveyed do not know if plans exist. This question received the highest
level of "don't know" responses of all the survey questions. FuRher analysis of this group of
respondents gave us no indication that some staff inembers or groups of staff were purposely
omitted from planning activities.
'„ Plan Development Participation
, From survey responses, it appears only a few key line staff are consistently involved in planning.
For example, according to the survey, 85% of plan review staff are not aware of any of LIEP's
planning efforts. From interviews, it seems staff are not actively recruited to participate in
planning. We heard many comments echoing the sentiment that "if you want to be involved, you
can be." Involvemenk in planning clearly has to be self-motivated. This is somewhat
;„ problematic, as employee participation in planning at all levels is valuable to an organization as
often the line-staff aze in the most direct contact with customers and other outside influences.
, , Their input and perspective may be more aligned with the realities of daily operations, and they
may have ideas on how to do things better in the future. It also enhances their ability to
' understand how their work contributes to the future of the or anization. However, it should be
B
noted many organizations struggle with how to involve all employees in important decision-
making processes. Clearly, not every employee can be directly involved in writing the planning,
but they should be given the oppoRunity to provide input before the plan is finalized. It was also
clear the Budget Office, PED and the City Attomey's Office are not involved in LIEP's planning,
though they aze key stakeholders and participants in LIEP's activities.
2000 Sain� Pard Ciry Co�mcil Reseorch
�ns p etfom�BnCe Audi� of � he Ci of Sai Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions 13
� P[an Dissemination and Implementation
The recent (imited planning efforts that have taken place could not be based on data analysis
because LIEP did not have comprehensive data, partially due to its antiquated computer systems.
Stafi'iodicate the new computer systems will allow them to collect more comprehensive data.
Finally, it is evident the plans created in,the mid-90's have not been analyzed to determine azeas
, of success, failure, or continued development and inclusion in other plans for the future.
What L[EP now considers to be plans, such as progress updates on the new information systems,
are disseminated through e-mail, meetings and monthly newsletfers. As for implementation,
according to the survey, 40% of staff "don't know" how often plans are implemented. In tha
past, committees have implemented various aspects of the plans, particularly the quick fixes that
were identified.
While not considered LIEP plans, some LIEP staff aze involved in the planning activities of
related organizations. Some inspectors are involved in code planning for their respective trades
at the national, state and local level. They meet to discuss how to implement changes in the
codes, which happen every three years, The Heritage Preservation Commission does an annual
workplan, which is commendable given that it is a citizen commission with very limited staffing.
Very few voluntary commissions in the City of Saint Paul do such planning.
Planning Quatity Findings
Finding #7: Many staff are unaware of plans made by LIEP.
Finding #8: Only a few staff are involved in planning. It seems staff have to actively pursue
opportunities to contribute to planning, Leadership ruely seeks out employee participation in
terms of cultivating involvement from those traditionally not involved.
Finding #9: There is an appazent lack of connection between information gathering, analysis,
results evaluation and planning. LIEP does not measure results and therefore cannot plan as
effectively based on their outcomes. In other words, they do not look at where they have been,
so it is difficult to know where they are going.
Finding #t0: Many L[EP staff, particularly inspectors, aze involved in planning efforts of the
professional organizations to which they belong.
Planning Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 4: LtEP shou/d resume proactive planning, including assessing the current
landscape and future economic, social, human resources, political, and technical impacts on
LIEP's work.
❑ L/EP must understand the connection behveen planning and resource allocation to
prevent situations such as 1he one currently occurrittg with sta� being overworked,
resulting in a highly stressful work environment because techno[ogical, economic, and
7 21X10 Suin� Paul Ciry Conncil Research
L
14 Performance Audit of tMe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
human resource changes were not comprehensively planned. Cfoser monitoring of
outside inJluences wiU assist in projecting changes in workload and resources, such as
those resu[ting from increased construction in recent years.
❑ Outcome measurement must be incorporated into future planning. LIEP must look at the
res:�lts ofpast planning efforts for lessons learned and areas to continue to work on.
They must also look at results ofpast quickfrxes to determine effectiveness and
remaining issues to be resolved resulting from the changes.
❑ LIEP should involve other stakeholders, such as the Crty Attarney's O�ce, Planning and
Economic Development and Public Works in planning process to incorporate the
requirements of other departments and develop an understanding as to how the work of
LIEP affects other departments.
Recommendation # 5: LIEP should involve staff in defining organizational goals and offer ways
for staff to contribute to them. LIEP needs to find ways to include less-involved staff in decision-
making and make them more aware of planning and improvements taking place in !he o�ce and
how they can contribute. LIEP should not wait for them to approach management, as history
shows they wil! not.
i��
2000 Sain! PoN/ Clry� Ca+mcil
�ns Func[ions Pedom�enCe Audit of the C iry o f Sainl Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 15
> Of
such as KEY LEADERSHIP CONCEPTS:
LEADERSHIP � Mission, �;s;o�, �a�ue5
❑ Stakeholder Relationships
k on. t the ❑ Staff Recognition ?
� acux�,��;.v�c�W�'-�c'rar�� . ..,. .: a�r.s.�,s
Policy Compliance: - F
�ning nnd
work of
�er ways
fecision-
�ice and
story
Quality Rating: ��i 1 /a
Senior organizational leaders need to set direction, create a customer focus, establish and
ar[iculate a clear vision and communicate and make visible the values of the organization.
ReinEorcing values and expectations requires personal commitment and involvement. Leaders
need to take part in the creation of strategies, systems and methods for achieving excellence.
7ltese systems and methods need to guide all activities and decisions of the organization.
Leaders must also recognize the role of stakeholders in these processes, and maintain positive
relationships with them. Finally, staff need to be recognized for their contributions to the
organization and to its mission, vision and values.
Many of an organization's policies and practices are derived from strong leadership principles.
In this discussion, we look at three leadership areas in which LIEP has developed policies and
practices: mission and vision, intemal practices, and stakeholders. Good leadership works to
ensure that all in the organizatiott understand the organization's purpose — its mission — and
where the organization is going — its vision. Good leaders also articulate values clearly and
exemplify them on a daily basis. Strong leadership forms meaningful relationships with
stakeholders and maintain good wmmunication and cooperation between the two.
Mission and Vision
LIEP has spent a great deal of time developing and refining its vision/mission statement, which is:
"To be a unified, customer service o�ganization, which promotes a hea[thy and safe
environment througk information and enforcement of codes and ordinances."
The vision of a unified customer service organization was derived from a desire by then Mayor
Scheibel to meet the following four objectives, as mentioned in the introduction:
"1. The need for improved customer service and the creation of a`one-stop-shop' for
businesses.
2. The desire to provide customer service training for inspectors and to improve the
coordination of services.
3, The need to review and update the City's regulations.
4. A desire to reduce the overall costs of enforcement in order to save money."
The mission and vision will be discussed more fully in the Quality of Leadership discussion,
starting on page 22, but it should be noted that the leadership of LIEP has placed a high level of
importance on ensuring that the mission statement is understood and communicated, a highly
commendable practice. The Director of LIEP is also very concerned with ensuring that staff
Research .. 1000 Sainl Paid City Council Research
16
Perfortnance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
understand his expectations for them, and these expectations have been clearly aRiculated in
written form, and, according to some staff, modeled by senior leadership. Not only does the
Director have expectations for his management staff, the managers also have clearly articulated
expectations for him. One key piece missing from the expectations is a values statement for all
staff, which will be discussed in more detail in the Quality of Leadership discussion.
Internal Policies
LIEP has developed a number of internal policies to make for more efficient and understandable
operations. These policies are contained in a policy manual which has not yet been finalized,
though all staff have the policies and receive updates as changes are made. Staff also have a
LIEP information booklet which is useful for finding answers to basic questions or determining
which staff member to contact for the correct answer to complicated questions. Certainly this is
an efficient practice as the information is readily available to all staff and allows them to answer
questions immediately and correctly.
Stakeholders
Positive stakeholder relationships are essential to maintaining strong leadership. Leadership
must be able to identify its stakeholders. Stakeholders are "any person, group, or organization
that can place a claim on an organization's attention, resources, or output or is affected by that
output." Customers also fall under the definition of a stakeholder. LIEP's customers include
contractors and citizens who apply for permits and go through the plan review, permitting and
inspection processes. They aze discussed in more detail in the Customer Focus section of this
audit. Listed below are many of LIEP's stakeholders followed by a discussion of the
stakeholders with whom LIEP interacts the most:
O Fire Department
❑ Saint Paul Regional Water Seroices
(formerly the Saint Paul Water Utility)
❑ Public Works Department
❑ Planning and Economic Development
(PED)
❑ Community Organizations
❑ Design Center
❑ Police Department
❑ Citizen Service Office and Property
Code Enforcement
❑ Problem Properties Committee and
Enforcement Coordination Committee
❑ Business Review Council (BRC)
❑ City Council
❑ Other levels of govetnment
0 Mayor
Fire Department
LIEP has developed a strong relationship with the Fire Department, namely the Fire Marshal and
the Fire Prevention and Inspection unit. Cleady, this is due to the effoRS of the LIEP Director
and the Fire Mazshal to maintain open communication and mutual respect between the two
organizations. The Fire DepaRment is primarily responsible for the enforcing the fire code, and
LIEP enforces the building code, though the two codes do overlap in a few areas. For example,
the building code addresses smoke issues, but the building inspectors will defer to the Fire
Department in making determinations as to whether a building meets code on smoke issues. The
�� Bryson, John. Strategic P[anning jor Pub[ic and Non-Profit Organi=ations. Jossey-Bass, 1995 page 27.
2000 Saim Pa+J City Counci! Research
F
Perfomience Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 17
Fire Department will also defer to L[EP when a situation is more of a building code issue than a
fire safery concem. While it would seem logical that good communication between the two is
essential, it appears as though the positive relationship between the two Saint Pau! departments is
somewhat unusual."
Saint Paul Regional Water Services
Some overlap exists between the responsibilities of LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services
regarding the enforcement of the plumbing code. Traditionally, LIEP has done inspections of the
plumbing inside the building, and Regional Water has performed inspections for the plumbing
from the water main up to the building for new construction projects only. Regional Water deals
only with drinking water; LIEP handles the waste and ventilatioa However, ultimately, the
Building Off'icial has the responsibility for ensuring the plumbing code is enforced. Both
departments currently issue permits relevant to the inspections they perform. While this has not
caused any serious problems to date, the practice of both departments enforcing the same code
should be examined for potential efTiciency improvements.
Public Works
LIEP must also interact with other city departments such as Public Works. Part of the interaction
is through site plan review. The site plan reviewer in LIEP has done an excellent job of
convening a group that meets biweekly to review site plans. This review group has decreased the
time it takes to review site plans and increased coordination and communication between the
departments. All involved parties should be commended for their paRicipation in this group.
LIEP and Public Works both retain some responsibility for individual sewage treatment systems.
LIEP would like to see these treatment systems eliminated over time, though LIEP has stated
Public Works has not been as proactive in promoting sewer systems. City code does not require
that individual sewage treatment systems be eliminated, though the City's Comprehensive Sewer
Plan, written in 1980 and currently being updated, states as policy that the City should "phase out
septic tanks after sewers are made available in newly developed areas." In an interesting twist,
LIEP is proactively pursuing the objectives of this Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, unlike
the Land Use and Housing Chapters.
Department of Planning and Ewnomic Development (PED)
In addition to the site plan review group, LIEP and PED also collaborate on business
development projects, but it has been suggested further collaboration between all departments
who work with small businesses should occur. Small businesses may approach PED or PED's
Business Resource Center for funding and other development questions, while they approach
�� The reality is often poor communication and mrf battles between building and fire departments. This is
particularly apparent at the state level, which was discussed in detail in a report on the State Building Code by the
Minnesota Office of the Legislative Audiroc (Minnesota Oftice of [he Legislative Auditoc State Building Code, A
Program Evaluation Report. 7 January, 1999). The Departmen[ of Administratioq responsible for the Building
Code, and the departments of Pubiic Safety and Public Service, responsible for [he Fire Code and Energy Code
respectively, have not coordinated their efforts well. The codes were no[ adopted at the same time, and
consequently there were some conflicting requirements. Had coordination occurced, the code conFlicts could have
been resolved prior to adoption and implementation, thus reducing the confusion for builders who have to comply
with all codes.
2000 Sainf Patd Crry Council Research
18 Performance Audit of the City of Sain[ PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
LIEP for licensing and possibly permitting, plan review and inspections. Therefore, it would be
beneficial to both the departments and the small business owner if there was greater
communication and collaboration between the parties.
PED and LIEP also have a common interest in building construction and rehabilitation projects.
It is clear from many of LIEP's budget objectives they would like to be involved in these
projects, but they have not yet developed the relationship with PED or with neighborhood
organizations to be as effective as they would like. LIEP also stated they would like to know
more about development projects PED is considering. PED states that many of these projects
never progress beyond the development stage, therefore it would only create unnecessary work
for LIEP. The poor information-sharing practices between PED and LIEP are probably due, in
part, to the poorly shared information systems. The new computer systems in LIEP provide
potential for increased data sharing between PED, LIEP and other offices such as Code
Enforcement, provided they all have access to the systems. More information would allow all
involved parties to track the status of these rehabilitation projects, as well as other concems and
projects.
Community Organizations
In a similar vein, various community organizations aze stakeholders of LIEP. Community
Development Corporations (CDCs) aze stakeholders that are involved in building rehabilitations
and the identification of "improvement azeas" in which Code Enforcement, L[EP, the
neighborhood, and any other relevant departments or groups collaborate to improve the building
stock of an area. CDCs also have the option of working with LIEP to obtain a building
evaluation. According to LIEP, this is rarely done, although it could be a very valuable tool for
the CDCs. District Councils are often involved with LIEP, especially when projects have to go
through a public review process.
Saint Paul Design Center
This inter-agency group is composed of several city staff from Public Works, PED and Parks and
Recreation. They also have a number of outside partners, including Public Art Saint Paul, the
Capital City Partnership, the Riverfront Corporation, the Port Authority and Ramsey County.
The Design Center is technically overseen by the Riverfront Corporation. The Board and the
Director of the Riverfront Corporation manage the policy work. If the Mayor is in disagreement
with the Riverfront Corporation, the Design Center serves the interests of the Mayor.
Since the creation of the Design Center, there has been some confusion over its regulatory
authority. It does not exer[ regulatory authority, but rather serves as a consultant and advisor to
downtown design projects. LIEP maintains the regulatory authority for ensuring the buildings
aze safe. The Design Center makes recommendations to LIEP, at which point L[EP could choose
to make the recommendations paR of the design, or they could choose to ignore them. It is
repoRed that the Design Center and LTEP have a good working relationship, and that LIEP
recognizes the importance of the Design Center in ensuring downtown structures meet the
objectives of the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework. The Design Center is
working to be seen as part of a business-friendly environment in Saint Paul and less of a
regulatory body.
2000 Sainl Patd City Cormcil ResearcH
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building PermiG P�� Review and lnspections Func[ions �
on5
Business Review Council
�.
�
�s
�g
�r
�
The Business Review Council (BRC) is composed of representatives from City staff, labor,
neighborhood councils, residents with relevant experience, and Saint Paul business owners and
organizations. The BRC meets monthly, and has two subcommittees, the Business Issues
Committee and the General Legislation Committee, that also meet monthly. The BRC has been
most active in identifying unnecessary licensing regulations. They were recently involved in
reaching an agreement with the taxicab industry in Saint Paul to increase the number of licensed
taxis in the City and allow a rate increase. LIEP provides the staff support for the BRC, and
other departments, such as PED and Public Works, also participate and provide support as
necessary. The BRC is involved in only a limited capacity in the permitting, plan review, site
plan review and inspections processes of LIEP.
Citizen Service Office, Property Code Enforcement and the Police
Department
Citizen complaints are often funneled through the Citizen Service Office to the appropriate
departments. Therefore, some zoning complaints go through this office to reach LIEP, and the two
offices must share information. On a broader scale, LIEP and PropeRy Code Enforcement, a
section of the Citizen Service Office, interact in a number of ways. LIEP inspects vacant buildings
to determine the building code violations that must be addressed to bring the building into
compliance. L[EP will inspect later to determine ifthose issues have been addressed. Code
Enforcement inspects them for property maintenance code violations, and maintains the vacant
building list for the city. LIEP and Code Enforcement must interact to ensure that when a permit is
pulled for work on a vacant building, that the permit is not closed until the building meets the
minimum property maintenance requirements. Code Enforcement and L[EP's Mimal Control
Unit also cooperate extensively in rodent baiting efforts. Finally, LIEP and Code Enforcement
must interact on building projects which have become "problems" because of the long time it takes
for their completion, and the nuisance these projects create for neighbors. Notably, these two
offices view this issue very differently. Code Enforcement believes there aze many such projects
which are long-term problems, whi(e LIEP holds that there aze only a half a dozen such cases.
City Council
ent
�ose
LIEP leadership is also responsible for communicating with the legislative body of the City, the
City Council. The City Council is certainly a stakeholder in LIEP's activities, as many of the
policies passed by the Council directly affect LIEP, and the Council is also responsible for
approving LIEP's budget. The City Council is also [he final arbiter on many LIEP decisions
such as appeals from the Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals. Maintaining open communication is essentiai to the vitality of the department.
Overall, this relationship is handled relatively well. The BRC communicates with the Council on
a regular basis, and LIEP uses the BRC to communicate many of its concerns and issues,
particularly related to licensing, to the Council.
However, LIEP is also responsible for communicating directly with the Council, particulazly at
this time as a result of funding provisions for the new computer systems, known as ECLIPS and
earch
I
�. _
1000 Sainf Paul City Coanci! Research
�-
zp performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
AMANDA.�' LIEP has done some updates for the Council, though they do not appear to
adequately address the problems LIEP encountered in regard to the ECLIPS and AMANDA
systems." L[EP has fallen faz behi�d on its implementation dates for the systems, and has been
open about it, though not entirely clear about the reasons for the delay. Written documentation
given to the Council does not entirely explain the problems LIEP faced with its original software
developer, Online Services, Inc. Nor does the documentation explain the transition in the
software name from ECLIPS to ECLIPS II to AMANDA, which is an off-the-shelf software that
CSDC, [nc., the current contracted software developer, sells for permitting and inspections. The
original ECL[PS project was to include what AMANDA does. To differentiate it from the
original Online project it was call ECLIPS II before LIEP contracted with CSDC, Inc. While
this may seem insignificant, it is actually an impoRant piece to comprehending the current
situation in LIEP. LIEP has not updated the Council on the status of the computer systems since
April, 1999, though they have since implemented major portions of the programs.
Other Levels of Government
LIEP essentially enforces state law through enforcement of the building codes. However, the
state retains some responsibility. With few exceptions, LIEP maintains all responsibility for
inspections within the City, including inspection of most state property in Saint Paul and Saint
Paul School District propeRy. One outstanding exception is the permitting and inspections
process for tank installation and removal. 'fhe City is required to issue permits for above-ground
tank installations, but the State Fire Marshal is required to issue a letter of approval to the
contractor. The State Fire Marshal is responsible for inspecting them, but it is not clear that this
is happening, and it appears that no one is doing inspections.
The City of Saint Paul is also represented at the state level on a number of committees, including
the Minnesota Uniformity Committee, which is a group that shazes common equivalencies and
code interpretations.
The State gives primary responsibility to the City for hearing appeals to the Building Code.
Appeals are generally dealt with at the department level before they go to a Legislative Hearing
Officer. However, the City Code does not allow Saint PauPs Legislative Hearing Of'ficer to
grant waivers to the state building code. The Uniform Building Code, which the state building
code is based upon, requires all municipalities establish a local board of appeals. However, the
Minnesota Legislative Auditor reports that few municipalities have done this. Minnesota
5tatutes also state that anyone who disagrees with the final decision of a municipality may appeal
that decision to the Commissioner of Administration. Some concem exists that perhaps another
method should be used to hear appeals to the building code at the city ievel.
LIEP is also required to submit annual reports the State Historic Preservation Office on heritage
preservation activities, per our local govemment agreement. These reports are tardy by several
years. In the interview process, this was attributed to a significant staff shoRage in the heritage
preservation area. However, LIEP management indicate the reason for the lateness is that these
reports are a low priority.
� ECLIPS is an acronym for Electronic Computerizes License, Inspection and Permitting System. AMANDA is
an acronym that stands for Automated Management of Data and Applications.
13 The new computer systems are discussed in more detail in the Information and Analysis sec[ion.
2000 Sainl Paul Ciry Co�mcil Reseorch
Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions z1
LIEP also has to interact with the federal government either when the federal government is
doing a building project in Saint Paul or when a project is taking place in a floodplain. In the
first case, as with private parties, the federal government is required to pull permits for all work
as is required by law. However, LIEP reports the federal government refuses to pull permifs or
to let the City inspect its projects. The other situation where the City works with the federal
govemment is if a non-govemmental project is taking place within a flood plain. Federal
agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Administration and the Army Corp of
Engineers, will then become involved in permitting and inspections. With these projects, the
Site Plan Reviewer coordinates the involvement of the necessary parties.
Leadership Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #11: LIEP has developed a mission/vision statement.
Finding #12: LIEP has developed internal policies which are widely circulated.
Finding #13: LIEP has a wide variety of stakeholders, some of whom it works with very well,
and others with whom the relationship needs to be further developed or clarified.
Finding #14: LIEP has not kept the City Council as up-to-date as it should on the progress of
the automation or the problems LIEP has encountered in implementing the systems.
Finding #15: Some of LIEP's responsibilities overlap with those of other governmental entities.
Sometimes these are not coordinated effectively.
Finding #16: The City appears not to be in compliance with state law as it has not established a
local board of appeals to hear appeals to decisions of the building code official. Appeals can be
heard by the Legislative Hearing Officer, though the Hearing Officer is denied the authority to
grant waivers to the building code by the City Code. However, in the State Auditor's report on
this subject, the State did not seem concerned with this lack of local appeal boards.
Finding #17: LIEP has been tardy on reports it is supposed to submit annually to the State of
Minnesota's Historic Preservation Office .
Leadership Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 6: At a minimum, communication betrveett LIEP and the State Fire Marshal
needs to be improved so they can insure that inspections, installations, and removal offuel storage
tanks are occurring. In order to ensure comp/iance the approval should come from the City,
rather than from the state, leaving all responsibility a1 dhe City level. I,IEP should work with the
State Fire Marshal to determine procedural and legislative changes required to bring this about.
Recommendation # 7: LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services need to clarify their roles
relating to the plumhing code. ,4s the Building O�cial has ultimale responsibility for enforcing
the plumbing code, perhaps LIEP should conduct the inspections currently performed by Regional
Water. This may lead to enhanced e�ciency for both entities.
2000 Saint Pau! C!ry Co�mcil Research
�
Zy Performance Audit ofthe Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Rev and Inspect F�nctions Pe�
Recommenda[ion # 8: LIEP should market its service ofproviding building evaluations to
communiry developnrent corporations. This valuable tool would enhance the relationship behveen
CDCs and the Ciry and ensure that rehabilitations address building code prob(ems appropriately.
Recommendation # 9: LlEP and the Design Center should darify their respective roles and
level of authoriry and clearly explain them to permit applicants.
Recommendation # l0: LIEP and the Crty Attorney's O�ce need ta clarify whether the Ciry is
in compliance with state law regarding appeals of decisions of the building code o�cial.
Recommendation # 11: LIEP and PED should take leadership in developing a quarterly
interdepartmental meeting for al! staff who work with small businesses.
Recommendation # 12: LIEP should meet with Code Enforcement and other appropriate Ciry
agencies to discuss and find solutions to the issue of long-term incomplete projects in the City's
neighborhoods.
Recommendation # l3: LIEP needs to come into, and remain in, compliance with state
reporting requirements for both its 6uilding code and herirage preservatton activities.
Recommendation # 14: LIEP should provide the City Council at regularly scheduled intervals,
a complete explanation of the current automation situation including funding, hours spent on the
project, timeline and reasons for the lengthened timeline.
See also Recommendations 4 and 5 on inclusion in planning activities.
Quality of Leadership
Vision and Mission
As mentioned previously, the vision and mission have to be clearly articulated from the top of
the organization down. This is a vitally important characteristic of a high-performing
organization. In the case of the City, the Mayor has uhimate responsibility for communicating
his vision to staff, whether this is communicated directly from him or through department and
office directors. According to the survey responses, the Mayor's vision is ineffectively
communicated to staff. However, based on a January 20, 2000 presentation at LIEP's training
for small contractors (held after the survey was conducted), it was evident the Mayor does have a
vision of enhanced customer service which portrays LIEP as an easy place to do business—a one-
stop shop. Clearly, a vision exists, but the Mayor has either failed to find a way to communicate
this to L[EP, or management has failed to articulate the Mayor's vision to staff. On the other
hand, acco�ding to the majority of survey responses, the Director and managers effectively
convey the Office's mission and vision. But, it must also be mentioned that one-quarter of L[EP
staff surveyed feel the Director and managers do not effectively convey the mission and vision.
From interviews with staff, it seems there is some confusion between the definition of vision and
mission. PaR of this may stem from LIEP management, who use the words "mission" and
"vision" interchangeably in internal documents. There£ore, most interview responses indicated
2000 Saint Paid City Counci! Research
Pedom7ence Audit of ihe City of Sxint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 23
that the mission and vision are the same for LIEP. Upon closer examination, Council Research
determined that the mission statement does not fit exclusively into either category. By
definition, "a mission outlines an organizational purpose while a vision goes on to describe how
the organization should look if it is working extremely well in relation to its environment and its
key stakeholders." A vision incorporates the mission, values, goals, strategies and perforcnance
criteria. According to staff, this vision/mission comes from the Director, though it does not seem
to be integrated into the practices of the organization. It appears the employees do not
understand how their responsibilities contribute to achieving the mission and vision, at least
partially because there are no clear objectives directly linked to the mission.
LIEP reports that as a part of the recent planning retreat it clarified its organizational vision, in
order to make it "more inspiring and challenging." LIEP also reports that it has established core
organizational values. However, in tha interview process which followed this retreat, no staff
mentioned any specific vision---distinct from the mission, or organizational values.
VaIUCS
By definition, values are a"desirable code of behavior to which the organization adheres or
aspires." Despite the lack of a cleaz values statement in LIEP, staff reported that the managers
and the Director effectively convey the values of the organization, another characteristic of high
performing organizations. Intarviewees responded that values are exemplified through the
actions ofthe Director and the values applied to policy decisiops. During the interview process
the values of good customer service and timeliness were emphasized, though rarely was anything
more specific stated. Values statements that were articulated were essentialiy the same as the
mission statement. LIEP clearly places a high value o� offering good customer service, although
it does not have a cleaz and uniformly identified set of well-articulated values. However, one-
quarter of the staff felt the managers and Director were not effective in conveying the values of
the organization.
Staff Recognition
Another essential component of effective leadership is staff recognition. Overall, it was reported
the Director and managers do a good job of recognizing staf�: This seemed to be particularly true
for plan review staff, 42% of whom felt managers and the Director do a good job recognizing
staff. LIEP clearly places a high value and emphasis on employee recognition. In interviews,
many staff inentioned they feel recognized through the respect they are shown and level of
decision-making authority they are given by their colleagues and by management. Management
also expressed they are trying to determine the best ways to recognize staff without being
patronizing. Management curtently use both informal methods to recognize staff, such as "I
Love AMANDA" buttons (AMANDA is one of the new computer systems) and polo shirts, and
more formal methods such as an employee-of-the-month program. The City also had a city-wide
employee of the month program, but it appears to have been terminated. LIEP staff expressed
frustration with the termination, particulazly since one of their own employees had been
nominated for the program. In response, LIEP staRed its own program.
14 Bryson, page I55.
15 Ibid. p. 77.
1000 Sarn1 Pard Gry Cormcil Research
�
Z4 Perfortnance Audi[ of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions P�
Leadership Quality Findings
Finding #18: The Mayor has not effectiveiy communicated his vision directly to LIBP staff.
Finding #19: LIBP Director and managers are good at communicating the organization's
mission to staff.
Finding #20: LIEP does not have clearly articulated values.
Finding #21: L[EP management do a good job of recogn�z�ng staff contributions. They
continue to seek better methods to recognize staff.
Leadership Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # I5: LIEP should evaluate its mission statement to ensure it answers the
following questions:
❑ Who are we? What distinguishes LIEP from other Ciry departments?
❑ yVhat do we do?
❑ For whom do we do it?
❑ Why do we do it?
Recommendation # 16: LIBP should adentify objectives to put the mission statement into action
and also identify specific objectives for each area of LIEP. This will enhance employee
understanding of how their particular responsibilities help meet those objectives and thus fulfill
the mission. Finaily, L(EP should identify specific organizational values under which all
employees operate and ezemplify them at all levels of the organization.
2000 SainfPatJCityCotmcilRese
r
�
ons Functions
staff.
Pcrformence Audit of lhe City of Sain[ Pau�'s Building Percni[, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Func[ions 25
TRAINING
KEY TItAINING CONCEPTS: �
❑ Education & Training Resource Allocation
❑ Employer Commitment �
:� �,��>..�.��:�_r��w,��;_. ,.���.�___� �.._�
Policy Compliance: -�-
Quality Rating: ���.`c'
The Malcolm Baldrige Quality system pairs the concepts of training and development. We have
chosen to split training and development into two subsections because our findings warrant two
separate discussions.
•s the
to action
rus fulfill
all
Employee success depends on having opportunities for personal learning and oppoRunities to
develop and practice skills. "Persona] learning can result in more satisfied and versatile
employees, greater opportunity for organizational cross-functional learning, and an improved
environment for innovation." Providing training and education is also a good way to
demonstrate commitment to employees.
Employees in successful organizations aze provided the tools they need to produce quality
services. These same employees aze given encouragement and the resources to develop a set of
skills that allows them to contribute more effectively to the organization over time. Training can
help employees better serve customers. Successful organizations also link the training and
development of their employees to the organization's goals and priorities. This linkage occurs
through the development and implementation of a long-term strategic plan tied to basic
organizational values.
Training Objectives and Policies
LIEP has clearly placed a high level of importance on training. One of the stated goats of its
1996 Strategic Plan was "to provide continuing education and training that achieves customer
service goals and ensures competency in new technologies, codes, regulations and procedures."
Objectives to achieve this goal include providing adequate funding for training, ensuring that the
training staff receive is appropriate, and completing an educational plan for every employee. The
Director also stressed the importance of providing relevant and meaningful training particularly
when it is difficult to add more staff:
LIEP provides a great deal of information to its new employees. New front-counter employees
receive a packet of information which contains LIEP policies, time cards, and other human
resource information. New inspectors are paired with more experienced inspectors during the
initial weeks of their employment with LIEP. Employees also have a comprehensive LIEP
handbook that assists them in answering customer questions.
L[EP provides a substantial amount of both financial and time resources for staff to obtain
training, and they have developed educational plans for all employees. Counter staff have
16 Z000 Criteria for Performance ExceUence, Baldrige National Quality Program.
t
rncilResearch I
1000 SqIn7 Poul City Council Research
�
Z6 Performance Audit ofthe Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
received customer service training and have also been cross-trained to handle boch permit and
license applications. Inspectors have received trade-specific training primarily through the
Minnesota Department of Administration or through their particular trade associations. Plan
examiners have also received some general training in the basics of the electrical and mechanical
codes, and are able to do structural reviews for residential projects and basic zoning reviews.
With the implementation of the new computer systems, many staff have received relevant
training in order to utilize the systems and train other staff members.
Some concerns have been raised by LIEP staff and by other City staff that too many training
resources have been focused on the trade inspectors, while other staff have more limited training
opportunities. Some of this may simply be because there aze more training opportunities
available for inspectors due in part to certification requirements.
Training Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #22: LIEP has invested significant financial and human resources in training.
Finding #23: The LIEP handbook is a very comprehensive and useful tool to which all staff
have access.
Finding #24: Each employee has an annually-updated educational plan.
Finding #25: Counter staff aze cross-trained in percnitting and licensing. Other staff have
received some limited cross-training.
Finding #26: Too many training resources may be allocated to the trades inspectors, potentially
limiting training opporhxnities for other staff.
Training Policy Recommendation
Recommendation # 17: LIEP shoudd reassess where resources are allocated for training to
determine if some staff have less access to training than others, and whether tlris is appropriate.
LIEP should also determine if, and how, the training is affecting workload allocation.
Quality of Training
LIEP employees were asked their opinion on the effectiveness of LIEP's use of education and
training opportunities. The survey results indicate that 98% of staff feel LIEP "effectively" or
"very effectively" uses education and training opportunities. This speaks very well for the
organization and demonstrates its willingness to invest in its employees. From the interviews, it
was apparent that training is widely available and encouraged. Some staff, such as the
inspectors, aze required to obtain a certain amount of training to maintain their licenses. LIEP
provides the funding and the time for this training. Commendably, this Oftice sets aside a
relatively large amount of its budget for these necessary training activities. Also mentioned
previously, there is some intemal cross training for front counter staff, but not in the other areas.
2000 Smnf Paul Ciry Councif Research
�
;tions
Ical
Perfo A of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions 27
Finally, the development of the Project Facilitator positions has assisted the organization in
having at least two staff operate as "generalists." The Project Facilitator [ works as a generalist
in the licensing area, although she is somewhat knowledgeable in plan review and inspections as
well. The yet-to-be-filled Project Facilitator II position will be a genera(ist in permitting, review
and inspections area.
Training Quality Finding
ing
Finding #27: Through the survey, we found the vast majority of LIEP staff feel the resources
provided by LIEP are "somewhat effective" or better. As mentioned above, training is widely
encouraged and available, though more so for trade inspectors than for other staff.
Training Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 18: LIEP needs to encourage all staff in all work areas to pursue relevant
training and provide the resources whenever possible,
Recommendation # 19: More cross-education of all LIEP functions would be valuable. Staff
tead to have limited krrowledge of the functions of work areas beyond their own. Having a good
working knowledge of the other functional areas will assist staff in answering customer
questions and coordinating e,f�'orts to prevent problems.
ally
ate.
s, it
:as.
search
2000 Sainl Panl Ciry Co�mcif Research
28 Pedormance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
KEY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS:
a Employee Contribution
DEVELOPMENT � WorkEnvironment
o Labor/Management Relationship
❑ Employee Evaluation
Policy Compliance: —
Quality: �`C�
An organizatiods success depends largely on the knowledge, skills, innovation, creativity and
motivation of its employees. Valuing employees means committing to their development,
satisfaction, and well-being. High performing organizations often provide opportunities within
the organization for development and g+'owth. Organizational knowledge is shared so employees
can better serve customers and contribute to achieving the organization's goals and objectives.
Development also includes building internal partnerships with employees through means such as
laborvmanagement cooperation and the creation of a supportive work environment for all
employees.
Development Policies
One of LIEP's goats from its 1996 Strategic Action Plan was to improve employee inorale in all
azeas of the Office of LIEP. This goal included the following objectives:
❑ Encourage managers to nominate employees for recognition. (As mentioned previously,
LIEP does a good job of recognizing staff.)
❑ Use the Labor Issues Focus Group to resolve job and morale concems. (This group is no
longer meeting.)
Relating to the last objective, one of LIEP's 1998 Budget Objectives was to "Monitor employee
views and ideas for improvements and develop a labor-management partnership to address areas
of mutual concern." Clearly, this labor-management partnership has not come to fruition. The
need for such a group will be more clearly articulated in the following quality discussion.
Development Policy Findings
Finding #28: L[EP addressed the need to improve employee morale in its 1996 Strategic Action
Plan, but has not followed through on some important objectives to reach this goal.
Finding #29: LIEP does not have an active labor-management group.
Development Policy Recommendations
Recommendation # 20: L/EP should follow through on its commitment to open communication
benveen staff and management and discuss together issues related to morale and ather
2000 Sainl Pa�d City Co�mcil Research
— unctions � Pedormance Audit of the City oPSaint PauPs Building Permi4 Plan Review and Inspections Functions 29
; workpface concerns. This could involve increased management attendance at work-group or
�PTS: j' feam meetings, as well as more proactive involvement ofstaffnot traditionally involved in
organization-wide discussions.
��P $ecommendation # 2/: LIEP should reconvene a labor-management group to actively pursue
issues of mutua! concern. Clear guidelines and expectations should be established so meetings
�"'°' ��""=}"' are a place for cooperation, not confrontation and complaining. Leaders should emphasize this
is a non-grievance discussion forum. The leaders of the group widl also need to engage the
problems encountered by the f:rst labor-management group, such as too many participants —
The last group had two representatives from each bargainittg unit in LIEP which may hwe made
�d the group too unwieldy and lneffective.
—ithin
�loyees
ves.
zuch as
c in all
sly,
3 110
_pioyee
:s areas
. The
c Action
rication
Quality of Development
Staff Contribution to Organizational Goals and Processes
It was cleaz through the survey results staff feel disconnected from decision-making in LIEP. When
asked about opportunities to contribute to decisions made about operations and procedures in LIEP,
58% of staff surveyed stated there were few to no opportunities. We found very similar results to
the question regarding opportunities to contribute to the organization's goals. We examined more
closely the overal) responses of the group that stated few to no opportunities exist to contribute to
decisionsregarding operations and proceduresto determine whetherthis group's responses differed
from the general population. Their responses are highlighted in the following chart.
Responses and characteristics of staff who felt there were few to no
to contribute to decisions —
When asked about opportuni[ies to contribute to decisions made about operations and procedures of LIEP,
58% of staff felt there were few to no opportunities. Common characteris[ics and responses of this group:
❑ Tenured and representative of all work areas surveyed;
O Generally less involved in professional organizations;
❑ See work emironment as slightly more negative than the general population;
❑ Significantly less aware of da[a collection prec[ices and whether the data is used effectively;
❑ More negative on the usefulness of ECLIPS, AMANDA, and o[her computer sys[ems;
O Generally see less monitoring and responsiveness of cus[omer needs and satisfacaon; and
❑ Unaware of any results measwement in LIEP, and don't know if goals are achieved.
It appears this group is less imolved in the organization. This may be due partially to
management not involving them in the decision-making process, and partially due to their own
lack of motivation to be involved. One interviewee suggested management creates the "big
picture" and staff have to decide how to fit in. This sentiment was reflected in comments from
other interviews where staff expressed that opportunities exist, but that staff have to pursue those
�cil Research j M00 Satnf Paul City Councl! Research
30 Performance Audit of the CiTy of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
opportunities. However, one of the expectations the Director has of L1EP managers is that they
"involve employees in decision making; seek input." Involvement may also vary by work unit—
different units within the Office seem to have different means to garner staff input. Some use
very formal methods, such as staff meetings, while other supervisors visit informally with their
staff on a daily basis. 5ome methods may be more effective than others and the effectiveness of
methods will vary by employee.
Work Environment
Nearly two-thirds of the LIEP staff surveyed feel the emironment is "conducive" or `bery
conductive" to the well-being of all staff. However, 36% of staff stated they feel the
environment is "not conducive" to the well-being of ail staff. While it is alarming that one-third
of the staff feel this way, it is also important to note this negativity could impact the rest of the
staf£ This group's responses are explored in the following table. ,
Responses of staff who felt the work environment was not conducive to well-
being and growth of all staff— � __ ^_ ;
36% of LIEP staff surveyed feit the work environment was not conducive to the well-being and gfowth of
all staff. This group typically gave more negative responses to nearly every question. General responses
of this group:
❑ See less planning in their work area and staff involvement in planning;
❑ Feel the Mayor, Director, and managers do not effectively convey a clear vision,
mission, or values;
❑ Do not feel encouraged to participate in professional organizations;
❑ Less positive about labor-management relationship;
❑ Less involved in decisions made about operations, procedures, and goals of LIEP;
❑ See less monitoring and responsiveness to customer needs and satisfaction; and
❑ Less aware of the resuks measurement ac[ivities of L[EP, less knowledgeable as to whether LIEP
compazes its cesults with othec organizations, and less knowledgeable as to whether or not LIEP meets
its goals.
- :�:.. -- -- —
Possible explanations for the less conducive work environment include stress due to increased
workloads and computerization, staff shortages, and the high volume of construction over the
past couple of yeazs. It was also repoRed by a number of people that there is a division between
those in the Office willing to make changes and those who prefer the old methods of operation.
An uneven workload distribution between sections may exist in LIEP. Some sections, such as
plan review, seem to have more work than staff. The lack of planning by LIEP may also be
contributing to the stress level. LIEP has not done an adequate job of anticipating and planning
for the changing workloads resulting from increased construction, the health of the economy, and
the automation of the office. Another possible explanation for the lower rating of the work
environment may be the lack of empowerment some staff feel, which makes the environment
more stressful. Some staff expressed a sense that their needs and input are largely ignored by
decision-making staff, notably those involved in developing and implementing the ECLIPS and
AMANDA systems. Other extemal factors beyond LIEP's control may also affect morale such
2000 SaintPa�JCityCouncilResearc6
:tions Perfortnence Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Func[ions 3I
;y as potential privatization/competition of city services and drawn-out labor negotiations. LIEP
it— management report the reason some staff feel the work environment is not conducive to their
well-being is the changeover to a new computer system, although Council Research believes the
9� dynamics are significandy more complex.
of
Finally, with respect to work environment, another survey question asked how the Director and
managers aze at creating a work environment that is equally supportive of all employees
regardless of race, color, class, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation or physical ability.
Fully ninety percent of the staff surveyed stated they are "fairly good" to "very good" at creating
a supportive work environment.
Labor-Management Relationship
The lack of a formal labor-management partnership was mentioned in the policy wmpliance
section of Development. This lack of partnership may have an impact on the staff's view of the
relationship. Overall, most staff feel the labor-management relationship is mediocre or fair,
although one-fourth of staff say labor and management "work together poorly: ' This group's
responses are examined in more detail in the following table. There is a general sense from other
City staff who frequently interact with LIEP that within LIEP, particularly within the trades
inspection area, loyalty is to the union first and then to the City. This attitude may influence the
way staff perform their duties, as discussed further in the Customer Focus section. It should be
mentioned that LIEP management is not exclusively responsible for the bargaining uniYs
relationship to the City. Contract negotiation is not conducted by L[EP, but rather by the Office
of Labor Relations. However, LIEP management is directly involved in the grievance resolution
process for LIEP staff. Notably, an examination of the number and type of grievances filed by
LIEP employees shows they aze similar to those of other departments, taking into account
department size. So this reportedly poor relationship does not manifest itself in grievances filed.
from staff who believe labor & management work
One-fourth of s[aff feel that labor and management "work together poorly.° This group's responses aze
consistentty more negative than LIEP staff is, in general, in all ca[egories. Lis[ed below are some key
£ndings of the responses of this group:
❑ Not aware of the Mayor's vision for L[EP, do not believe the director canveys the vision effectively,
do not see [he director or managers as conveying the mission or values of the organization effectively;
O View the work environment as not conducive [o [he well-being of staff;
❑ State the overall work environment for persons of pro[ected classes is not good to fairly good;
�
❑ See few to no opportmi[ies to con[ribute to decisions;
❑ Not aware of what data is coliected for permitting, ptan review, or inspections;
❑ Do not know if the computer sys[ems meet the needs of LIEP;
O Not aware of any systema[ic intemal evaluation in LIEP;
❑ Not aware of any monitoring of changes in customer needs or satisfaction performed by LIEP, and fee!
that at best L[EP is "partially responsive" to changes in customer needs and satisfaction; and
❑ Unaware of any results measuremen[ and goal achievement in LIEP.
earch i 1000 Saini Po�d Ciry Counci! Research
�..
3z Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Pl Review and lnspecliuns Functions
Laboc representatives within LIEP may view themselves as having less of a role in decision-
making. At the same time, some management staff also expressed a sense of hopelessness about
their ability to work with the unions. Unions are seen as an obstacle rather than as a partner.
Unions may also perpetuate this feeling by being adversarial and uncooperative. These attitudes
may permeate throughout the organization, hampering the relationship. An example of this
situation is the creation and implementation of the Project Facilitator positions, recommended in
the 1994 Functional Redesign Plan. In 1998, the Process Redesign Change Management
Committee was reorganized into a formal labor-management committee to address union
concerns regarding the creation of these positions. The proposal was held up in this committee
as the unions could not agree on who would represent the Project Facilitator positions.
Emptoyee Evaluation
The majority of surveyed employees responded their perforcnance is reviewed annually. LIEP
continues to make a concerted effort to review employee evaluation methods for their usefulness.
Sixty percent of respondents feel the evaluations aze somewhat useful or better, the other 40%
feel they are not useful.
Development Quality Findings
Finding #30: Over half of the surveyed LIEP staff say there are "few" to "no opportunities" to
contribute to the organization's decisions about operations and procedures. The same statistic
exists for opportunities for staff to contribute to the goals of the organization.
Finding #31: Two-thirds of staff feel the work environment is "somewhat conducive" to "very
conducive" to the well-being of all staff: The other one-third of staff who feel the work
environment is "not conducive" have a more negative view of the organization in general.
' j j; ', ' Finding #32: Ninety percent of staff surveyed feel the Director and managers have created a
i! i! ' supportive work environment for people of protected classes.
�i�:i,
Finding #33: The labor-management relationship is mediocre to fair. One-quarter of LIEP staff
surveyed feel the two groups work together poorly. This group gave consistendy more negative
responses to survey questions than LIEP staff as a whole.
��
Development Quality Recommendation
I' Recommendation # 22: LIEP shoutd address work environment issues. The proposed Labor-
,, Management Committee should discuss both the factors negatively impacting the environment
and what specific steps can be taken to decrease the stress level experrenced by many stafJ'
° Additionally, Jhis group could examine what specifically could be do»e to make LIEF a more
supportive work environment for those who feel it is not currently supportive.
2000 Sain� Paul Ciry Coxneil Research
4
unctions � p�'p�gpCe Audit of lhe Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
3bOUI
=udes
ea �n
ttee
; INFORMATION
AND ANALYSIS
Policy Compliance: —
Quality Rating: �
33
KEY INFORMATION & ANALYS[S
CONCEPT5:
❑ Data Collection
o Analysis of Data
o Effec[ive Use of Automation Systems
Information and analysis is the foundation of a perfortnance management system. Relevant
EP information relates to customers, services, employees, and costs. Analysis of this data should be
Iness. used for evaluation, decision-making and operational improvement within the organization. Data
'% are used to determine trends, projections, and cause and effect. They also support planning,
performance reviews, comparisons and benchmarks.
Automation Policies
'to
iery
staf�
dive
Given L[EP's activities related to permitting, plan review and inspections, one might expect a
great deal of data to be collected on functions such as permit fees collected, inspections
completed and change orders written — among numerous other functions. In the past, LIEP has
collected data on the number of inspections conducted, permit values, permit revenues and other
budgetary data. However, LIEP is currently collecting very little data beyond the budgetary
information to support its operations. Some of this is due to the changing information systems in
LiEP from a dBase system that was not Y2K compliant to ECLIPS and AMANDA. The dBase
system did not allow communication between functions such as licensing and permitting.
7'herefore, LIEP began, back in 1995, to look for a new information system that would be useful
across activities. To this end, they contracted with Online Business Systems, Inc. in late 1995 to
design a system that would integrate the licensing, permitting, plan review, zoning and
inspections processes, known as ECLIPS, The goal was "to install a custom designed computer
system that will allow a single point of contact for the customer, a single request (application) for
information, and a 48-hour maximum response time to customer requests."��
Unfortunately, Online failed to deliver a product in a reasonable, specified amount of time and
the contract was terminated. In early 1999, LIEP contracted with CSDC Systems, Inc. to design
ECLIPS 2, which is now known as AMANDA. The system is in the early stages of operation.
A great deal of information remains to be loaded into the system and other functions to be
completed before AMANDA is entirely operational. LIEP is over one year behind schedule on
implementation of the systam, though they remain within budget. The following table outlines
each system's budget to date.
Paid Balance
ECL[PS (Online Business Systems) $697,228 $0
AMANDA (CSDC) $319,712 $211,099
�� LIEP report ro the City Comcil, April 1, 1997.
rsearch � 1000 Sa1nl Patd C!ry Councfl Research
34 Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
The problems with office automation have also pushed back the implementation dates for the
hand-held computers for the inspectors. LIEP is hopeful that some inspectors will be able to
begin using them this year, with the remainder in use in 200L The hand-held computers will
allow inspectors to retrieve inspections records and issue and log written citations in the field.
Other City departments have also expressed interest in implementing AMANDA. LIEP is
cunently assisting the Fire Department with developing the system for fire inspections, and PED
and Citizens Service Office have also expressed interest in utilizing the system. A unified
system would allow all departments access to the same property information through the shared
address files. This would create efficiencies for City operations and improve communication
between the various departments. A City-wide GIS team is also working to identify software
that would interface between AMANDA and GIS. The current software, Arcview, is cost
prohibitive to install City-wide (about $1000 -$1500 per copy), thus only a limited number of
people have access to it. Other, far less expensive programs exist, and the GIS group is
developing specifications for these products. Such a program would allow all departments that
currently use or will be using AMANDA to access the same information from the GIS system.
Information and Analysis Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #34: In the past, LIEP collected some information on the number of inspections
conducted and some budgetary data such as permit values and permit revenues. Currently, no
data is collected or analyzed beyond required budgetary data.
Finding #35: LIEP staff should be given a great deal of credit for taking on the task of automating
the Office's information systems. It has involved many staff hours to monitor the contracts as well
as develop and leam new systems. It has also required that staff not directly involved in
developing the systems take on responsibilities formerly assigned to the staff now working on
developing the new computer systems. Staffhave shown a strong commitment to the project.
Finding #36: The anticipated implementation dates of 2000 and 2001 for hand-held computers
for inspectors seems lengthy given the potential usefulness and efficiency of hand-held
computers. It does not appear that specific plans aze in place to begin the implementation of the
hand-heids or train inspectors to effectively use them.
Finding #37: Other departments are interested in implementing AMANDA. L[EP is providing
them with staff assistance.
Finding #38: A City-wide GIS team is working to identify economically feasible software that
would interface between AMANDA and GIS.
Information and Analysis Policy Compliance
Recommendations
Recommendation # 23: The City of Saint Paul shou[d provide the financial resources to allow
for the purchase of an economical software package that would interface between the G/S system
and AMANDA. This would allow broad access to GIS for all departments utilizing the
2000 Sainl Paid Ciry Councrl Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 35
AMANDA system and enhance the ability to coordinate activities and information behveen
various departments.
Recommendation # 24: Not only must LIEP work to implement hand-held computers as soon as
possible due to lheir usefu[ness, LIEP must also train its inspectors to integrate the hand-held
computers into their work practices. Inspectors must make it a practtce to load all inspections
comments into the database so other inspectors have the same information. Inspectors should
also begin the practice of looking up information to ensure they are providing permittees with
accurate information.
Quality of Information and Analysis
Data Collection and Analysis
From the interviews, it was clear LIEP did have data on paper and in the old computer systems,
though it was rarely wmpiled for analysis. When data was collected, it was primarily basic
performance statistics, such as the number of inspections done, and used for balancing workload.
LIEP is also collecting data on revenue received from permits and the value of the permitted
projects. This data is used for budget prepazation. LIEP is not currently doing any fuMher data
compilation. One-third to one-half of LIEP staff surveyed stated they do not know what data is
collected on the customer service/permitting, plan review, and inspections processes. One-third
of staff do not know if data is used effectively. Of those who answered the question, they believe
data is used "somewhat effectively." Therefore, the data that is collected is not widely shared or
used by many staff:
Staff Awareness of Automation
We found staff to be generally unaware of the effectiveness of LIEP's automation efforts. When
asked if needs were met through ECLIPS:
❑ One-half of staff surveyed do not know if LIEP's needs aze met.
❑ Of those who do know if LIEP's needs are met, the average answer was "few needs are met "
❑ Over one-third of staff indicated "needs are not met "
We received somewhat similar responses to the same questions regarding AMANDA:
❑ One-third of L[EP staff surveyed don't know if needs are met through AMANDA.
❑ Of those who do, the majority stated that "few of the needs are met "
❑ 37% indicated "needs are not met."
We also asked about the other information systems in the o�ce (word processing, e-mail,
Internet access). In this case, we found one-quarter of LIEP staff do not know if needs are met,
and, of those who do, the most common response was "few of the needs are met "
We anticipated finding that needs may not yet be met with AMANDA, but were somewhat
surprised with the responses regarding ECL[PS and the other computer systems. There may be a
number of reasons for these findings:
2000 Saint Pa+d Ciry Council Research
36 Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Funct �
❑ They could be a result of the problems with the company originally hired to design ECL(PS, !
and that once AMANDA, the second phase ofthe ECL[PS projecy is fully operational, more �
needs will be met. �
❑ Most staff surveyed do not work directly with ECLIPS, and may have heard only complaints
of some staff.
❑ We heard in interviews that it sometimes takes longer to perform routine tasks now with
ECLIPS and AMANDA. Interviewees suggested that it will take time to learn the new
systems, and once staff are comfortable with the systems, efficiency will be improved.
❑ Some staff are resistant to change and rather unwilling to learn the new systems.
❑ Planning for LIEP's information systems may not have been sufficiendy inclusive of all
users such as inspectors and counter staff. Some staff stated their input was not considered
in the development of ECL[PS. Additionally, they report that when problems have arisen
with ECLIPS, they were not addressed because information systems staff were working on
AMANDA.
The move toward increased automation is a highly commendable task. The development of the
address files and their integration with the GIS system will be very beneficial to the City.
However, the City needs to be more proactive in pursuing GIS City-wide. Other departments
will also be utilizing AMANDA: Fire, Citizens Services Office, Public Works and PED. LIEP
also has staff members in each area who aze on-site experts in the computer systems and can
answer questions. This is a very good practice and likely helps to alleviate some frustration on
the part of end-users.
Information and Analysis Quality Findings
The Future of LIEP's Information and Analysis -�`s�r�
We felt it necessary to not only rate LIEP on their current infortnation and analysis
activities, but also speculate on a future rating if they aze able to successfully implement
systems and follow through on statements made in the interviews. Therefore, if we were to
audit LIEP one year from now, we anticipate they have the potential to receive three stazs.
However, if they do not effectively use their computer systems to collect and analyze data,
we do not believe their assessment would improve. The automation should:
❑ assist with fee justification based on data and workload analysis;
❑ provide inspectors with an inspections results database allowing them to provide
consistent information to property owners and wntractors; and
❑ give other departments such as PED, Public Works, and the Fire Department
comprehensive data that will allow them to coordinate activities.
Finding #39: LIEP currently does very little data collection or analysis.
Finding #40: Staff are generally unaware of what data is collected and how it is used.
1000 Saint Pau! City Councr! Reseprch
Performance Audit of lhe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 3 �
Finding #41: Staff do not feel the ECLIPS or AMANDA system currently meets their needs.
Finding #42: Great potential exists for LIEP to perform meaningful data collection and analysis
and improve its performance by utilizing new automated system. LIEP should be given credit
for taking on such a task.
Information and Analysis Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 25: LIEP should clearly ident� the information gathering potential of the
new computer systems and the usefulness of the data. (See previous box for suggestion). Data
collected and analyzed should be related to the mission and objectives of the organization.
Recommendation # 26: LIEP should analyze the effectiveness of the computer systems. One
method to analyze the effectiveness would be to follow-up with staff based on survey responses
indicating the systems are not useful. LIEP should encourage and gather input on the systems
and respond to the input, even if it is not possible to immediately address all concerns or
suggestions.
See aJso Recommendation #41 in Results and the Performance Measures Chapter.
2000 Sain! Pau! Ciry Council Research
38 Perfortnance Audi� ofthe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functiops
IMPROVEMENT
KEY PROCESSES FOR
IMPROVEMENT PRACTICES:
PRACTICES
Policy Compliance: °�
Quality Rating: �
Identification of Potential Improvements
[mplementation of Improvements
Evaluation of Improvement Efforts
Improvement practices occur when an organization considers the design, management and
improvement of internal organizational processes. Similarly, improvement processes such as
internal evaluation should be part of daily work within the organization, and should seek to
eliminate problems at the source and be driven by opportunities to improve. Improvements may
enhance value through new and better services, increased responsiveness, and a higher level of
efficiency. Notably, the development of new services may or may not be an improvement practice,
depending on whether it meaningfully improves services already provided by the organization.
[mprovement processes must contain cycles of planning, implementation and evaluation which
require information and methods for assessing progress. All practices of an organization should be
continually evaluated to identify problems and successes, and should be incorporaCed into an
organizatiods daily practices. These practices are charted in the following diagram.
The Improvement Process
Identify Identify Maihods to
Dafic�encies � Addrass Deficioncios;
in the Select the Most
urrent Process Appropriate
Evaluate the
Effectivenass and
EfFiciency of the
New/Revised Method
�-
Plan Implamontation
of Now/Revisad
Method(s)
♦
Implesnenl the Now/
Revised Method(s)
Quick Fixes and Past Improvement Efforts
The very development of LIEP was an improvement practice. The City saw the need to combine
functions to increase efficiency and better meet citizens' needs. Historically, LIEP itself has
been very active in engaging in improvement practices. Since its inception in 1992, LIEP has
developed plans and action steps to address both major and minor problems and processes.
20q0 Sainl Panl City Council Research
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions . 39
Many of these were developed in the mid-1990's along with the Office's Strategic Action Plan
and its Functional Redesign Report. LIEP's past improvement effoRs include the repoR titled
! 19 Targets for Redesign, which was paR of the Business Process Redesign Project. This report
also identified a number of "Quick Fixes," many of which were implemented. CeRainly, it was
not possible to implement all of them either because it simply was not feasible or perhaps even
necessary. LIEP should be aclmowledged not only for such a proactive effoR to improve its
operations, but also for involving many levels of staff in these improvement efforts. Indeed, all
of the quick fixes were identified by employee work teams.
Improved Automation
The most visible of LIEP's improvement practices is its current automation efforts. The new
computer systems will have a number of valuable features including: access to the City's address
files; the ability to track plans currently in the review process; and checkoff lists for plan
reviewers and inspectors allowing them to quickly note deficiencies or compliance. While these
are good practices which will likely have a positive impact on its functions, LIEP did very little
planning to handle activities and problems created by automation, such as increased workloads,
stress and the inability to effectively collect data during the transition period. It also remains to
be seen how much evaluation LIEP will do of the systems once they have been implemented,
particularly given LIEP's historical lack of internal evaluation, discussed later in this section.
Project Facilitators and Experts-on-Duty
The Project Facilitator positions were originally identified as part of LIEP's Functional Redesign
Plan, and have taken a long time to implement. The Project Facilitator positions were originally
designed to encompass a wide range of functional knowledge in zoning, environmental health,
licensing, construction and heritage preservation and to track lazger projects and serve as a
resource for customer questions. Since then, LIEP determined that some of the functions should
be sepazated to allow for specialization. Currently, a Project Facilitator I assists businesses in
obtaining the necessary licenses, and will also help them through the permitting, plan review and
inspections process if necessary. The position is primarily focused on the licensing aspect and
reports to the Customer Services Manager. The Project Facilitator II, soon to be hired, will be
the primary contact person for customers for permitting, plan review and inspections. This
position will report to the supervisor for Plan Review and Historic Preservation. Currently plan
reviewers track their own projects, so it is unclear how responsibilities will be shared between the
Project Facilitator II and the plan review staff,
LIEP also has a policy designating a daily expert-on-duty who is available to handle customer calls
and walk-in customers. The expert-on-duty answers questions when the person who usually handles
those questions is unavailable or when technical issues ue encountered that front wunter staff are
unable to handle. The expert-on-duty is a commendable practice and valuable to the organization.
Recent Improvement Practices
LIEP has not—actively—identified new improvement practices since the mid-] 990's. Perhaps
more importantly, LIEP has not reviewed the effectiveness of its past efforts. Improvements
have to be evaluated in order to determine their worth and to learn from past efforts. While L[EP
2000 Saint Pau! Ciry Council Research
40 P erfo r man c e Audit of t City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Pl Revie a n d In F�nctions
typically does not evaluate the effectiveness of its improvement effor[s, L[EP has taken one
particular experience to heart: the problems encountered with Online Services, Inc. during the
development of the ECL[PS systeih. LIEP used the experience with Online to formulate a more
effective contract with CSDC Sys{ems, Inc. With the new contract, LIEP decided to use an off-
the-shelf system which could be customized internally as necessary primarity utilizing their own
staff. They also wrote the new contract to better protect the inierests of LIEP.
LIEP has incorporated a number of their improvement practices into their annual budget
objectives, and LIEP should be given credit here for their efforts. One such example is their
2000 Budget Ongoing Performance Indicator which lists their complaint response time (for
zoning complaints) in days as four, down from nine in 1997. Clearly, LIEP focused efforts on
this as part of their goal of increased customer service. Other performance indicators, though,
have not been monitored and do not have supporting information to show the indicator has been
met. Without supporting data, the indicators are meaningless.
LIEP staff have also been very active in reducing plan review and site plan review times. As
mentioned previously in the Leadership chapter, the site plan reviewer coordinates the
interdepartmental site plan review group, which has effectively reduced review time and
increased communication. The plan reviewers also make it their goal to turn plan reviews around
quickly and return them to the applicant as soon as possible. And certainly, front-counter staff
have also pursued methods to decrease the time it takes to issue permits, and are able to issue
"express" permits for simple projects such as basic re-roofing projects.
Heritage Preservation staff in LIEP should also be commended for their efforts in developing
some Heritage Preservation brochures which will be sent this spring to every resident of the
City's Heritage Preservation districts. The brochures explain the benefits and responsibilities of
living in such districts. These same staff inembers aze currently working to have Heritage
Preseroation information included on the Truth-in-Housing forms, though this has taken longer
than anticipated due to lack of staff resources.
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #43: In the past, LIEP has actively engaged in developing improvement practices.
Finding #44: Most current improvement initiatives are manifestations of past improvement
efforts. Examples are the office automation efforts and the project facilitator positions.
Finding #45: While LIEP has committed to improvement, it has not evaluated the results of its
efforts, and, therefore, cannot say with any certainty that changes in practices have led to actual
improvements. They did, however, learn from the experience with Online Services, Inc., and
used that experience to create a contract that better serves the interests LIEP.
Finding #46: Select sections and staffmembers in LIEP are working on improvement practices
such as plan review with its interdepartmental review team and heritage preservation with its
informational brochures.
1000 Sainl Paid Cify Council Reseorclt
Perfortnance Audit oCthe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review a�d Inspec[ions Func[ions 41
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendulion # 27: LIEP shauld involve itself in a complete improvement practices process
that includes planning, implementation and evaluation of its improvements.
Recommendation # 28: LIEP needs to use data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of its
improvement practices. So far, they have little documentation to substantiate claims of
improvement other than anecdotal evidence.
Quality of Improvement Practices
Internal Evaluation
As mentioned above, an important component of improvement practices is evaluation of cunent
practices. It was clear from interviews and surveys that there is very little systematic evaluation
taking place in LIEP. Alarmingly, 72% of survey respondents stated they "don't know" if L[EP
systematically evaluates its activities. Of those who did know, they stated it was once a year.
Most evaluation in LIEP seems to be very informal — essentially reacting to a problem when it
arises and devisittg a method to address the problem, but not really seazching for the source of
the problem. It is entirely possible staff who stated evaluation is done annually were considering
their annual reviews as the systematic evaluation of LIEP. It is also possible that the high
number of "don't know" responses may be a result of respondents not understanding the
meaning of systematic evaluation. We consider systematic evaluation to be periodic
measurement and examination of organizational results. An example is a caz owner calculating
miles per gallon under different circumstances. The responses in this category aze similar to
those in Planning, with a lazge percentage of staff saying they don't know how often eval aation
occurs or what the results aze.
Improvement Practices Quality Findings
Finding #4'7: LIEP staff aze largely unawue of any intemal evaluation taking place in LIEP.
Finding #48: LIEP has not prepared concrete plans to implement its lazger improvement
practices, such as the automation efforts.
Improvement Practices Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 29: It is apparent that LIEP has few formalized and widely understood
goals. Therefore, LIEP staff should be involved in defining improvement practices, setting goals
and evaluating activities. (Goal setting is discussed in the planning, leadership and results
quality sections). Improvement practices should link activities to goals and objectives. They
should a(so help organizations achieve theii�, goals and objectives.
See also Recommendation #41 in Results and the Performance Measures Chapter.
2000 Sainf Paul City Counci! Research
.
42
Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
CUSTOMER
FOCUS
Policy Compliance: —
Quality Rating: ��.`C
KEY CUSTOMER FOCUS
CONCEPTS:
❑ Customer ldentification & Knowledge
❑ Managing Customer Relationships
❑ Customer Service Practices
❑ Customer Service Standards
Attention to customer needs is critical for achieving organizational excellence. Through the
creation and management of relationships with their customers, organizations which excel in
customer satisfaction obtain information on customer service requirements, expectations and
satisfaction. Knowing the requirements of its customers enables an organization to develop
standards which are designad to enhance customer satisfaction. For these standards to be
effective, they must be understood and followed by everyone in the organization.
In recent years, LIEP has placed a great deal of emphasis on providing good customer service,
although there are still some areas in whicli LIEP could improve. It deserves mention that
developing a culture of providing good customer service requires a cultural shift from a rigid
code and "rule" enforcement emphasis to a more customer focused approach. Recently published
research indicates that the burden associated with regulation is not inspection per se, but the
manner in which enforcement is carried out. "Bringing about the right kind of building code
enforcement is more difficult than taking a meat axe to regulations and enforcement staffs, which
has been the rallying cry of those who wail against regulatory burdens."
Improvement in this area also requires that staff understand the importance of customer service
training and that good customer service skills can be leamed or enhanced. Some members of
LIEP's staff do not believe good customer service can be learned, so management has felt the
only option in these cases is simply to model good customer service in the hope that staff will
mimic that behavior.
LIEP's Customers
LIEP considers its primary customers to be those who apply for building permits and go through
the plan review and inspections processes. They have improved a number of their services and
practices to better meet these customers' needs. Unfortunately, few people outside LIEP know of
these improved services. Marketing these services may improve code compliance and assist
LIEP in enhancing its one-stop-shop image. For example, LIEP offers an express site plan
review if the customer is anxious to begin the project. LIEP also provides preliminary plan
reviews, issues express permits for such things as roofs, and offers one-hour free parking while
visiting LIEP. Marketing these valuable services to the general population could be beneficial in
assisting property owners and contractors in understanding that the process of obtaining a
�$ Raymond J. Burby, Peter J. May, Emil E. Malizia, and Joyce Levine, Building Code Enjorcemen/ Burdens and
Central Ciry Dec(ine. Journal of the American Plannine Associatioq Vol. 66, No.2, Spring 2000. page I55.
2000 Saint Poul City Conncil Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 43
building permit is not nearly as cumbersome as they might expect. Certainly word-of-mouth is
also an impoRant method for sharing this information as many contractors work with each other
on various projects and are likely to share experiences.
A very useful marketing tool, largely neglected by LIEP, is the Intemet. Not only could LIEP's
website be used for marketing, but also for providing services directly to customers, such as
building permits, zoning and code information, plan review and inspections results. LIEP has as
one of its objectives, identified in its 1996 Strategic Action Plan, to "Develop a Home Page on
the Internet to provide information to our customers and a means to accommodate remote
transactions 24 hours per day" by the end of 1996. Online Business Systems, Inc. was to
develop this resource, but their contract was terminated prior to completion. The fact their web
site is essentially useless to customers demonstrates a gap in LIEP's efforts to become a
customer-focused organization.
Customer Service Practices
Permitting/Customer Service Section
In general, LIEP's first point of customer contact is the &ont-counter stafE Property owners and
contractors will most likely call LIEP to ask questions or come to the front counter to apply for a
permit. LIEP has a number of informational sheets avaiiable answering basic questions about
requirements for certain types of projects, and sample plans indicating the minimum building
requirements for common projects such as stairways and garages. It was repoded by other LIEP
staff that the front-counter employees are very good at providing customer service and aze always
willing to make cfianges that improve customer satisfaction. LIEP has also designed a system to
issue express permits for simple and straight-forward projects such as roofing and fences. LIEP
will also issue "early start" permits which allow a project to begin before all permits have been
issued. An example would be issuing a foundation permit for a building bafore the mechanical
plans have been approved. In some cases, LIEP also maintains accounts for contractors or
businesses that frequently pull permits, and simply deducts the permit fees from that account.
Plan Review and Zoning Site Plan Review Section
While the plan reviewers and site plan reviewers have few formal customer service guidelines,
they all attampt to review plans as quickly and accurately as possible. Another very positive
customer-oriented practice is the aforementioned preliminary plan review process, during which
LIEP staff ineet with developers, contractors, or property owners to go over plans informally to
look for any potential problem areas. This allows the plan submitter to make changes to the
plans prior to formal review, at which point changes become more expensive to make and the
process takes longer. The hardest step for many people is initially gathering the right
information for plan review. The preliminary plan review provides them the opportunity to find
out what they still need before they pay any fees or spend a lot of time changing plans and
adding information. If necessary, staff will also perform a preliminary site plan inspection.
Plan Review staff ineet with plan submitters to discuss the necessary changes upon formal review
of the plans, and will follow up the meeting with a]etter explaining the required changes. Plan
reviewers will also call the applicant if they do not meet with them. Staff should be commended
for this customer-focused practice.
�
2000 Sainl Paul City Counci! Research
44 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Sain[ PauPs Building Pemiit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Inspections Section
Council Research found several areas where inspections policies could be clarified across trades
groups. We also found several situations in which a policy would be helpful in creating clearer
expectations for both the inspectors and the customers. Customer service standards would also
assist in alleviating some of this confusion.
LIEP does not have a policy pertaining to providing customers with appeals information. Some
inspectors provide verbal information when they give the correction orders; others provide
written information when they send out change orders. The lack of clarity may be causing
confusion for the customer. Without a cleaz policy and a uniform practice, customers will not
receive the same information in a consistent manner.
Council Research found through the interview process that some inspectors do not suggest
equivalencies when they require changes. They simply say "you can't do that." Inspectors have
a great deal of latitude, as they aze given the authority to grant equivalences provided the intent
of the code has been met. Interviews with LIEP staff indicated some inspectors will grant
equivalences themselves, others will defer to their supervisor or to the building official, and
others simply avoid granting them if to hide at all possible. However, it is important to also
mention that although consistency is in use of equivalencies is necessary, a"business-friendly"
approach demands that inspectors maintain a fair amount decision-making authority in the field.
Linked to the lack of equivalencies granted may be an attitude of a few inspectors that contractors
and property owners are attempting code violations from them. In many cases, it could simply be
an oversight or the property owners or contractor's lack of knowledge. If the inspector took time
to explain why the code infraction is a life/safety issue, contractors or property owners may
willingly comply. It is possible that the less flexible inspectors may lack a sense of accountability
for their actions. Some inspectors do not appear to feel accountable to anyone except themselves
and operate seemingly in a vacuum. They know many contractors fear retaliation if they complain
about an inspector. A couple of business owners mentioned to Council Research they have felt
sufficiently intimidated by particular inspectors that they did not complain about an inspection,
when they otherwise would have. These problems may be linked to comments from other City
staff who interact with LIEP's inspectors and customers that some inspectors serve the interests of
their own trade associations before the interests of LIEP or the City. Some inspectors forego more
customer-friendly actions because they view safety as their main objective and use enforcement as
their primary method of obtaining compliance. [t must also be mentioned that many of L[EP's
inspectors are interested in working with contractors and property owners. The few who are not
damage relationships between the City, its residents and businesses.
Another problematic practice in inspections is the final inspection. Most inspectors will sign the
back of the permit indicating the work meets code standards. Some inspectors will leave either a
yellow card, if they are unable to sign-off on the permit because changes still need to be made, or
a green cazd if they aze unable to get in to inspect a project because no one is home. Most
communication appears to be with the contractor. While this is certainly important, it would be
beneficial to the owner if they were given the same information as the contractor, particularly
when a permit cannot be closed out due to remaining required changes.
19 "Business-friendly supervisory practices emphasize the attainment of enforcement goals while giving inspectors
a considerable degree of freedom in how they interact with contractors and developers." Burby, et al, Ibid. p. 155.
2000 5ain! Paid City Ca�ncil Research
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 45
One final problem discovered with the inspections process is that not alt inspectors readily identify
themselves by either showing or wearing a badge stating they are an inspector for the City of Saint
Paul. This has caused some wariness and concem by property owners who find an unfamiliar
person on their property. Notably, it is LIEP policy that all inspectors verbally make known their
presence and purpose as soon as is practical at the work site. Certainly wearing a badge to a site
that an inspector visits on a regular basis may seem unnecessazy, but it would aid all workers on
site in identifying the inspector. However, we found during our field visits with inspectors that the
inspectors immediately identified themselves to the contractors or property owners.
The Housing Initiative
Another customer-focused improvement practice is the Housing [nitiative, which is an effor[ to
increase the number of housing units in Saint Paul. Part of the Initiative is to speed housing
projects through the site plan review process and lower the permit and plan review fees.
Reportedly, the Initiative has been mazketed through newsletters, seminars, newspaper reporters,
the BRC, and relevant organizations.
Initially, the community received misleading information regarding the purpose of the Housing
Initiative. The original resolution establishing the Housing Initiative, presented by LIEP and
approved by the City Council and Mayor, stated the amount of fees for all housing units
approved from September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000 would be cut in hal£ Two problems
existed with the resolution. First, LIEP cut the fees for new housing projects only, not for
rehabilitation projects, which caused some confusion. Second, the permit and plan review fee
cuts were instituted through a resolution, not through an ordinance as is required, as Council
Research discovered. The problems were corrected in late 1999 through passage of an ordinance
cutting the fees in half during this time period for new construction only.
Customer Service Poficy Compliance Findings
Finding #49: LIEP has improved a number of practices which benefit customers, but they have
not mazketed them effectively. We found a number of good customer-focused practices such as:
❑ express permits;
❑ handouts with basic information particulazly beneficial to first-time applicants;
❑ pre-paid permit fee accounts;
❑ express site plan reviews;
a preliminary plan reviews and inspections; and
❑ euly start authorization.
Finding #50: LIEP has not effectively developed its website to allow for online permit
applications, zoning and building code infortnation, plan review, inspections results notification
and Housing Initiative information.
Finding #SL• LIEP encountered a number of problems with the Housing Initiative, such as the
deFnition of applicable projects and the legislative authority required to implement the program.
Finding #52: Only a few trade inspectors weaz badges visually identifying themselves on-site
during inspections. While it is policy that all inspectors identify themselves and carry
1000 Salnt Paul City Counci! Research
46 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
identifrcation, a policy requiring them to wear a badge may assist contractors and building
owners in more readily identifying the inspector.
Finding #53: No uniform procedure exists for giving customers appeals process information.
Finding #54: No uniform process exists for granting equivalencies, and some trade inspectors
are resistant to granting them.
Finding #55: Some inspectors seem to hold the attitude that contractors and property owners are
trying to hide violations from them. This attitude sometimes results in antagonistic behavior
toward the contractor or property owner.
Finding #56: No uniform process exists for leaving final inspection information with a
contractor or property owner.
Customer Service Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 30: Develop marketing strategies for promoting the express permits, the
preliminary plan review process, pre paid permit accounts, parking reimbursement and any
other customer focused practices.
Recommendation # 31: LIEP is one of the City agencies which has the most direct contact with
residents and businesses seeking information, and stands to 6enefit greatly from having as much
information as possible on its web page. Completion of the web site should be a high priority
for LIEP, particularly in light of the goal to have it completed by the end of 1996. Information
that should be available Jo customers on-line includes:
0 permit apptications and permit status information;
❑ inspeetions results;
❑ general building code and zoning information, similar to the paper handouts available;
❑ information on special programs and projects, such as the Housing lnitiative;
❑ a Frequently-Asked-Questions (FAQ) page; and
G] an "ask-the-inspector" page in which visitors could post general questions to trade
inspectors.
Recommendation # 32: LIEP should develop a policy requiring trade inspectors to wear an
identification badge at all times while performing inspections.
Recommendation # 33: LIEP should develop a policy for granting equiva(encies which is known
and used by all inspectors in an effort to make the practice fair, consistent and usefu(. The City
Attorney should be involved in developing this policy to ensure it is legally sound. The
development of these policies will enhance LIEP's image in !he City.
Recommendation # 34: LIEP should work to change the attitude of its inspectors who believe
that contractors and property owners are trying to hide something from them. They should
immediately cease threatening properry owners with retaliation, which is cantrary to LIBP
policy, but is reported to happen from time to tdme.
2000 Sain! Pa�d Ciry Conncil Researcl�
Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permi4 P�en Review and Inspections Functions 47
Recommendation # 35: LIEP should deve[op a process for leaving information with both
property owners and contractors upon ftnal inspections, particularly when changes are still
required before the permit can be closed.
Recommendation # 36: LIEP should [ook at the practices of building inspections departments in
other cities for possible customers service improvements. One suggestion wou(d be maintaining
evening hours one or trvo nights a week to make it easier for homeowners who work during the
day to apply for permits, such as is the practice in San Diego.
Quality of Customer Focus
Customer ldentification
It is vital that employees in an organization identify a uniform group of customers in order to
best serve the interests of their customers. Within LIEP, both survey and interview respondents
identified very similar customers: property owners, citizens and contractors. LIEP staff indicated
that sometimes these different customers have competing interests, which aze difficult to balance.
What a contractor wants may not be in the best interest of the citizens, and LIEP staff are
required to make determinations based on life-safety criteria, rather than on what the "customer
at the desk" may want.
Customer Knowledge
Customer knowledge consists of understanding the customers needs and desires, and having
mechanisms in place to monitor those needs and desires. The survey indicated that many staff
feel customer needs and satisfaction aze monitored occasionally, though approximately one-third
of staff are not awaze of how often this is done. Interviews and documents indicate LIEP has
done customer service surveys in past yeazs and is preparing to do another one in 2000. The last
survey, done in 1998, was not useful due to a low response rate. LIEP also tracks complaints
and gets information on customer needs through professional associations, word-of-mouth,
correspondence and elected officials. Most information gathering on customer needs and
satisfaction is informal. LIEP does little to anticipate the future needs of customers.
Customer Relations
Staff indicated through the survey that LIEP is "mostly responsive" to changes in customer needs
and satisfaction, though again, one-half to one-third of staff do not know how responsive LIEP is.
One staff inember in an interview described very well what good customer service is for LIEP:
❑ being as responsive and timely as possible;
❑ being as proactive as possible by going to housing fairs and having a LIEP booth at fairs and
at home improvement stores to answer questions;
20 Evaluation of this experience could help LIEP in making fuWre improvements ro[he survey process.
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research
48 Performance Audit of th City of Saint Paul's Buildi P Pl an R e v iew an lnspections Function
❑ meeting with contractor groups to get information and feedback;
❑ hotding classes on code compliance;
❑ meeting with engineers to go over plans before work begins; and
❑ answering questions.
The lack of planning affects LIEP's ability to respond to customer needs and satisfaction
thoroughly. Planning takes into account potential changes in needs that result from changing
economic, technological and social factors and other influences. Associated with this lack of
planning is the slow development of the Intemet site for LIEP. The ability to look up permits,
apply for permits, and receive zoning and other information over the Intemet would be invaluable
to many of L[EP's customers. However, LIEP has focused very little energy on developing this
resource.
Some staff also mentioned the struggle between enforcement and customer service. They seem
to be unsure of how to provide good customer service while also enforcing codes effectively.
Many staff stated good customer service is defined in the LIEP employee performance evaluation
form, although they could provide no universally understood definition. The lack of a useful,
well-known definition of good customer service indicates a gap between the vision of senior
leaders and the implementation of that vision.
Customer Service Standards
Formal customer service standards help all staff understand what is expected of them by the
organization and by their customers. About half the staff indicated there are customer service
guidelines for LIEP, but about one-third do not know of their existence. Staff surveyed indicated
"some" customer service standards are written, though one-half of staff didn't know of their
existence. Staff also felt customer service guidelines aze "somewhat widely circulated," again
with one-half of staff not knowing of their existence.
The customer service guidelines LIEP has in place aze "mostly understood" and followed
frequently. The survey question relating to how often customer service guidelines are followed
received one of the highest average scores of all the survey questions, indicating staff felt very
strongly that the guidelines aze followed. Interviews also indicated that staff are very good at
providing customer service, and take great pride in this aspect of their work.
Customer Focus Quality Findings
Finding #57: LIEP staff consistently identified property owners, citizens and contractors as their
primary customers.
Finding #58: Staff are either unaware of customer needs and satisfaction monitoring or feel it is
done only occasionally.
2000 Sainf Pard Ciry Cormcil Researcb
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 49
Finding #59: A useful customer service survey has not been done in three years, though LIEP is
preparing to conduct one in 2000.
Finding #60: The lack of planning may affect L[EP's ability to effectively respond to changes
in customer needs and satisfaction.
Finding #61: LIEP has few formal written customer service standards.
Customer Focus Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 37: LIEP should consider other options besides an annual or biennial
survey for monitoring customer needs and satisfaction. Some suggestions include survey cards
issued with the Certificate of Occupancy or when a permit is closed. Another option is to focus
on evaluating one activiry per month. For example, give surveys to everyone who applies for a
permit in February, in March give surveys to everyone who has a site plan review, and in August
to everyone who receives an ittspection. This way, not all sections are burdened with conducting
a survey at the same time. If another, organization-wide survey is desired, LIEP should consider
consulting with organizations which have been successful in reaching a high response rate from
their customers.
Recommendation #.?8: LIEP should formalize customer service standards, such as pZan
review's three day turn-arouttd for basic plan reviews. This would help all staff understand the
customer service standards and how their work contributes to the goals set by the organization.
Recommendation # 39: LIEP should provide more customer service training for inspectors to
help them understand how they can provide good customer service and good code enforcement.
Recommendation # 40: Develop an idea/complaint/compliment line and/or e-mail address that
would allow customers to directly communicate with LIEP at their own convenience and at any
time, rather than just through the annual customer survey.
See also the Performance Measures Chapter.
1000 Saint PaW City Councif Research
50
PerFormance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
RESULTS
Policy Compliance: --
Quality Rating: �.`C
KEY RESULTS CONCEPTS:
❑ OrganizationalOutcomes
❑ FinancialOutcomes
❑ Customer Satisfaction
❑ Use of Performance Indicators
Results is the section of the Malcolm Baldrige system which deals with an organization's ability
to determine if and how well it is accomplishing its mission. Results should focus on creating
and balancing value for all stakeholders, whether they be customers, employees, suppliers, the
general public or individual neighborhoods. The use of performance indicators, also known as
performance measures, offers an effective means to communicate both short- and long-term
priorities and provide a focus for improving results. Results measurement should be the last
phase in an ongoing cycle involving goal setting, planning, the execution of plans and
improvement practices. Using results information in this way, can help staff provide the best
service in the most efficient way possible. Decision and policy makers can also use results
information to monitar the provision of services on the public's behalf, ensuring government
accountability.
LIEP received its lowest rating in this performance audit in the Resuits area. This is particularly
problematic in that the Malcolm Saldrige system weights Results the most heavily of its seven
categories. In recent years, the Results category in the Malcolm Baldrige awazd program has
been given between 40% and 60% of the total points available. The reasons for LIEP's low
rating are discussed in detail below. However, Council Research also believes there is potential
for improvement in this area in the near future due to computer system improvements. Those
possibilities aze discussed on page 36. Finally, the essence of Results is a system of performance
indicators. Although the presence and use of performance indicators is covered in this chapter,
the following chapter, beginning on page 53, is dedicated exclusively to performance indicators
for LIEP.
We did not include a separate discussion of policies in the Results azea, only a quality assessment
discussion. Results policies aze embedded in the City's annual budget process, as well as other
places, and aze discussed in detaii in the Performance Indicators chapter.
Results Measurement in LIEP
Results measurement requires adequate information sys;ems, a carefully thought-out system of
indicators and consistent, periodic measuring. As discussed at iength in earlier sections of this
report, LIEP has nearly completed its transition to using the ECLIPS and AMANDA systems.
These systems have the potential to provide a variety of data for the organization to analyze. The
challenge will be determining what is good and useful information for the day-to-day
management of operations, and what are good indicators of how the organization is performing.
Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that measures of results can and often do involve
assessments which are not quantitative in nature. Not all useful things can be "counted," but they
do need to be taken into account, documented and reported over time.
1000 Soin( Pard Ciry Coancrl Research
�dormance Audil of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions 51
LIEP has historically gathered and analyzed some information on its performance. This is
exemplified in past years' budgets and in the annual reports prepared by the former Building
Inspection and Design Division. However, in recent years, these activities have ceased almost
completely. L[EP continues to only estimate all vitat organizational statistics, except for the
revenue derived from licenses and permits. For 1998 and 1999, there are no firm numbers in
the budget indicating the annual number and type of permits, the number and type of plan
reviews conducted or inspections performed. However, it must be noted that in the budget
process, the Mayor's Budget Office did not review LIEP's performance indicators with staff to
determine their usefulness in poMraying LIEP's workload. This is perplexing given the
reportedly high volume of construction and rehabilitation in Saint Paul in recent years. However,
this lack of ineasurement is symptomatic of inadequate performance measurement and
accountability standards on a Citywide basis.
Given this lack of information and analysis, it is not surprising that over half the staff surveyed
do not know how often LIEP measures its results. In fact, this survey question elicited the
highest proportion of "don't knows" of all 46 of the surveys questions. Of those who did answer,
the most common response was `bccasionally." Not surprisingly, most staff are unaware of
comparisons between LIEP and other, similar organizations. The interviews conducted also
indicated that when comparisons are made, they tend to be anecdotal.
Despite the lack of specific performance measures, the most common response to the survey
question on how often LIEP meets its goals was "frequently" for those who answered the
question. This question received one of the highest average responses of al] survey questions. In
a follow-up survey question, Council Research asked how staff knew they were meeting their
goals. The majority of the written answers indicated staff knew they were meeting the
organization's goals because of 1) positive customer feedback received in customer surveys and
in person; and 2) the quality of the City's building stock. Notably, these aze two areas where
some specific performance measures can and have been done.
It also became apparent in the performance audit process that staff had valid concems about the
use of performance indicators. Some were concerned that activities which could not be easily
"measured" would lose value. Others thought it would be near impossible to measure the final
"results" oFLIEP's activities---such as a quality building stock and urban landscape which is
likely to have a useful life well into the future. Therefore, they believed the organization would
then begin to shift its focus to work "outputs," such as the number of inspections conducted or
plans reviewed, which can be easily tabulated, but may not speak to the quality of work
performed. The Performance Indicators chapter will provide guidelines and suggestions for
alleviating these concems and creating useful performance measures.
Z � From permit revenue information, LIEP can determine the approximate value of all projects undertaken.
22 There are several indicators of the quality of [he City's building stock. These include, among others: 1) the class
ratings for the City's commerciat office space; 2) the Housing Survey conducted by PED in the 1980s; 3) results of
the Certificate of Occupancy Program which provides minimum standards for buildings; and 4) pos[ major storm
assessments done both by the public and private sectors.
2000 Sainf Pa�J Ciry Coimcil Research
52 Perfortnance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Results Quality Findings
Finding #62 There has been a significantly reduced focus on examining the results of
organizational activities recently. This ►ack of emphasis may seem justified because past
performance measures had little meaning and held little value for their users. However,
meaningful measures can be developed. This seems to be true not only for L[EP, but also more
broadly throughoutthe City.
Finding #63 In spite of the lack of performance indicators, staff use the ones they have available
(customer surveys and building data) to determine if they are meeting the L[EP's goals.
Finding #64 LIEP's emphasis on customer service is clearly internalized by many staff:
Finding #65 Despite the poor rating given in this azea, Council Research believes LIEP is
poised to develop a meaningful performance measurement system. Many of the "building
blocks" are in place to make a useful perfonnance measurement system in LIEP. The new
information management systems will have the capability to provide many types of information
to staff. These information management systems will also act as a catalyst for changing and
rethinking some work processes. For example, the use of handheld computers by inspectors wili
significantly change the flow of information from the field to the central office, and from one
inspector to another. LIEP is also in the process of initiating another cycle of planning, albeit a
much less formal undeRaking than used in the past. These events combine to make this an ideal
time for the organization to develop new performance measures which will meet its needs. If
LIEP fully takes advantage of these circumstances and pursues an inclusive process for
developing perFormance measures, the rating would improve substantially.
Results Quality Recommendation
Recommendation # 41: LIEP needs to develop a meaningful performance indicators system for
determining how well they are meeting the organization's goals. This process needs to overtly
take into account issues which may not be "measurable, " but which also need to be documented
and reported over time. The development process should also be inclusive and incorporaJe staff
ideas. A performance measurement system should function not only to give feedback to
managers and policy makers, but also to staff who rely on it to provide them regular feedback on
individual activities. Al! of the organization's stakeholders have an interest in knowing how well
the organization is meeting its goals. Examples ofspecific measures are outlined in the nex�
chapter. Additionally, the Mayor's O�ce should much more actively monitor performance
indicators used in the budget and assist the City's departments in developing more meaningful
indicators.
2000 Saint PaiJ Ciry Cotmci! Research
I
Performance Audit of the City oFSaint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions 53
Performance Measures
Performance indicators are a means by which an organization determines the degree to which it is
achieving its mission. Not evetything an organization does and seeks to accomplish can be
quantified, but rather thare are some measures that are good indicators of its success. LIEP's
mission is clear, and it bears restating here. It is "to be a unified customer service organization,
which promotes a healthy and safe environment through information and enforcement of codes
and ordinances." In this chapter we will explore how LIEP seaks to inform itself, its customers
and its stakeholders about how well it achiaves its mission. This chapter is intended to provide a
basis for discussion and assist LIEP in refining the measures cunently in use. LIEP is just now
completing implementation of AMANDA, the information system which will track much of the
needed data for performance measurement. Therefore, it is a critical juncture for LIEP in the
consideration of these issues.
Council Research has approached this examination of performance indicators with several
assumptions in mind. First, we believe the City Council has a vasted interest in examining
performance indicators as a part of the budget raview process. The use of performance indicators
gives the Council a ciear picture of what has been accomplished in past years, and expectations
for future years. They meaningfully connect dollazs spent and the services expected of City
govemment. Indeed, as the Council deliberated upon "managed competition proposals," the
need to translate City activities into meaningful performance indicators became very apparent.
The development of such indicators is necessary to make clear to anyone— employees or private
vendors just what performance is required. Second, we believe performance indicators can be
useful management tools for communicating with staff about expectations. However, we also
put forward the notion that staff must be a part of the creation of perforrttance indicators and see
their usefizlness in their daily work lives. The people who will, in practice, provide information
for performance indicators are also pmfoundly affected by what the indicators may reveai.
Finally, although we recognize there aze timitations in what performance indicators can
communicate about the success of an organization, there is little else available to provide "a
gauge" on progress. The logical altemative, comprehensive program evaluations, are time
consuming and expensive when compared to tracking performance indicators. Also, such
evaluations do not necessarily provide for incremental improvement.
Two problematic performance indicator issues came to light in the audit process. First, the
Director indicated that 1997 was the last yeaz they used actual figures for the budget process—
after which time LIEP has been using conservative estimates. It should be taken into account that
the Office was undergoing a significant transition from a mix of computer and paper information
management systems, to its new automated systems, ECLIPS and AMANDA. In this
environment it may well have been difficult to piece together and tabulate the required
information. However, it was not cleaz in tha budget that estimates were being used, which is
particularly apparent in reviewing 1998 data in the 2000 proposed budget, where no such
notation was provided. Council Reseazch views this situation as particularly problematic because
the Council was informed that we have recently been experiencing record construction years in
Saint Paul. At the same time, the impact of this increase was not reflected in data, projections or
estimates provided by LIEP, although the workload had clearly increased. The second
problematic issue is that the Budget Office does not, as a practice, review the performance
indicator information provided in tYte budget. Yet, it is likely most staff and the Council assume
2000 Sain1 Pad Ciry Council Research
54 Pert'ormance Audit ofihe City of Saint PauPs Building Per P R an in Functions
this a standard practice, and, therefore, believe the Budget Office knows, understands and
monitors these indicators.
LIEP has, of course, some performance indicators in its budget. They are organized by activity
area, and we have followed this organization in our discussion: customer service and permitting,
plan review, zoning and inspections. Notably, sometimes the objectives and indicators in one
area of L[EP's budget will overlap with those of another. In those cases, we cover the topic in
the area to which the objective relates most clearly. For each area, we have looked for
performance indicator coverage of the following:
❑ customer service, which includes timeliness, helpfulness and accuracy;
❑ efficiency, which includes timeliness, costs and staff time; and
❑ effectiveness, which includes quality and results from activities.
Permitting/Customer Service
LIEP has made improving its customer service in all parts of the organization a priority. This
emphasis on providing excellent customer service can be measured, as is demonstrated in the
excerpted poRion of the Customer Service activity budget in the following box. [n that budget
activity we see a performance indicator stating that customer service surveys should show that
95% of customers will be satisfied. The data for this performance indicator have been garnered
from some informal surveys conducted by staff. PED also conducts a biennial business survey,
with specific questions pertaining to LIEP services. With respect to the other customer service
indicator, number of complaints registered in the area of customer service, it was not clear to the
audit team how, and if, such complaints were compiled and tracked. Given that reported
complaints have been zero for several yeazs, perhaps a more meaningful indicator should be
developed, such as tracking "counter" errors in the processing of permits and licenses.
There aze several indicators in this budget activity which speak to efficiency. Among these are
the number of permits and licenses issued, and files maintained. While these are no doubt useful
in some regards, given that the Office has been using estimates, these numbers have little value
when examined over time. They also give little indication of the effort involved to generate
permits. Therefore, another area which may be useful to pursue is to examine the average
amount of time it takes to process permits and licenses. For example, it would be useful for
stakeholders and customers to know that for a simple project, such as a roof or fence, 75% or
90% of customers will need only %z hour to obtain a permit. Such a measure need not be done on
a daily basis, but surveyed periodically. Similar measares could be developed for projects
requiring plan review or zoning staff involvement. Initiation of such measures would make
meaningful the following objective from LIEP's 1998 budget: "Since the initiation of the Process
Redesign effoR in 1994, LIEP has realized a reduction in processing time for permits and
licenses, a reduction in the number of delinquent license renewals, an increase in collection for
these renewals, and a decrease in the time required to obtain permit and license services from the
City." The problem was well-articulated by one tenured manager interviewed who said "I know
it's true, but [ don't know how to prove it."
2000 Sainl Pn�J Ctty Co��ncil ResearcA
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Pian Review and Inspections Functions 55
Customer Service 2000
Ongoing Program Objectives
(omits non audit area activities) —
❑ Continue to provide accurate information
and excellen[ cus[omer to bo[h intemal and
external customers. �
0 Continue implementation of process redesign
to simplify in[ernal procedures as well as
ex[ernal process (ordinance changes).
❑ Develop a written poiicy and procedure
manual for all customer service functions.
2000 Projects
❑ Design, distribute and report on Customer
Service Survey for LIEP customers.
❑ Continue and comple[e the ECLIPS project
by the implementation of AMANDA and
performance enhancemen[s.
Performance Indicators:
❑ Customer service survey sa[isfaction results
❑ Complaints registered in the areas of
customer service
❑ Ordinance changes enacted
❑ Procedures revised
Customer Service Statistics:
❑ Permits Issued
❑ Compe[ency Certificates issued
❑ Number of trade licenses issued
❑ Licenses issued (all types)
❑ Number of property files maintained
❑ Purchase orders and vouchers processed
Finally, the Customer Service Activity Perfortnance Plan has a performance indicator which
states that 50 procedures will be revised in 1999 and 30 in 2000. The audit team was perplexed
as to the value of counting the number of procedures changed. Change is expected to be
ongoing, usually leading to improvements in other performance indicators. Although we
compliment LIEP on trying to improve its procedures, we believe other performance indicators
would better capture this concept.
Zoning and Site Plan Review
Although the budget activity discussed in the above paragraphs bore the title "customer service,"
other areas in L[EP also have customer service concepts embedded in their work activities,
including Zoning and Site Plan Review. There is only one specific customer service
performance indicator in the budget for Zoning and Site Plan Review. It states the average
response time for zoning complaints will be 4 days. This is an excellent indicator that L[EP may
wish to enhance. The indicator could also speak to average complaint resolution times, or
indicate that some percentage of zoning violation complaints are responded to in 4 days. Also in
the azea of customer service, LIEP has been striving to streamline and shoden the site plan
review process. There were no performance indicators addressing these effofts in the 2000
budget. However, it seems evident that LIEP could be clear about the average length of time for
site plan reviews, once LIEP has all the required materials. It also seems reasonable that other
customer service indicators should be developed for zoning activities, such as looking at average
or expected turn-around times on projects and also customer survey results. Finally, an excellent
customer service practice is that all applicants who go through the site plan review process
receive both a call and a letter explaining the results.
As was the case in customer service and permitting, some statistics are maintained on the staff's
workload. These include counts of site plans reviewed, zoning variances processed, appeals
processed, and zoning histories researched to determine legality of use. And again, while these
2000 Saim PatJ City Council Research
56
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Punctions
indicators have some value, actual figures have not been gathered in recent years. Also, there is
little indication of the staff effort involved in performing these activities. Such an indicator could
be used for monitoring workload, as well as developing minimum or maximum time
expectations for customers.
Perhaps the most logical measure of the effectiveness of zoning and site plan review is
wmpliance with the City's Zoning Code and adherence to the specifications of approved site
plans. Compliance with the City's Zoning Code can be gauged best by using zoning complaints
and zoning histories researched to determine compliance. Relatedly, monitoring the types of
variances and appeals can give indications of the effectiveness of the Zoning Code in addressing
current circumstance in the community. ff a particular type of appeal is received repeatedly, it
may indicate procedures could be streamlined or revised to better handle the problems. It could
also mean the Code is unnecessarily restrictive in a given azea. For example, the Zoning Code
provides for "planned development districts." All staff interviewed indicated this section of the
code was so difficult to use they avoided it, if at all possible, and tried to use other portions of
the code to achieve similar ends.
LIEP
Zoning/Site Plan Review 2000
Ongoing Program Objectives:
0
0
n
To provide prompt, thorough zoning information
to the public; to assist those businesses and
property owners applying for permits or licenses,
explaining the processes necessaty to meet zoning
code requirements.
To investiga[e and enforce zoning regula[ions. 1)
Responding to complaints, 2) Assuring
compliance with conditions placed on approved
site plans, variances, special and nonconforming
use permits and business licenses, and 3) using
the Housing Court and District Court when
appropriate to achieve compliance.
To review site plans, both preliminary and
formal, and coordinate the interdepartmentai si[e
plan review process.
Plan Review
C
To staff the Board of Zoning Appeals, preparing
staff reports, and providing information to Board
members, applicants and neighbors.
To certify zoning compliance for new
construction and alterations, licenses, and
certificates of occupancy, for which fees aze
collected through permits, licenses and
certificates of occupancy fees.
0
Performartee Indicators:
�
■
■
site plans reviewed
zoning variances and appeals processed
zoning histories researched to determine legality
of use
complain[ response time in days
�]
Plan Review, like Customer Service and Permitting, has contact at the counter with customers
every day, in addition to the more in-depth reviews of plans. It is a very customer-oriented work
group and is perceived by peer groups to be effective in both applying appropriate codes and
helping customers. Strangely, it has no customer service performance indicators of its own in the
budget, although some used by Customer Service and Permitting have relevance to this activity
as well. Through the audit process it became clear that Plan Review had several concrete
performance indicators it relied upon on a daily basis, although these do not appear in the budget,
and we were not clear if they were ever overtly measured. First, there has been an emphasis on
shortening approval time for permit applications. Second, there is an expectation that plan
reviews for new single- and two-family houses will be completed within 72 hours of receiving
2000 5ain� Po�d Crty Ca+mci! Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni[, Plan Review and [nspec[ions Functions 57
complete plans. No doubt, the use of checklists in the AMANDA system will both facilitate
faster plan review times, and make their measurement possible. Third, LIEP does offer a service
of providing "partial project permits," where a customer can get part of a project reviewed and
permitted while plans for other parts of the project are still in development. This is an especially
helpful practice for large, complicated projects. LIEP may be able to develop performance
measures to better gauge how often this is used.
Plan review has several performance indicators in the budget related to effwiency. These
indicators include: the numbers of permits issued, plans examined, historical permits received,
inspections made, and the annual construction value for Saint Paul. These indicators suffer from
the same problems discussed earlier; namely, they have not actually been counted for several
years and they have no context in terms of effoR necessary to accomplish them. Benchmarks and
standards should be developed to make these indicators more meaningful. Plan Review may also
wish to examine the code to develop ideas for potential performance indicators. For example, the
audit team was informed that plan check time specified in the L,egislative Code, Chapter
33.04(c�the City has 180 days to do a plan check—never expires without a permit being
issued. Clearly, such indicators have the added benefit of demonstrating compliance with
applicable laws. Finally, there are occasionally performance measures in this area which have no
meaning, and therefore no useful value. For example, the resolution establishing the Housing
Initiative (CF#99-815) states that one performance indicator of the Initiative is "number of new
housing units approved within 72 hours of receipt of complete plans: 500-700." This indicator
has no context, and as we discovered, there is no way to measure such an improvement, because
the Office has no data for recent years.
The effectiveness of Plan Review activities is ultimately determined in wmbination with the
effectiveness of Inspections. Literally, effectiveness needs to be measured in terms of the
improved safety and habitability of structures in the City because of the application of building
and other codes. As mentioned in the Results section, there are some ways the quality of the
City's building stock can be measured over time. Taking into account the other influences on the
quality of building stock, such as aging, we know at least a portion of the quality is attributable
to the use of building codes.
Although the quality of the City's building stock is ultimately the best measure to determine the
effectiveness of Plan Review, there are other measures that could be made inside the Office
which would also be appropriate for examining individual plan review activities. For example,
staff mentioned an informal indicator of the quality of their work is the number of plan review
200Q Saint Patd Ciry Cotmci( Research
58
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions
LIEP Operations: Plan Review 2000 Budget —
Ongoing Program Objectives
O To assure safety of citizens [hrough construction
standards compliance.
❑ To educate customers to achieve code compliance
without controversy or mnecessary expense.
❑ To maintain adequa[e records to demonstrate
efficiencies in administration and compliance to
constmcfion standards.
O To maintain professional standards of technical
ability while being accessible by and accountable
to our customers and [he public.
O To maintain telationships with organiza[ions and
agencies to assure Saint Paul remains a respected
leader in code and design professions.
2000 Budget Objective-
n
�
1
Continue [o work on the design and
implementation of the new computer system for
pennits and inspections.
The Office has participated in and will continue
to be active in public forums such as the Home
Tour, District Council Home Fairs, e[c., where
citizens have a chance to work wi[h [he inspectors
and plan reviewers in a more neutral
environmen[.
Our present computer system and the new system
under development will enable us to ensure that
our level of service will con[inue to improve.
❑ Our challenge is ro balance the requirement for
continuing education against the needs of our
customers. Our goal will be to allow sufticient
opportunities for this education while
maintaining adequate staffing levels to ensura
quick response to our cus[omers.
❑ We have several inspecrors who are involved
with National Code organizations. These groups
develop ffie codes that are adopted by Minnesota,
and directly affect the construction in Saint Paul.
In order ro ensure fair codes both now and in the
future, our inspec[ors will strive to maintain their
participation level for the future.
O There are several inspectors on the task group
whose responsibility is the analysis of various
software packages for the office-wide computer
system. These participants will be fully involved
until the end of the project.
Performance Indicators:
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we (LIEP) can verify that all
construction projec[s are inspected to protectthe
citizens of Sainl Paul.
0 The number of permits issued, cons[ruction valu
in millions, plans examined, historical permits
received;and
❑ Total inspections made.
mistakes discovered in the field. Tracking such an indicator would be a useful management
undertaking to determine the circumstances under which mistakes are made, as well as the types
of mistakes. Also, as is the case with the suggestion that Zoning monitor the types of appeals it
processed, it would also be useful in the same way for both Plan Review and [nspections to
monitor information on the granting of equivalencies. Finally, staff indicated that when
customers come in for preliminary plan reviews, they have a better understanding of
expectations. Customers aza then able to "get it right the first time" which decreases the time,
effort and money in the spend in plan review process. It also likely decreases total staff time
expended on the project. Clearly, preliminary plan reviews make the plan review process more
effective, and their use could be measured.Z
Z3 The Customer Focus Chapter discusses [he importance of promoting [he Preliminary Plan Review process on
page 43.
2000 Sainf Pa�d Crty Council Research
Performance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building PermiG Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions 59
Inspections
Inspectors differ from the other LIEP staff in that they tend to see the customer out in the field,
and not at the front counter or in a meeting. However, the customer focus considerations they
have are very like those of the rest of the Office. Inspections has only one goal in the budget
specifically addressing customer service; "to maintain professional standards of technical ability
while being accessible by and accountable to our customers and the public." The value of this
budget objective lies not with its ability to describe performance expectations, but rather in that it
articulates a problem in the inspections area that stafTclearly fee[ conflicted about "enforcing the
code" or "providing customer service." It would be very useful for the Inspections azea to begin
addressing this asing specific customer service performance indicators. In order to develop these
indicators, they would benefit from reviewing customer service surveys done by LIEP and PED.
These would help to identify areas of concern to customers.
In the area of timeliness, it is dearly an informal goal of staff to complete reports and arrive for
appointments in a timely fashion. Both ofthese activities will be much easier to document with
the advent of the AMANDA computer system. In terms of the reports of inspection findings, the
use of handheld computers in the field will help significantly with the timely "processing" of
inspection findings. This will help both from a management perspective, in that information will
be immediately available to other trades inspectors, and it will also be more quickly available to
the customer, in the event they aze not on site to hear the inspection repoR verbally.
Providing customers with information on the appeals process and sharing information and ideas
on appropriate "equivalencies" is central to good customer service. Council Research heard
consistently that information on appeals process is provided to the customer when change work
orders or stop work orders are given. However, there was inconsistency in that some inspectors
and trades would provide this information verbally and in letter form, while others would provide
it only in a letter. This inconsistency between staff work processes should be eliminated, with a
focus on providing the customer with appeal information in both settings. The use of the
AMANDA system and hand held computers in the field could provide a reminder in the form of
an item on one of the check-off lists. Council Research also became aware that some staff and
trades are much more likely to discuss equivalencies with contractors and property owners than
are others. The Office's approach to discussing and granting equivalencies should be consistent
across trade groups and among staff inembers. The AMANDA system has the potentiai to
monitor this and help the Office in developing a measurable standard.
As with the other work areas we examined, Inspections does little to measure the efficiency of its
operations. There was one objective in the year 2000 LIEP budget which spoke to efficiency,
which was "to maintain adequate records to demonstrate efficiencies in administration and
compliance to construction standards." Although such information is likely maintained, we saw
no use of the information which acted to demonstrate e�ciencies. The only performance
indicator in the budget related to efficiency is the number of inspections conducted, and this has
been an estimate in recent yeazs. It would be very useful to know the number of inspections by
type and trade, and time invested in them. At the very least, the average number of inspections
2a Equivalencies are altemative me[hods for accomplishing a[ask or project that mee[ [he in[ent of the Code,
althoagh they may not be specifically described in the Code. An example is the use of a piece of sheet metal
screwed [o the back of a standard wood door in order to make it a`bne-hour fire door." This accomplishes the end
of fire safety and saves the building owner money in the purchase of a new one-hour fire door.
2000 Saint Pau! Ciry Counci! Research
60 P e rf ortnance Audi[ of the Cityof Saint PauPs Building Pertni[, Plan R eview and lnspections Functions
and average times involved could be used for planning. Also, the advent of AMANDA makes
possible the tracking of activities in a way that takes into account the complexity of the task.
L[EP did this type of analysis in 1998 in preparing a proposal for the addition of a plumbing
inspector position. Clearly, they understand the importance of such information in describing
staff's workload.
LIEP
1
u
r•n
2000
❑ Our present computer system and the new one under
development will enable us to ensure that our level
of service witl continue to improve.
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construc[ion
projec[s are inspected to protect the citizens of St.
Paul.
0 To maintain adequate records to demonstrate
efficiencies in adminisUation and compliance to
construction standazds.
❑ To maintain professional s[andazds of technical
ability while being accessible by and accountable to
our cus[omers and the public.
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construction
projects aze inspected to protect citizens of St. Paul.
Ongoing Program Objectives:
2000 Budget L[EP Strategic Plan Statement:
Maintain quality services in light of the ever
increasing constmction levels (Tlvee record
consVUCtion yeazs in a row) with a minimum
increase in staff.
Implement the use of project facilitators to navigate
customers through the license, permit, and/or wning
processes and continue Process Redesign Initiative
to continualiy streamline procedures and eliminate
unnecessary regulations.
Integrate new ECLIPS sys[em with oiher
depar[mental systems through a single address file,
to achieve a fully seamless provision of service for
the City's customers.
Performance Indicators:
❑ 17uough monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construction
projects are inspected to pro[ect the citizens of St.
Paul,
❑ Construction value in millions
❑ Total inspections made
ZS RobeR Kessler Memo to Joe Reid, January 26, 1998.
Ongoing Pragram Objectives tor NHS/Vacant
Buildings:
❑ To maintain housing stock by returning vacant
buildings to sound structures.
❑ Inspec[ Vacant, Boarded and A6andoned
buildings for code violations, issuing permits,
and reinspecting for compliance.
❑ Maintain and improve neighborhoods by
inspecting one and two-family homes for
improvement areas and aiding owners in
prioritizing repairs within the limited funds
available.
❑ Iden[ify and work toward preserving desirable
buildings and significant s[ructures within
neighborhoods.
❑ Perform inspections and building' evaluations
for PED, East Side Neighborhood Developmen
Corpora[ioq Wes[ 7th Street Federation,
Neighborhood Housing Serv- ices Programs,
Non-Profit Corporations, or any other
organiza[ion needing these services.
Performance lodicators:
❑ Inspection to[als for original and repeat
inspec[ions
2000 Budget LIEP Operations pertormance
indicator:
❑"we have several staff involved with Na[ional
Code organiza[ions"
2000 Budget LIEP Operations Objective:
❑ Iden[ify and work toward preserving buildings
and significan[ structures within
neighbothoods.
2000 Sainl PaiJ Ciry Cmmcil Research
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 6 �
The effectiveness of inspection services can be measured in a fashion similar to the eff'ectiveness
of the other services we have discussed. There are two instances in the budget where the issue of
effectiveness is engaged. First, as an ongoing objective, the LIEP budget states "through
monitoring of the permit volume and valuation, we can verify that all construction projects are
inspected to protect citizens of Saint Paul:' While inspecting ail construction projects surely
does act to protect the citizens of Saint Paul, this can not be monitored using permit volume and
valuation data. These data, together with the actuai number of permits, do give an indication of
the complexity of the work undertaken. However, it is the number of permits which most
accurately estimates the number of projects requiring ittspection. LIEP should modify its
objective accordingly.
Second, the 2000 Budget LIEP Strategic Plan Statement states as a goal to "maintain quality
services in light of the ever increasing construction levels (three record construction years in a
row) with a minimum increase in staf£" This is an excellent goal, which takes into account a
changing environment—dramatic increases in construction. However, there are no performance
indicators connected to it which demonstrate the quality of LIEP's work. Such goals can be
consUucted at several levels. At one level, they could speak to the quality of the building stock,
as we discussed earlier. 1'hey could also measure the consistent quality of inspections in spite of
increased work volume. These indicators could include the average length of inspections, and
the types of inspections findings.
On a more pedestrian level, LIEP may wish to add effectiveness performance indicators in the
following areas:
❑ Number of correction notices which need to be re-issued;
❑ Number of mistakes in the various inspection activities, which would be collected by
supervisors;
❑ The number of stop work orders and number of times work is required to be redone;
❑ The average length of time buildings are on the vacant buildings list before Certificate of
Compliance issuance or demolition; and
❑ The effectiveness of the Housing Initiative at increasing housing construction, as discussed in
the Information and Malysis chapter on pages 33 though 37. Notably, a recent article
suggests the following: "...a central city thaY had adopted a business-friendly philosophy of
enforcement could have increased both the amount and the value of single-family detached
housing by about 9% over the period 1985-1995. Commercial rehabilitation could have
increased about 4% in the number of buildings and about 5% in the value of construction,"
This research could help the Housing Initiative establish useful benchmarks to measure their
progress at meeting their program goals. However, it does indicate that progress is slow, and
research attributes improvements to enforcement philosophy, rather than fee levels.
Z6 Burby, et al, Ibid., page 152.
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research
62 P erfort nanc e A of lhe Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
CONCLUSION
Overall Council Research found the quality criteria present and practiced in some parts of the
organization. LIEP is also generally in compliance with the policies that govem its activities.
Where deficiencies were found, we believe staff have the skills and interest to address them.
Notabty, staff were very helpfut in the performance audit process both in the interview process in
sharing their time and ideas, and later in responding to questions. What follows is a summary of
our findings.
Planning
LIEP did a great deal of planning during the mid-1990s to accomplish the merger of previously
separate operations that formed the Office. This planning took several forms. It addrassed the
actual co-location of these operations, necessary cross-training of counter staff, the raHonalization
of administrative procedures between the previously distinct units, and the improvement of
information support systems. Virtually no planning has taken place in recent years and L[EP
views itself to be in a"plan implementation" mode, rather than a"planning" mode. The
enormous amount of stafftime spent on implementing first ECLIPS, and then AMANDA have
also left staff with the impression there is little time for planning. It is also apparent that few
staffhave been involved in planning activities. Broader participation in plan development will
help staff become more aware of the existence of plans and give them a sense of ownership in the
plans' success. LIEP has also not been involved with the development of Comprehensive Plan
chapters affecting its work, and has not taken these plans into account in their decision-making
on individual building projects. Council Research found that planning activities in LIEP would
act to better allocate the resources of this office and prepare it for changing circumshances, such
as the record construction years recently experienced.
Leadership
Our examination found several aspects of LIEP's leadership policies and practices to be very
good. Namely, the commitment of senior leaders to provide a cleaz mission and vision for the
organization was quite apparent. This is in spite of survey results indicating a lack of vision
provided by the Mayor. Council Research noted that staff repeatedly commented on the
concerted efforts of leaders to recognize individual and team contributions. Finally, LIEP
leadership in recent years has acted to cultivate key stakeholder relationships, such as with the
advent of t6e Business Review Council. However, there is still more effort required in this area,
especially in terms of communication and inclusiveness in planning activities which should be
taking place. L[EP and the City are out of compliance with two state reporting requirements and
the requirements for a local board of appeals.
2000 Sainl Pa�d Ciry Counci! Research
Performance Audit o£the City of Saint PauPs Building Permi4 P�an Review and Inspections Functions 63
Training
Stafftraining in L[EP received the highest quality rating. LIEP clearly emphasizes training and
education for its staff, and sees its importance in the context of diminishing staff numbers. LIEP
should be lauded for its training and education efforts and co�tinue them. [n terms of improving
this area, LIEP should consider doing more cross-education of all its staff, so they may develop a
better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of their peers within the Office. LIEP
should also examine the allocation of training resources.
Development
Staff development was an area in LIEP in which Council Reseazch had a mix of good and
problematic findings. The survey indicated somewhere between one-fourth and one-fifth of staff
believe the work environment is not conducive to their well-being, that the labor management
relationship is poor, and there are few or no opportunities for them to contribute to the
organizations goals and work procedures. While it is good that three-fourths to four-fifths do not
shaze these perceptions, it is problematic that there is a fairly large core of people who rate these
azeas poorly. LIEP leadership must find a way to engage these staff and their concems. Council
Research suggests LIEP proactively involve them in planning activities, rather than waiting for
volunteers. Also, re-instituting a labor-management group of some type to identify specific
changes which would address problem areas would likely be helpful.
Information and Analysis
LIEP has been undergoing significant changes in the area of information management in recent
years. Council Research is ambivalent in many ways in its findings. While undertaking the
formidable task of automating the management of its infortnation is commendable, several
aspects of implementing ECLIPS and AMANDA could have been better handled, such as
communication with the Council on progress. There ue several types of problems we found in
this azea, some of which are attributable to LIEP directly, and other which aze more Citywide in
nature. However, these new information systems do give LIEP the ability to perform meaningfyl
analysis of its undertakings in the future. Therefore, we havc taken the unusual step of indicating
that it has the potential of significantly increasing its rating in this azea if improvements aze
made.
Improvement Practices
LIEP did not fare well in Council Research's examination of its improvement practices. These
mediocre findings are lazgely attributable to LIEP's lack of planning and evaluation activities,
and cunently poor information and analysis capabilities, which are integral components in the
improvement process. History shows the Office has an adequate basic understanding of
improvement processes, as this is demonstrated in the "quick fixes" undertaken in the mid-1990s.
2000 Sain� Paul Crty Council Research
64 Perfortn Audi[ of [tie City of Saint Paul's Building P Plan Review and In Functions
Customer Focus
The merger of separate operations into L[EP was the result of an increasing awareness—both in
City government and in the community—of the need for a more customer focused approach, The
merger also provided a means to "refocus" LIEP activities with customers in mind. Much credit
should be given to all involved for their efforts in this area. As with most organizational
initiatives, however, customer focus efforts need tending and continued refinement. There is still
a problem in the organization with the perceived conflict of providing "code enforcemenY'
service, as opposed to "customer service." These concepts need not be conflicting and LIEP
must strive to clarify their vision in this azea. Also, some new customer services are called for,
such as a dramatically improved web page.
Results
Given the recently poor quality of information used in LIEP, it is not surprising it received a poor
Results rating. LIEP needs to take time to figure out what are good performance indicators of
their work. This is a critical juncture for the Oftice to undertake this project, as ECLIPS and
AMANDA are just now capable of providing meaningful data for these measures.
Performance Indicators
The performance indicators and objectives used in the budget process in recent years have been
neglected both by LIEP and the Budget O�ce. Using performance indicators in an ongoing
cycle of planning, evaluation and improvement could significantly assist L[EP in years to come.
It will help for purposes of internal management, where there is almost no information on
workloads, activities or outcomes. Meaningful performance measures aze also key for a
government agency to remain accountable to its customers and stakeholders.
2000 Sarnf Paul City Co�mcil Research
Perfomiance Audi[ of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions 65
APPENDIX A: RESOURCES
Council Resolutions:
❑ Council File 94-293 / acceptance of grant funds for LIEP Process Redesign
❑ Council File 94-I550 / establishment of Business Review Council
❑ Council File 97- 1214 / establishment of funding for the Design Section
❑ Council File 97-1314 / acceptance of repod on Design Section aad release of contingency funds
❑ Council File 98-588 / establishing pay rate for "City Building Official°
❑ Council File 98-609 / establishing pay rate for "Plan Review Coordinator"
❑ Council File 98-1076 / establishing pay rate for "City Building OfficiaP'
❑ Council File 98-1077 / establishing pay rate for "L[EP Help Desk Coordinator"
❑ Council File 99-287 / authorizing contract and copyright agreement with U of M Press and the HPC
❑ Council File 99-357 / no developer fee associated with any multi-unit housing project shall exceed
certain guidelines
❑ Council File 99-553 / changing portion of salary plan and rates of compensation for the Building
Inspector
❑ Council File 99-587 / directing the HPC to develop a Heritage Preservation Site and Building
Designation Workplan
❑ Council File 99-815 / approval of special one year pilot program to reduce costs and speed
approvals for new housing construction
Saint Paul City Charter and the Legislative and Administrative Code:
Chapter 5 Permit Fees
Chapter 18 Legislative Hearing Officer
Chapter 19 Power of Inspectors to Enforce Provisions of Code
Chapter 33 Building Code and Inspection
Chapter 34 Minimum Property Maintenance Standards for All Structures and Premises
Chapter 37 Installation or Connection of Gas Equipment
Chapter 38 Elevators, Hoists, Lifts and Moving Stairways
Chapter 43 Vacant Buildings
Chapter 48 Condominium and Conversion Condominium Notice Filing Requirements
Chapter 50 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems
Chapter 60 Zoning Code-Adoption; Purpose; Definition; Districts Uses and Requirements
Chapter 61 Zoning Ordinance-Schedule of Regulations Limiting Heights, Bulk, Density, and
Area by Zoning Districts
Chapter 62 Zoning Code - General Provisions
Chapter 64 Zoning Code - Administration and Enforcement; Amendments; Miscellaneous
Provisions
Chapter 65 Zoning Code - River Corridor
Chapter 66 Zoning Code - Signs
Chapter 67 Zoning - Subdivision Regulations
Chapter 68 Zoning Code - Wetland Conservation
Chapter 72 Floodplain Management Regulations
Chapter 73 Heritage Preservation Commission
Chapter 74 Heritage Preservation Districts and Programs
Chapter 76 Sewers and Drains
Chapter 92 Water Code-Plumbing
2000 Sainf Paul City Cormci! Research
66 Perfortnance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and InspeCtions Func[ions
Chapter 95 Water Code-General Provisions
Chapter 310 Uniform License Procedures
Chapter 326 Building Contractors
Chapter 368 Wrecking of Buildings
Chapter 369 Building Trades Business Licenses
Chapter 370 Building Trades CeRificates of Competency
Chapter A-6 Service Availability Charges
Budget Documents
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 2000 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1999 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1999 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1998 Adopted Budget
Books / Miscellaneous Documents
The Urban Institute (1980). Performance Measures: A Guide for Local Elected O�cials,
Washington D.C., The Urban Institute.
Raymond J. Burby, Peter J. May, Emil E. Malizia, and Joyce Levine, Building Code
Enforcement Burdens and Centra! Ciry Decline. Joumal of the American Plannine
Association, Vol. 66, No.2, Spring 2000.
Bryson, John (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organization. Jossey-Bass.
2000 Criteria for Performance Excellence, Baldrige National Quality Program.
City of Saint PauPs Comprehensive Plan / Land Use and Housing Chapters
2000 Sainf Po�d Ciry Counci( Research
Pert'orcnsnce Audit oPthe City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni4 P�� Review and [nspections Functions 67
APPENDIX B: LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Recommendations
Recommendation # l: PED shoutd perform, in conjunction with LIEP, a thorough analysis of the
current Zoning Code. In order to be in compliance with current City Code, this should be done every
five years. The analysis should consider the Code's compatibilities with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and other development priorities, and the Code should be modifted accordingly.
Recommendation # 2: Both PED and LIEP need to take more responsibiliJy for including LIEP in the
development processes for the City's Comprehensive Plan. By taking responsibility for development,
LIEP will feel more responsible for the objectives of the Plan, and will incorporate the Comprehensive
Plan into its own internal plans and practices.
LIEP's involvement in the planning and implementation processes of the Cidy's comprehensive plans will
enable it to make more recommended changes to the zoning code, so that the code and the p[ans are
compatible and mutually enforceable. In cases where the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan are
not compatible, LIEP should consider granting variances, equivalencies, or bringing the problem the to
Business Review Council for further review and recommendations.
Recommendatinn # 3: LIEP should incorporate objectives of the Comprehensive Plans into its plans for
its own operations. By doing so, LIEP will ensure it considers future changes and remains flexible and
uses opportunities to ensure the building stock of the City is solid, safe and contributes to the vitality of
the Ciry.
Recommendaiion # 4: LIEP shauld resume proactive planning, including assessing the current
landscape and future economic, social, human resources, political, and technical impacts on LLEP's
work.
a LIEP must understand the co»»ection between ptanning and resource allocation to prevent
situations such as the one curre»t!y occurring with staff being overworked, resulting in a highly
stressful work environment because technological, economic, and human resource changes were
not comprehensively planned. Closer monitoring of outside influences will assist in projecting
changes in workload and resources, such as those resultingfrom increased construction in
recentyears.
❑ Outcome measurement must be incorporated into future planning. LIEP must look at the results
of past planning efforts for lessons learned and areas to continue to work on. They must also
Jook at results ofpast quickfrxes to determine effectiveness and remaining issues to be reso[ved
resulting from the changes.
❑ LIEP should involve other stakeholders, such as the City Attorney's O�ce, Planning and
Economic Development and Public Works in planning process to incorporate the requirements
of other departments and devetop an understanding as to how the work of LIEP affects other
departments.
Recomme»dation # 5: LIEP should involve staff in defining organizational goals and offer ways for staff
to contribute to them. LIEP needs to find ways to include less-involved staff in decision-making and
make them more aware of planning and improvements taking place in the o�ce and how they can
contribute. LIEP shoutd not wait for them to approach management, as history shows <hey will not.
2000 Sa(nf Pa�d Ciry Co�mcil Research
68 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Pertni�, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Leadership Recommendations
Recommendation # 6: At a minimum, communication between LIEP and the State Fire Marsha! needs to
be improved so they can insure that inspections, installations, and removal of fuel storage tanks are
occurring. !n order to ensure compliance the approval should come from the Ciry, rather than from the
state, leaving all responsibiliry at the Ciry level. LIEP should work with the State Fire Marshal to
determine procedural and legislative changes required to bring this about.
Recommendation # 7: LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services need to clarify their roles relating
to the plumbing code. �4s the Building O�cial has ultimate responsibility for enforcing Jhe plumbing
code, perhaps LIEP should conduct the inspectiotts currently performed by Regional Water. This may
lead to enhanced e�ciency for both entities.
Recommendation # 8: LIEP should market its service ofproviding building evaluations to communiry
deve[opment corparations. This valuable tool would enhance the relationship behveen CDCs and the
City and ensure that rehabilitations address building code problems appropriately.
Recommendation # 9: LIEP attd the Design Cettter should clar� their respective roles and level of
authoriry and clear[y explain them to permit applicants.
Recommendation # l0: LIEP and the City Attorney's O�ce need to clarify whether the City is in
compliance with state law regarding appeals of decisions of the building code o�cial.
Recommendation # 11: LIEP and PED should take leadership in developing a quarterly
interdepartmental meeting for all staff who work with small businesses.
Recommendation # 12: LIEP should meet with Code Enforcement and other appropriate Ciry agencies
to discuss and f:nd solutions to the issue of long-term incomplete projects in the Ciry's neighborhoods.
Recommendation # 13: LIEP needs to come into, and remain in, compliance with state reporting
requirements for both its building code and heritage preservation activities.
Recommendation # 14: LIEP should provide the City Council at regularly scheduled intervals, a
complete explanation of the current automation situation including funding, hours spent on the project,
timeline and reasons for the lengthened timeline.
Recommendation # IS: LIEP should evaluate its mission statement to ensure it answers the following
questions:
❑ Who are we? What distinguishes LIEP from oJher Ciry departments?
❑ What do we do?
❑ For whom do we do it?
❑ Why do we do it?
Recommendation # 16: LIEP should identify objectives to put the mission statement into action and also
ident� specific objectives for each area of LIEP. This will enhance employee understanding of how
their particular respansibilities help meet those objectives and thus fulfill the mission. Frnally, LIEP
should ident� specific organiaational values under which all employees operate and exemplify them at
all levels of the arganization.
2000 Sainl Paul C!ty Connci! Research
PerPurmance Audit of lhe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Pian Review and Inspections Functions 69
Training Recommendations
Recommendation # 17: LIEP should reassess where resources are allocated for training to determine if
some staff have less access to training Chan others, and whether this is appropriate. LIEP should also
determine if, and how, the training is affecting work[oad allocation.
Recommendation # 18: LIEP needs to encourage all staff in a!! work areas to pursue relevant training
and provide the resources whenever possib[e.
Recnmmendation # 19: More cross-education of all LIEP functions would be valuable. Staff tettd to
have limited know(edge of the functions of work areas beyond their own. Having a good working
knowledge of the other functional areas will assist sta,ff in answering customer questions and
coordinating efforts !o prevent problems.
Development Recommendations
Recommendati�n # 20: LIEP should follow through on its commitment to open communication behveen
staff and management axd discuss together issues related to morale and other workplace concerns. This
could involve increased management attendance at work-group or team meetings, as well as more
proactive involvement of staff not traditionally involved in organization-wide discussions.
Recommendation # 21: LIEP should reconvene a labor-management group to actively pursue issues of
mutual concern. Clear guidelines and e.rpectarions should be established so meetings are a place for
cooperation, not confronJation and complaining. Leaders should emphasize this is a non-grievance
discussion forum. The leaders of the group will also need to engage the problems encountered by the
first labor-management group, such as too many partieipants — The last group had two representatives
from each bargaining unit in LIEP which may have made the group too aenwieldy and ineffective.
Recommendation # 22: LIEP should address work environment iseues. The proposed Labor-
Management Committee should discuss both the factors negatively impacting the environment and whar
specific steps can be taken to decrease the stress level experienced by many staff.' Additionally, this
group could e.ramine what specifically could be done to make LIEP a more supportive work environment
for those who feel it is not currently supportive.
Information and Analysis Recommendations
Recommendation # 23: The City of Saint Paul should provide the financial resources to allow for the
purchase of an economical software package that would interface between the GIS system and
AMANDA. This would allow broad access to GIS for all departments uti[izing the AMANDA system and
enhance the abiliry to coordinate activities and information behveen various departments.
Recommenda[ion # 24: Not only must LIE'P wark to implemerrt hand-held computers as soon as
possible due to their usefulness, LIEP must also train its inspectors to integrate the hand-held computers
inio their work practices. Inspectors must make it a practice to load all inspections comments into the
database so other inspectors have the same information. Inspectors should also begin the practice of
looking up information to ensure they are providing permittees with aeea�rate information.
2000 Sain! PoeJ City Council Research
70 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Recommendation # 25: LIEP should clearly identify the information gathering potentia( of fhe new
computer systems and the usefulness of the data. (See previous box for suggestion). Data collected and
analyzed should be related to the mission and objectives of the organization.
Recommendation # 26: LIEP should analyze the effectiveness of the computer systems. One method to
analyze the effectiveness would be to follow-up with staff based on survey responses indicating the
systems are not useful. LIEP should encourage and gather input on the systems and respond to the
input, even if it is not possible to immediately address all concerns or suggestions.
Improvement Practices Recommendations
Recommendation # 27: LIEP should involve itself in a complete improvement practices process that
includes planning, implementation and evaluation of its improvements.
Recommendation # 28: LIEP needs to use data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of its improvement
practices. So far, they have little documentation to substantiate claims of improvement other than
anecdotal evidence.
Recommendation # 29: It is apparent that LIEP has few formalized and widely understood goals.
Therefore, LIEP staff should be involved in defining improvement practices, setting goals and evaluating
activities. (Goal setting is discussed in the planning, leadership and results qualiry sections).
Improvement practices should link activities to goals and objectives. They should also help
organizations achieve their goals and objectives.
Customer Focus Recommendations
Recommendation # 30: Develop marketing strategies for promoting the express permits, the
preliminary plan review process, pre paid permit accounts, parking reimbursement and any other
customer focused practices.
Recommendation # 31: LIEP is one of the City agencies which has the most direct contact with
residents and businesses seeking ittformation, and stands to benefit greatly from having as much
information as possible on its web page. Completion of the web site should be a high priority for LIEP,
particularly in light of the goal to have it completed by the end of 1996. Information that should be
available to customers on-line includes:
❑ permit applications and permit status information;
❑ inspections results;
❑ general building code and zoning information, similar to the paper handouts available;
❑ information on special programs and projects, such as the Housing Initiative;
❑ a Frequently-Asked-Questions (FAQ� page; and
❑ an "ask-the-inspector" page in which visitors could post general questions to trade inspectors.
Recommendation # 32: LIEP should develop a policy requiring trade inspectors to wear an
identif:cation badge at all times while performing inspections.
Recommendation # 33: LIEP should develop a policy for granting equivalencies which is known and
used by alJ inspectors in an e, fJ"ort to make the practice fair, consistent and usefu[. The Ciry Attorney
1000 Saint Paul City Ca�mci! Research
Performance Audit of [he City of Sain[ Paul's Build�ng Permit, Plan Re�iew and Inspections Functiuns
il
should be involved in developing this policy to ensure it is legally sound. The development of these
policies will enhance LIEP's image in the City.
Recommendation # 34: LlEP should work to change the attitude of its inspectors wha be(ieve that
contractors and properry owners are hying to hide something from them. They should immediately
cease threatening property owners with retaliation, which is contrary to LIEP poiicy, but is reported to
happen from time to Jime.
Recommendation # 35: LIEP should develop a process for leaving information with both property
owners and contracJors upon final inspections, particularly when changes are sdill required before the
permit can be closed.
Recommendation # 36: LIEP should look at the practices of building inspections departments in other
cities for possible customers service improvements. One suggestion would be maintaining evening hours
one or two nights a week to make it easier for homeawners who work during the day to apply for
permits, such as is the practice in San Diego.
Recommendation # 37: LIEP should consider otNer options besides an annual or biennial survey for
monitoring customer needs and satisfaction. Some suggestions inctude survey cards issued with the
Certificate of Occupancy or when a permit is closed. Another option is to focus on evaluating one
activity per month. For e.rample, give surveys to everyone who applies for a permit in February, in
March give surveys to everyone who has a site plan review, and in August to everyone who receives an
inspection. This way, not all sections are burdened with conducting a survey at the same time. If
another, organization-wide survey is desired, LIBP should consider consulting with organizations which
have been successful in reaching a high response rate from their customers.
Recommendation # 38: LISP should formalize customer service standards, such as plan review's three
day turn-around for basic plan reviews. This would help all staff understand the customer service
standards and how their work contribufes to the goals set by the organization.
Recommendation # 39: LIEP should provide more customer service trainingfor inspectors to help them
understand how they can provide good customer service and good code enforcement.
Recommendation # 40: Develop an idea/complaint/compliment line and/or e-maiJ address that would
allow customers to directly communicate with LIEP at their own convenience and at any time, rather
than just through the annual customer survey.
Results Recommendation
Recommendation # 41: LIEP needs to develop a meaningful performance indicators system for
determining how weli they are meeting the organizatio»'s goals. This process needs to overtly take into
account issues which may not be "measurable, " but which also need to be documented and reported
over time. The deveJopment process should also be inclusive and incorporate staff ideas. A performance
measurement system should function not only to give feedback to managers and policy makers, but also
to stafJ`'who rely on it to provide them regular feedback on individual activities. All of the organization's
stakeholders have an interest in knowing how well the organization is meeting its goals. Examples of
specific measures are outlined in the nert chapter. Additionally, the Mayor's O�ce should much more
pctively monitor performance indicators used in the budget and assist the Ciry's departments in
developing more meaning/ul indicators.
1000 Sain! Po�J Ciry Coimcil Res¢arch
__.. -
_ _
��-ya�
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit,
Plan Review &
Inspections Functions
Council Research Report
May 2000
Research Methods
• 67 Surveys Analyzed
• 92% return rate
• 35 Interviews Conducted
� Majority were LIEP Staff
• Some key stakeholders
Ratings
• Policy Compliance
+ substantially in compliance with policies
— not in compliance with poGcies
• Quality Assessment
s� criteria sometimes present, occasionaily
stst criteria present and practiced to some e�
sKcst criteria well-developed and practiced
ttstsf�c criteria fuliy developed and practiced
Key Concepts
• City Plan Policy Consistency
• Plan Quality Concepts
• Internal Plans
■ Plan Development
• Plan Dissemination and Implementation
Planning
Findings
• LIEP's Intemal Planning in Mid-1990's
was Very Good
• Business Redesign Project
� 1996 Strategic Plan
Planning
Findings
• Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan
■ LIEP was not involved in development
• Not LIEP's practice to consult Comp Plan
when reviewing building plans
• Little / No Planning Recently
Oe - �l`l�
Planning
Recommendations
• Revisit Past Organizational Plans with
Broad Staff Participation and
Dissemination
• Play a Stronger Role in Comp Plan
Development
• Incorporate Comp Plan into Decision-
Leadership
Key Concepts
Compliance with Leadership-Related
Policies
Leadership Quality Concepts
• Mission, �sion, Values
■ Stakeholder Relationships
• Staff Recognition
Leadership
Findings
• Good Stakeholder Relationships
• Clarification needed in some stakeholder
reiationships
• Some policy misalignment
. Saint Paul Re9ional WaterServices
. State Fire Marshal
� Design Center
. PED QuarteAy Small Business Mee6ng
� Cotle Enforcement
Leadership
Findings
• Clear Mission and vsion
• No Clear Objectives Linked to Mission
• Good Staff Recognition
Leadership
Recommendations
Link Organizational Objectives to Mission
and �sion
• Establish Useful Performance Measures
Leadership
Recommendations
• Clarify Stakeholder Relationships and
Mutual Responsibilities
• Link Organizational Objectives to Mission
and �sion
■ See Results and Pertormance Measures
Training
Key Concepts
• Training and Education Resource
AUocation
Employer Commitment
po _ `�`t�
Training
Findngs
Significant Resources Invested
LIEP Handbook is a Good Tool
Yearly Updated Employee Educationai
Plan
Counter Staff Cross - Trained
Training
Recommendations
• Review Allocation of Training Resources
Across Staff Groups
Emphasize More Cross-Education
Devetopment
Key Concepts
• Staff Development Policy Compliance
• Staff Development Quality Concepts
■ Empioyee Contribuiion
. Work Environment
• 4abor-Management Relationship
• Employee Eva{uation
Development
Findings
Unfulfilled 1996 Sfrategic Plan Objective
to Address Employee Morale
Labor-Management Group Inactive
Work Environment Good Overall, But...
• Up to 1!3 of staff say work environmenf is F
■ Similar proportioa (1/4) feel labor-managen
Development
Findings
■ Over Y: of staff feel "fevl' to "no opportunities"
to contribute to organizational decisions or
goals
■ Negativity evenly spread across all work units
and tenure levels
Development
Recommenda6ons
Engage Disaffected Staff and Discuss
Their Concems
Reinstitute Labor-Management
Committee Incorporating Lessons of Past
• 90% of Staff Feel Work Environment is
Supportive of Staff in Protected Classes
� z� - `lQ�
Information 8� Analysis
Key Concepts
• Data Gathering & Analysis Policy
Comptiance
Info & Analysis Quality Concepts
• Data Colleetion
• Analysis of Data
■ Effective Use of Information Systems
Information & Analysis
Findings
ECLIPS & AMANDA Systems Operational
as of Aprii 2000
� Software provider contract changes poorly
communicated
• Hand-hetd field computers criticaf for trades
inspectors
• Little data available during transition periods
■ Petforma�ce Measures need to be developed
Information & Analysis
Recommendations
Relate Data Collection & Analysis to
& Objectives
LIEP Has Potential to Dramatically
Improve Info & Analysis Assessment if
Recommendations Pursued
Make Handheld Field Computers Top
Priority for Trade Inspectors
improvement Practices
Key Concepis
Improvement Practices Policy
Improvement Practices Quality Concepts
� Identification of Potential Improvements
� Implementation of Improvements
• Evaluation of Improvement Efforts
Improvement Practices
Ratings
• Policy Compliance +
Quality t�'/=
Improvment Practices
Findings
LIEP Strives to Incorporate Improvements
Regularly
• '119 Targets for Redesign
� Project Facilitator
� ECLIPS &AMANDA
LIEP Doesn't Gather Info On or Evaluate
Improvement Efforts
tmprovement Practices
Recommendations
LIEP Should Gather Info On and Eval�
Improvement Efforts
• Continue, change, or cease improvement
efforts based on these evaluations
• Improvement Practices Should Link
Activities to Goals and Objectives
t) a - `�`��a
Customer Focus
Key Concepts
• Customer Service Policy Compliance
� Customer Focus Quality Concepts
• Customer ident�cation and knowledge
• Managing customer relationships
■ Customer service practices
• Customer service standards
Customer Focus
Findings
LIEP Understands Who its Customers Are
LIEP hasn't surveyed customers recently
Number of Practices Benefit Customers
Ineffective Marketing of Practices
Poor Web Site Development and Use
Customer Focus
Findings
• Housing Initiative Pooriy Communicated
Initially
• Appeals Process Inconsistently
Communicated
Customer Focus
Recommendations
Clarify Customer Service Philosophy
• Clarify policies relating to granting
equivalencies
• Develop Web Site and Market Services
• Express permits
• Preliminary plan review
• Parking reimbursement
Results
Key Concepts
Results Policy Compliance
• Results Qua�ity Concepts
• Organizational Outcomes
■ Financial Outcomes
• Customer Satisfaction
• Use of Performance Indicatore
Results
Findings
Throughout City, Reduced Emphasis on
Organizational Outcomes in Recent Ye�
• LIEP Has Few Pertormance Indicators
• Use the few availabie to determine whether
goals are met
LIEP is Poised to Develop a Meaningful
Pertormance Measurement System
oa -`�`��
Resuits
Recommendations
• LIEP Needs to Develop a Meaningful
Performance Indicators System to
Determine How Weil They are Meeting
Organizational Goals
Performance Measures
• Customer Service
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
Performance Measures
• Necessary for Accountability to Elected
Officials and the General Public
• Used to Gauge Progress on Achieving
Organizational Goals
Performance Measures
• Timeliness
• Helpfuiness
• Accuracy
• Cost: Staff and Capital
• Qualitv
o�������.
COUncil File # 00-496
Green Sheet # 104503
PAUL, MINfVESOTA
Presented
Refe[red To
Committee Date
ZO
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COUNCIL RESEARCH
PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL'S
BUILDING PERMIT, PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTIDN FUNCTIONS
1 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council directed the preparation of the Council Reseazch Performance
2 Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions, as a part of
3 its Performance Audit Program established in Council File # 95-1392; now therefore be it resolved
4 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council hereby accepts the Council Research Performance Audit of
5 ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions.
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Adopted by CounciL• Date p
� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Adoption Certified by Council Secretaij
By: `"'� d '� ,,�-0 �
Approved by Mayor: Date
B Y' � � � --
O� z
�ErartrtnenrrroF�cErcourici�
Council Research
XMJTACT PERSON & PFiONE
Marcia Mcermond, 266-8570
AUST BE ON COUNCIL AGEPIDA BY (DAiE
5/24/2000 �ikuff�sv�i
TOTAL # OF SIC,NATORE PAGES
DATE INRLITED
5/17/2000
�3
00-496
GREEN SHEET
No1C4�03
� �.,�,�.�.� � �� _
� arcwnomEr ❑ anara�c
❑ RL1xCLtkaNCFSOR ❑ AMNtl�laFmlutta
❑ WYDRI�M�iCSfAMI) ❑
(CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Council acceptance of the Council Research Perjormance Audit ojthe Crry of Saint Pau!'s Building Permiy Plan Review and InspeMioas
FunMions.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIBCAMMITTEE ,
CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION
OF TRANSACTION
SOURCE
tias tnis a��irm ever woncea under a conhau ta th� deparhnem7
YES NO
tias tliis v��rm ever teen a cdy empwyee7
YES �
Doec this peisorvhrm posaess a sldN not rwmullypoasessed by arry current cRy empbyee'7
YES Ntr
is ihis pe�soNfirm a targeted ventloYt _
YE3 NO
COST/REVRIUE BUD6ETm (CIRCLE ONE)
ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
(IXPWN)
0 0 - �1�1�
CITY COUNCIL RESEARCH REPORT
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan Review
and Inspections Functions
��
�
:n.
��
�� _,
,� .:
a�.
,
�:.
�,.
�
�
Saint Paul City Council
Council Investigation and Research Center
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Saint Paul City Council
City Council Investigation &
Research Center
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
651.266.8560
http://www. stpaul. gov/council/circ. html
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan
Review and rnspections
Functions
May 2000
Director
Gerry Strathman
Policy Analysts
Jennifer Dunn
Marcia Moermond
Kenneth L. Smith
Questions?
If you have questions regarding this
report please contact
Gerry Strathman at
651.266.8575 or
c�errv strathman(a�ci.stpaul.mn.us
City Council Research Report
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan Review
and Inspections Functions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
OVERVTEW OF LIEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 5
Permitting, Plan Review, Site Plan Review &
Inspections ......................... 5
LIEP Organizational Chart , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 6
Permit, Ptan Review & Inspection Process
FlowchaR ..........................8
PLANNING ............................9
Planning Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Quality of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Planning Quality Findings & Recommendations 13
INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . 33
Information & Analysis Policy Compliance
Findings & Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 34
Quality of Information & Analysis . . . . . . . . 35
Information & Analysis Quality Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
[MPROVEMENT PRACT[CES . . . . . . . , . . . 38
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance
Findings & Recommendations . . . , . . . . . 40
Quality of Improvement Practicas . . . . . . . . . . 41
Improvement Practicas Quality Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
LEADERSHIP ....................... 15
Leadership Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations ................... 21
Quality of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z2
Leadership Quality Findings
& Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
TRAINING ............................. 25
Training Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Quality of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Training Qua�ity Finding 8t Recommendations 27
DEVELOPMENT ........................ 28
Development Policy Findings
& Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Quality of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Development Quality Findings
& Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CUSTOMER FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Customer Focus Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Quaiity of Customer Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Customer Focus Quality �'indings &
Recommendations ................... 48
RESULTS .............................. 50
Results Measurement in L[EP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Results Quality Findings & Recommendation . 52
PERFORMANCE MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Permitting/Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Zoning and Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Plan Review .......................... 56
Inspections ........................... 59
CONCLUS[ON .......................... 62
APPENDIX A: List of Resource Documents ,... 65
APPENDIX B; List of Recommendations ...... 67
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and [nspec[ions Functions
INTRODUCTION
The City Council, as the governing body of the City of Saint Paul, is responsible for establishing
City policies and ensuring that City practices are consistent with these policies. As the body
responsibte for approving the City Budget and aathorizing Yhe tax levy, the Counci] must also
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of City operations. Therefore, the City Council
established a Performance Audit Program in the fall of 1996 to help it fulfill these legislative
oversight and budgetary responsibilities and it directed Council Research to conduct performance
audits of City operations. Performance audits analyze the consistency of departmental practices
with City policies, as well as provide insight into how policy directives are implemented. The
performance audit also examines whether an organization's practices are efficient and reflective
ofthose used by high-performing organizations.
The City Council is very interested in the value received by citizens for the money expended.
Taxpayers rightly expect that money provided for services will be spent to achieve the best result
possible with the least expenditure of public funds. The efficiency and effectiveness of
goveroment operations and processes can be assessed in many ways. One common approach is
for auditors to examine an organization at a micro-level to try to detertnine if the organization is
following sound procurement practices, properly protecting its resources, and complying with
laws and regulations. This micro-level approach to auditing is closely related to financial auditing
and is often conducted by accountants who spend a great deal of time and effort examining the
inner workings of the organization. While we accept there are situations where this type of micro-
level auditing is appropriate, such as when fraud is suspected, we believe a higher level audit is
most appropriate here. The City Council is less concerned with the minutia of daily operations of
its departments and more concemed with knowing if its departments and offices aze top-quality
organizations whose operations are efficient, effective and in compliance with appropriate laws
and policies. If they are not, the Council is interested in knowing what can be done to remedy any
deficiencies preventing the department or office from achieving a level of excellence.
SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT
This audit is an examination of the policy compliance, efficiency and effectiveness of the
permitting, trade inspections and plan and zoning review activities of the Office of License,
Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP).' Future references to LIEP in the audit will
refer to only these activities, not the entire organization. The office and functions selected for
review were identified by the City Council because of the importance of LIEP's activities in
relation to promoting and protecting the City's housing and building stock. The structure and
functions of LIEP will be described in more detail in a following section.
� The audit does not examine other Ponc[ions performed by LIEP, which include Mimal Control, Gambling Enforcement,
Environmenlal Health, License Inspections or License Imestiga[ion and Compliance Checks.
2000 Satnt Pau! Ciry CouncJ Reseprch
Perfortnance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permil, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
RESEARCH METHODS
Policies peRaining to the functions of L[EP were gathered from the Saint Paul Administrative
Code, the Saint Paul Legislative Code, City Council resolutions, the Land Use and Housing
Chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as LIEP's own internal plans, policies and
budget objectives. It is not Council Research's intent to make specific findings on every
individual policy statement. Rather, we focus on groups of policies that relate to specific
functional areas within LIEP (permitting, plan review or inspections), and have grouped them
according to the most relevant quality category. It is our belief this approach is more useful to
both policy makers and participants in understanding how to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness and compliance of the organization.
We believe the best way to assess the level of organizational development is to ask those most
knowledgeable about the organization—the people who work in the organization. We believe
that the people who work in LIEP best know the strengths and weaknesses of their organizations
and will, when asked, candidly report their opinions. Therefore, we have gone directly to LIEP
staff to ask them about their work. We were able to survey 67 of 73 (92%) LIEP staff involved
in the permitting/ customer service areas, plan review and zoning and trade inspections, and we
also conducted 35 interviews with LIEP staff inembers. The findings and recommendations in
this report are based on these surveys and interviews as well as an examination of written
materials on LIEP's practices.
ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT
A key aspect of an organization's performance is its compliance with the laws and directives
under which it is required to operate. Governmental agencies have a high level of responsibility
to operate within the parameters established by governing bodies, as well as within pazameters
established by the organization itself. Because LIEP is a regulatory agency, it not only has to
comply with regulations as do all City depaRments, it also has to enforce regulations to which
developers, builders, home and business owners and contractors have to comply. Quite often,
these policies can be closely linked to the quality of an organization's operations. Throughout
this repoR, we will illustrate how wmpliance with certain policies does or could enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of L[EP. A listing of policies, practices and documents reviewed is
in Appendix A of this report.
The efficiency and effectiveness of LIEP's permitting, plan review, zoning, and inspections
functions aze evaluated using an Organizational Quality Assessment. While there aze several
methods to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency, our approach is based on work done by the
organizers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awazd who identified the characteristics of
a high-performing organization.
The study of high-performing organizations has typically identified seven characteristics believed
to be essential for an organization to achieve excellence. These criteria have been identified from
W�
2 For a complete listing of all policies reviewed, please see Appendix A.
1000 Saint Paid City Cotmcil Research
Performance Audi[ of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions
studies over many years and are widely accepted as indicators of organizational excellence. The
criteria used by the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and the Minnesota Quality Award
to assess organizationai development and to identify quality organizations are summarized in the
table below. For the purposes of this audit we have split the category of Training and
Development into two separate discussions for a more useful discussion of both areas. None of
the quality categories stand alone. Each impacts the other, and all are essential to achieving a
high level of performance. Quite often improvement in one quality category will positively
impact another. For example, improvement in the category of Information and Analysis often
significantly impacts both Results and Improvement Processes.
Assessment Categories
Quality Category Key Concepts Discussed on Pages:
Planning
Intemal Plans
Plan Development
Plan Dissemination & Implementation
9-14
Leadership
Training
Development
Information and
Analysis
Improvement
Practices
Mission, Vision, Values
Stakeholder Relationships
Staff Recognition
Training & Education Resource Allocation
Employer Commitment
Employee Contribution
Work Environment
Labor-Management Relationship
Employee Evaluation
Cotlection of Data
Malysis of Data
Effective Use of Automation Systems
Identification of Potential Improvements
Implementation of [mprovements
Evaluation of Improvement Practices
Customer ldentification & Knowledge
Customer Focus Managing Customer Relationships
Customer Service Practices
Customer Service Standards
Organizational Outcomes
R0SU1tS FinancialOutcomes
Customer Satisfaction
Use of Pedormance Indicators
15-24
25 - 27
28 - 32
33 - 37
38-41
42 - 49
50 - 52
Each of these quality categories is a chapter in the report, and each chapter is comprised of the
following discussions:
❑ Ratings
❑ Policy discussion, Findings, Recommendations
❑ Quality discussion, Findings, Recommendations
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Counci! Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
In addition to the Results chapter, which focuses on organizational outcomes, an overview of
performance measures and their potential application in LIEP is provided in the Performance
Measures. Performance measurement in this performance audit means the regular collection of
specific information about the effectiveness, quality and efficiency of services and programs.
The suggested measures will enable LIEP to eva{uate on its own whether the resources expended
(labor or financial resources) on an acYivity are used efficiently, have the intended effect and
result in a quality outcome. Measures can be based on information obtained from written
records, observations by specially trained staff or through surveys of customers. This
performance audit will examine existing performance measures and suggest other performance
measures. However, the audit will not perform the actual measurements.
Criteria Ratings
We have gathered a wealth of information about the permitting, plan review, zoning and
inspection activities of LIEP while conducting this performance audit. Although capturing all of
this information in any rating system is impossible, we believe a rating system will help
decision-makers grasp the essence of the information. We have developed a simple summary
rating system we believe conveys the essence of our findings. We intend these ratings to reflect
what interview subjects have told us about LIEP. While organizations and processes consist of
individuals, we intend the ratings to reflect current organizational practices and they should not
be interpreted as judgements about individuals.
The rating system used for policy comQliance is simple and straightforward using a plus (+) sign,
indicating LIEP is substantially in compliance with the relevant policies, or a minus (-) sign
indicating LIEP is not in compliance. If it is not found in compliance, recommendations will be
made to assist the organization in achieving wmpliance.
The summary ratings for the quality categories are intended to portray both the level of
development and the level of integration of each quality criterion. Development, in this
performance audit, means the extent to which high-valued characteristics are in evidence. High-
value characteristics aze ones in which the criteria being examined are systematic, manifest, pro-
active, fact-based, and evaluated. Integration refers to the extent criteria are practiced. It is
possible, indeed likely, for criteria to be practiced in some parts of the organization, but not in
others.
The summary ratings used for quality assessment are:
**** Criteria fully developed and practiced throughout the organization.
*** Criteria well developed and practiced throughout most of the organization.
ic * Criteria present and practiced in some parts of the organization.
* Criteria sometimes present, occasionally practiced in parts of the organization.
3 The Urban [nsti[ute Q980). Performance Measurement A Curde for Local Elected OfficiaLc. Washington D.C.:
The Urban Institute, p. 1.
Z000 Sain/ Pu+J Ciry Counci) Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni[, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions
OVERVIEW OF LIEP
Before discussing the findings of the audit, it is necessary to give a brief overview of the Office
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP). LIEP was forcned in 1992 as a
result of the consolidation of Environmental Health, the Building Inspection and Design Division
(BIDD), the License Division and Animal Control. Four reasons were offered for the merger:
"L The need for improved customer service and the creation of a bne-stop-shop' for
businesses.
2. The desire to provide customer service training for inspectors and to improve the
coordination of seroices.
3. The need to review and update the City's regulations.
4. A desire to reduce the overall costs of enforcement in order to save money."
The graph on the following page illustrates the cunent organizational structure of LIEP. The
blue boxes indicate the areas of LIEP that were examined in this audit. LIEP currently has just
over 100 employees, and an adopted year 2000 budget of $9,136,890. The vast majority of
L[EP's revenues are from license and permit fees collected. Only about 15% of LIEP's year
2000 budget is money allocated from the City's general fund.
Permitting, Plan Review, Site Plan Review and Inspections
The graphics on the page 8 iliustrates the permitting process, from entering the office to filling
out a permit application to completing the work and receiving a ceRificate of occupancy or
compliance, if required. The permitting, plan review and inspections activities are closely
intertwined. Typically, the first point of contact for a customer is with a member of
permitting/customer service staff. A customer will either call with questions or come in to obtain
information and apply for a building permit. A permit is required for all structural revisions for
residencas, garages, carports, decks and similar structures or buildings. Non-structural revisions
or remodeling projects may also require a permit if the labor value and the cost of the materials
exceeds $300. Permits can be paid for with cash, check or charge, and payments aze accepted in
person or by fax, phone or mail. The fee schedule is established in City Code, and is based on
the fee schedule in the 1994 Uniform Building Code.
Staff must verify the information contained in the permit application, such as the address, the
contractor's license, whether the building is a dangerous structure or nuisance building. The
address file is currently used to verify this information, but it will be eventually availabte through
the new computer systems.
4 Information taken from Robert Kessler, Director of LIEP, letter to employees, May 18, 1992.
5 City code s[ates that refunds can be given for permit fees if the work was no[ started within a given amount of
time, and or if the fee was calculated incorcectly. Project values can also be ceassessed according [o Code, and new
fees cfiarged or refunds given. Finally, fees can be imposed for work that is started prior to obtaining a permi[.
Typically LIEP finds out about such work through contractors, neighbors, or when inspec[ors are out in the field and
[hey see work occurcing wi[hout a permit.
2000 Sainl Paul City Council Research
6 P erfurmance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPS Bnilding Permit, Plan Review and lnspections Functi�
LIEP ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Director, ?�
Robert Kessler �
a
.n.....u"xwt$a"vn: :'r`:`y �.5�'::;%`
Building Code Official,
Thomas Riddering
Environmental
Health and
License
Inspections
Trade
Inspections
Program
Analyst
Zoning
Plan Review
and BZA
BudgeG
Accounting
Legislafionl
Poticy BRC
Customer Services
Manager, Christine Rozek
L'fcense
Invastigation
&
Compliance
Checks
Computer
System
Devalopment
Help Desk
Plan Review
& Historic
Preservation
Housing
Initiative
IndicndesArea Covered by
Performance Audit
Animal
Co�trol
Gambling
Entorcement
Clerical Support
and Payrotl
Hearing
OKcer
2000 Sain� Pa�d Ciry Counci( Researeb
Plrfortnence Audil of �he Cily of Saint Paul's Building Pettnit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Fwctions �
In most cases, a customer must submit building plans and possibly site plans for review in order to obtain
the necessary permits. The few cases in which plans are not required include roofing, so�t and fascia
improvements and furnace replacements. LIEP staff involved in plan review include the plan reviewers,
site plan reviewers, the structural engineer and the inspectors, though they are not all involved in
reviewing every plan. The following table shows their involvement.
LIEP Staff [nvolved in Plan Review -
Plan Revlewers
3ite Plan Reviewer
Structural Engineer
Trade Inspectors
All plans not requiring sigmficant structural changes or changes in use of the proper[y
Commercial, multi-family additions, new construction, changes in use of the property
All significant struc[ural changes or additions
Complex building plans
The site plan reviewer also coordinates an interdepartmental review team that includes representatives
from Zoning, Public Works, the Water Utility, and Police and Fire departments, as appropriate. The
applicant will meet with staff two to three weeks after the site plan is submitted. At this meeting
questions can be answered and revisions offered. Staff also work diligently to assist applicants if their
plans do not meet code standards.� District Councils may also be involved if the project will have an
impact on the surrounding area. While site plan review is occurring, the trade inspectors may be
involved in reviewing specific plans designed to show the electrical, plumbing, mechanical or other
relevant work. In some cases, the plan review process is on-going, such as for the Minnesota Wild Arena
which is a lazge construction project and requires a variety of different plans. The site plan reviewer also
prepares stafT'repoRS for site plans that are reviewed by the Planning Commission and he handles any
subsequent appeals to the City CounciL This staff person also serves as backup staff for the Boazd of
Zoning Appeals.
Once the plans have been reviewed and the permits issued, the inspectors will do an initial inspection.
Depending on the type of project, there ue given points at which a project must be inspected. The
contractors or property owners are responsible for calling LIEP to arrange for an inspection at the
appropriate time. In general, inspections are required at the "rough-in" stage and upon project completion.
However, inspections are done weekly at bigger construction projects such as the Lawson.Commons
building and the Minnesota Wild Arena. Once the work is completed and approved, the inspector signs the
back of the permit, signs the copy of the permit kept in LIEP's files, and submits it to clerical staff to be
formally closed out. LIEP issues the temporary certificate of occupancy, if required, upon permit closure.
If the Fire Department is also performing inspections of the project, they aze notified of LIEP's approval of
the project. The temporary certificate of occupattcy will not be issued until the Fire Department has also
signed off on the permits. LIEP issues only the temporary certificate of occupancy; periodic
(annualPoiennial) inspections and ongoing certificates of occupancy are issued by the Fire DepaRment.
6 Building plans indicate all intemal or structural work, site plans show existing and proposed condi[ions of [he
property (such as site layout, grading, drainage and utilities, landscaping), and building information (such as height,
type of construction, sprinklers, and elevation). [n limited cases, a[ree preservation plan must also be submitted.
� It is possible [hat plans cannot feasibly meet code standards. In [hose cases, �the zoning code provides a couple of
options to allow for uses other than those specifically stated in the code, namely variances and special condition use
permits (SCUPs).
2000 Sainf PatJ City Council Research
8
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Permit, Plan Review and Inspection Process
Informatton Provided on
Permit Application, Review
and Inspection Processes
Front Cowter, Rqect Facili[ator
(Potemtal FuMre Use af Web SiteJ
Permit Issued, Payment Made,
and (ifnecessary)Temporary
C oi O Issued
Building Official, Fire Marehall
�
Inspection at Rough-In and
Complete Stages, As
Necessary on Large Projects
Tradee Inspec[ore and Fire Prevention
�
SIgnAH on Permit(s) and
Issuance oi C o} O's
Tcadea h�apectois, Fire Preveatioq
Building Official
Soard of Zoning Appeals, Herilage Preeerva�ion
Commiesion, Planning Commiesion
could aleo be appealed [o [he Cily Council,
and poeaibly dielrict court
Plans Fail
Review and
Are Not
Modified to
Pass Review
�
Appeal(s) of
Plan Review(s) Denied
�
Permit Application Danied
contractor/owner prepares
materials for permit
applmation (plans, e[c.)
Potential Use of
Preliminary Plan Review
�
if small/simple project,
such as roof or fence
�
�
Plans Approved
8
SCUPs and variances
granted if needed
� Appeal(s)
of Plan
Review(s)
Granted
V
Permit Application Submitted
(if partial project permit,
repeat process for
other project phases)
Pront Counler, Experl on Duty
Revlew of Permit Appllcatlon
Pian Review - alI non "eimple" projecle
Zoning Review - new eWCturee, new use, complex zoning
9ite Plan ReWew - multi-unit reeidentail or commercial
Siructural Plan Revlew - mulli-mil reeidenlial, commercial,
or complex eWClw'e
Heritage Pr¢serva[fon Revlew - in heritage preaervation
dia[ricl or deeignated hiamric eWCture or eite
V
Public hearin9s for zoning, site plan,
heritage preservation or plan reviews
1000 Saint Paul City Couneil Research
ins perfonnnnce Audil of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 9
PLANNING
Policy Alignment: —
Quality Rating: ��
KEY PLANNING CONCEPTS:
O Intemal Plans
❑ Plan Development Participation
❑ Plan Dissemination & Implementation
Planning is an activity that incorporates a strong future orientation and a willingness to make
long-term commitments to stakeholders. High-performing organizations actively engage in
planning and recognize the impact not only of intemal changes, but also of environmental factors
on the organization. Planning considers resource allocation, economic projections, future needs
of employees, future customer needs and expectations, technological developments, and
stakeholder requirements. Plans can be long- or short-term, and can be issue specific,
organization-wide, departmental-wide or unit-wide. In order to be effective, plans need to be
carried out and updated frequently. Comprehensive plans are also considered policy documents.
LIEP's Internal Plans
L[EP has a history of engaging in planning activities. In the mid-1990's, LIEP developed a
number of plans to enable and enhance its streamlining efforts. While these plans were
reactionary (they were necessary to meet the objectives for consolidation and mandates from the
Mayor's Office), LIEP was addressing a problem, namely integrating functions, and did the
appropriate planning to manage the changing circumstances. The plans LIEP produced were:
O Business Process Redesign Project (1994-1996), which consisted ofthe following plans:
❑ Functional Redesign Report/P►an (Business Process Redesign Project), 1994
A high-level plan that identified common data and info used across all L[EP functions.
Its objective was to design work processes azound shared, property-based information. It
focused on customer service delivery and sought to replace repetitive, duplicative, and
labor intensive administrative processes. (The Business Review Council has in many
ways collaborated in doing much of the work of identifying unnecessary regulations and
duplicate processes.)
❑ Administrative Redesign Report/Plan, 1994
The focus of this plan was on service delivery processes and line employees as
customers. It sought to replace administrative processes that were repetitive, duplicative
and labor intensive through information sharing and technology support tools.
❑ Change Management Plan 1994-1996
This plan had 5 objectives for which steering teams were developed to work on:
❑ reduce processing time for permits and licenses;
❑ reduce number of and increase collections on delinquent license renewals;
a reduce cost to businesses by reducing time to obtain permit and license;
o eliminate redundancy and complexity in local codes; and
o reduce papenvork and eliminate forms.
❑ Strategic Action Plan, 1996
This plan was required as part of the O�ce's annual budget.
2000 Sarnt Paul Ciry Counci! Research
10 Performance Audi[ of [he City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions
Since 1996, LIEP has not done any long-term strategic planning. All recent planning is very
short-term and meant to address very specific issues such as the computer systems. However,
these plans focused only on the steps to make the new computer systems operational. They did
not include plans to help LIEP transition from the old methods of operation to new ones.
Extensive work on basic automation of L[EP's services appears to have consumed much of the
oftice's creative energy in recent years, and LIEP, in effect, has used the automation as an excuse
not to plan. An attitude also exists in LIEP that it is difficult to do planning because of the
regulatory nature of the Office's functions and the constraints LIEP faces as a govemmental
entity. However, a number of factors could have been considered in LIEP's planning such as the
growth in construction and the current vitality of the economy.
Overall, LIEP is currently engaging in very limited planning activities. However, L[EP held a
retreat in late 1999 to look at azeas that still need to be addressed. They identified three areas of
importance for focused improvement effor[s: communication, staff and training, and technology.
There is no clear product yet from this retreat, such as specific activities, or a clear commitment
from the organization to follow through. However, LIEP reports that individual staff member
commitments have been made to facilitate and lead committees to work on the areas identified
for improvement. Nonetheless, in light of the current City culture which does not value
planning, the fact they are still engaging in planning efforts is noteworthy.
The Saint Paul Zoning Code, in Chapter 64.40Q requires the zoning code be reviewed every five
years. LIEP and PED staff report that routine text amendments are done on a regular basis, but
the zoning code has not been examined or reevaluated. PED maintains primary responsibility for
fulfilling this requirement, though LIEP shares responsibility for implementing the requirements
of the zoning code. Had LIEP engaged in a planning process that considers its responsibilities
related to the zoning code, it may have addressed this and, therefore, been in compliance.
Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan
I
LIEP activities are directly related to the City's Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use
and Housing Chapters. For example, an objective of the Land Use Plan is to "ensure that
building supports broader city-building goals," and "make a contribution to the neighborhood
and public realm."$ Clearly, activities related to this goal would require permits, plan reviews
and site plan reviews, and inspections. LIEP's site plan review activities could easily incorporate
such objectives into their criteria. However, it is clear from staff statements that while certain
staff inembers try to incorporate these objectives, they feel they can only apply them to a certain
extent because the Comprehensive Plan is not adequately incorporated into LIEP's practices.
Not only does LIEP fail to actively pursue the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, they also
fail to use it to identify changing circumstances and priorities. L[EP does not see a direct
relationship between its activities and the objectives of the Plan. They do not consider the
Comprehensive Plan when preparing their own internal plans and look for areas of change or
growth in activities. Rather, it is used by a few select staff inembers to a limited extent as they
perform their duties. To LIEP, the Plan fails to have the same level of authority as the code,
though in reality the Comprehensive Plan has the same effect of ]aw when used in the review
process as justification for City actions and decisions.
$ Land Use Plan, page 17.
2000 Sain� Pau/ City Conncil Research
-�ns � Pedomience Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Punctions 11
LfEP tends only to minimally respond and react to the Comprehensive Plan, but is not a part of
the plan formulation process. I[ is also apparent there are conflicts between some strict
� requirements of the zoning code and the objectives of the Plan. If L[EP were involved in the
plan formulation process, these conflicts may be more readily and easily resolved, and the code
„, and Plan would be more compatible.
� Policy Compliance Findings
�e
F►nding #1: LIEP did a great deal of internal planning in the mid-1990's. Recent planning
activities have been very limited.
� Finding #2: LIEP followed through on many of its planning objectives. An example of this is
�' LIEP's 1996 Strategic Action Plan, where LIEP has done an admirable job of following through
t on many of its objectives, such as trying to respond to inquiries within 48 hours, providing
information to customers through meetings, written material, classes (such as the January 20,
2000 session held for small contractors), testing, and developing two project facilitator positions.
Finding #3: Many of LIEP's activities relate directly to the City's Comprehensive Plan, but
LIEP is not involved in developing the Plan.
�e
�or Finding #4: LIEP does not view the Comprehensive Plan as a policy document to which it must
comply.
- ts
Finding #5: LIEP does not use the Comprehensive Plan as a guide when making its own
organizational plans.
�te
Flnding #6: LIEP did not prepare adequate plans in regard to the transition from a system that
involved paper and an outdated, non-Y2K compliant computer system to a fully automated
system. This type of work process analysis and planning at all levels of the organization would
have assisted LIEP in its difficult and complex transition.
Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 1: PED should perform, in conjunction with LIEP, a thorough analysis of
the current Zoning Code. In order to be in compliance with current Ciry Code, this should be
done every five years. The analysis should consider the Code's conrpatibilities with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and other development priorities, and fhe Code should be modified
accordingly.
Recommendation # 2: Both PED and LlEP need to take more responsibility for including LIEP
in the development processes for the Ciry's Comprehensive Plan. By taking responsibiliry for
development, LIEP will feel more responsible for the objectives of the Plan, and will incorporate
the Comprehensive Plan into its own internal plans and practices.
9 One objective [hat has not been implemented will be discussed in the Development section.
�rch i 20(Xl Safnt Paul Ciry Cnuncil Research
!
4.v . .
��
12 Performance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspectiuns Functiuns p�
LIEP's involvement in the planning and implementation processes of the City's comprehensive
ptans witl enable it to make more recommended changes to the zoning code, so that the code and
the plans are compatible and mutually enforceable. In cases where the zoning code and the
Comprehensive Plan are not compatible, LIEP should consider granting variances,
equivalencies, or bringing the problem the to Business Review Council for further review and
recommendations.
Recommendation # 3: LIBP should incorporate objectives of the Comprehensive Plans into its
plans for its own operations. By doing so, LIEP will ensure it considers future changes and
remains flexible and uses opportunities to ensure the building stock of the Ciry is solid, safe and
contributes to the vitaliry of the Ciry.
The Quality of Planning
Planning was evaluated above on a policy compliance level, but an examination of planning from
a quality perspective is also essential to ensure that planning activities are effective and efficient.
If the activities are not evaluated, then the planning effoRs will be futile and the plans will mean
nothing to staff.
Knowledge of Plans
According to the survey results, there seems to be a disconnect between those who do not know
about planning efforts or are not involved in planning and those who are. According to the
survey, one-half the staff surveyed do not know if plans exist. This question received the highest
level of "don't know" responses of all the survey questions. FuRher analysis of this group of
respondents gave us no indication that some staff inembers or groups of staff were purposely
omitted from planning activities.
'„ Plan Development Participation
, From survey responses, it appears only a few key line staff are consistently involved in planning.
For example, according to the survey, 85% of plan review staff are not aware of any of LIEP's
planning efforts. From interviews, it seems staff are not actively recruited to participate in
planning. We heard many comments echoing the sentiment that "if you want to be involved, you
can be." Involvemenk in planning clearly has to be self-motivated. This is somewhat
;„ problematic, as employee participation in planning at all levels is valuable to an organization as
often the line-staff aze in the most direct contact with customers and other outside influences.
, , Their input and perspective may be more aligned with the realities of daily operations, and they
may have ideas on how to do things better in the future. It also enhances their ability to
' understand how their work contributes to the future of the or anization. However, it should be
B
noted many organizations struggle with how to involve all employees in important decision-
making processes. Clearly, not every employee can be directly involved in writing the planning,
but they should be given the oppoRunity to provide input before the plan is finalized. It was also
clear the Budget Office, PED and the City Attomey's Office are not involved in LIEP's planning,
though they aze key stakeholders and participants in LIEP's activities.
2000 Sain� Pard Ciry Co�mcil Reseorch
�ns p etfom�BnCe Audi� of � he Ci of Sai Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions 13
� P[an Dissemination and Implementation
The recent (imited planning efforts that have taken place could not be based on data analysis
because LIEP did not have comprehensive data, partially due to its antiquated computer systems.
Stafi'iodicate the new computer systems will allow them to collect more comprehensive data.
Finally, it is evident the plans created in,the mid-90's have not been analyzed to determine azeas
, of success, failure, or continued development and inclusion in other plans for the future.
What L[EP now considers to be plans, such as progress updates on the new information systems,
are disseminated through e-mail, meetings and monthly newsletfers. As for implementation,
according to the survey, 40% of staff "don't know" how often plans are implemented. In tha
past, committees have implemented various aspects of the plans, particularly the quick fixes that
were identified.
While not considered LIEP plans, some LIEP staff aze involved in the planning activities of
related organizations. Some inspectors are involved in code planning for their respective trades
at the national, state and local level. They meet to discuss how to implement changes in the
codes, which happen every three years, The Heritage Preservation Commission does an annual
workplan, which is commendable given that it is a citizen commission with very limited staffing.
Very few voluntary commissions in the City of Saint Paul do such planning.
Planning Quatity Findings
Finding #7: Many staff are unaware of plans made by LIEP.
Finding #8: Only a few staff are involved in planning. It seems staff have to actively pursue
opportunities to contribute to planning, Leadership ruely seeks out employee participation in
terms of cultivating involvement from those traditionally not involved.
Finding #9: There is an appazent lack of connection between information gathering, analysis,
results evaluation and planning. LIEP does not measure results and therefore cannot plan as
effectively based on their outcomes. In other words, they do not look at where they have been,
so it is difficult to know where they are going.
Finding #t0: Many L[EP staff, particularly inspectors, aze involved in planning efforts of the
professional organizations to which they belong.
Planning Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 4: LtEP shou/d resume proactive planning, including assessing the current
landscape and future economic, social, human resources, political, and technical impacts on
LIEP's work.
❑ L/EP must understand the connection behveen planning and resource allocation to
prevent situations such as 1he one currently occurrittg with sta� being overworked,
resulting in a highly stressful work environment because techno[ogical, economic, and
7 21X10 Suin� Paul Ciry Conncil Research
L
14 Performance Audit of tMe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
human resource changes were not comprehensively planned. Cfoser monitoring of
outside inJluences wiU assist in projecting changes in workload and resources, such as
those resu[ting from increased construction in recent years.
❑ Outcome measurement must be incorporated into future planning. LIEP must look at the
res:�lts ofpast planning efforts for lessons learned and areas to continue to work on.
They must also look at results ofpast quickfrxes to determine effectiveness and
remaining issues to be resolved resulting from the changes.
❑ LIEP should involve other stakeholders, such as the Crty Attarney's O�ce, Planning and
Economic Development and Public Works in planning process to incorporate the
requirements of other departments and develop an understanding as to how the work of
LIEP affects other departments.
Recommendation # 5: LIEP should involve staff in defining organizational goals and offer ways
for staff to contribute to them. LIEP needs to find ways to include less-involved staff in decision-
making and make them more aware of planning and improvements taking place in !he o�ce and
how they can contribute. LIEP should not wait for them to approach management, as history
shows they wil! not.
i��
2000 Sain! PoN/ Clry� Ca+mcil
�ns Func[ions Pedom�enCe Audit of the C iry o f Sainl Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 15
> Of
such as KEY LEADERSHIP CONCEPTS:
LEADERSHIP � Mission, �;s;o�, �a�ue5
❑ Stakeholder Relationships
k on. t the ❑ Staff Recognition ?
� acux�,��;.v�c�W�'-�c'rar�� . ..,. .: a�r.s.�,s
Policy Compliance: - F
�ning nnd
work of
�er ways
fecision-
�ice and
story
Quality Rating: ��i 1 /a
Senior organizational leaders need to set direction, create a customer focus, establish and
ar[iculate a clear vision and communicate and make visible the values of the organization.
ReinEorcing values and expectations requires personal commitment and involvement. Leaders
need to take part in the creation of strategies, systems and methods for achieving excellence.
7ltese systems and methods need to guide all activities and decisions of the organization.
Leaders must also recognize the role of stakeholders in these processes, and maintain positive
relationships with them. Finally, staff need to be recognized for their contributions to the
organization and to its mission, vision and values.
Many of an organization's policies and practices are derived from strong leadership principles.
In this discussion, we look at three leadership areas in which LIEP has developed policies and
practices: mission and vision, intemal practices, and stakeholders. Good leadership works to
ensure that all in the organizatiott understand the organization's purpose — its mission — and
where the organization is going — its vision. Good leaders also articulate values clearly and
exemplify them on a daily basis. Strong leadership forms meaningful relationships with
stakeholders and maintain good wmmunication and cooperation between the two.
Mission and Vision
LIEP has spent a great deal of time developing and refining its vision/mission statement, which is:
"To be a unified, customer service o�ganization, which promotes a hea[thy and safe
environment througk information and enforcement of codes and ordinances."
The vision of a unified customer service organization was derived from a desire by then Mayor
Scheibel to meet the following four objectives, as mentioned in the introduction:
"1. The need for improved customer service and the creation of a`one-stop-shop' for
businesses.
2. The desire to provide customer service training for inspectors and to improve the
coordination of services.
3, The need to review and update the City's regulations.
4. A desire to reduce the overall costs of enforcement in order to save money."
The mission and vision will be discussed more fully in the Quality of Leadership discussion,
starting on page 22, but it should be noted that the leadership of LIEP has placed a high level of
importance on ensuring that the mission statement is understood and communicated, a highly
commendable practice. The Director of LIEP is also very concerned with ensuring that staff
Research .. 1000 Sainl Paid City Council Research
16
Perfortnance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
understand his expectations for them, and these expectations have been clearly aRiculated in
written form, and, according to some staff, modeled by senior leadership. Not only does the
Director have expectations for his management staff, the managers also have clearly articulated
expectations for him. One key piece missing from the expectations is a values statement for all
staff, which will be discussed in more detail in the Quality of Leadership discussion.
Internal Policies
LIEP has developed a number of internal policies to make for more efficient and understandable
operations. These policies are contained in a policy manual which has not yet been finalized,
though all staff have the policies and receive updates as changes are made. Staff also have a
LIEP information booklet which is useful for finding answers to basic questions or determining
which staff member to contact for the correct answer to complicated questions. Certainly this is
an efficient practice as the information is readily available to all staff and allows them to answer
questions immediately and correctly.
Stakeholders
Positive stakeholder relationships are essential to maintaining strong leadership. Leadership
must be able to identify its stakeholders. Stakeholders are "any person, group, or organization
that can place a claim on an organization's attention, resources, or output or is affected by that
output." Customers also fall under the definition of a stakeholder. LIEP's customers include
contractors and citizens who apply for permits and go through the plan review, permitting and
inspection processes. They aze discussed in more detail in the Customer Focus section of this
audit. Listed below are many of LIEP's stakeholders followed by a discussion of the
stakeholders with whom LIEP interacts the most:
O Fire Department
❑ Saint Paul Regional Water Seroices
(formerly the Saint Paul Water Utility)
❑ Public Works Department
❑ Planning and Economic Development
(PED)
❑ Community Organizations
❑ Design Center
❑ Police Department
❑ Citizen Service Office and Property
Code Enforcement
❑ Problem Properties Committee and
Enforcement Coordination Committee
❑ Business Review Council (BRC)
❑ City Council
❑ Other levels of govetnment
0 Mayor
Fire Department
LIEP has developed a strong relationship with the Fire Department, namely the Fire Marshal and
the Fire Prevention and Inspection unit. Cleady, this is due to the effoRS of the LIEP Director
and the Fire Mazshal to maintain open communication and mutual respect between the two
organizations. The Fire DepaRment is primarily responsible for the enforcing the fire code, and
LIEP enforces the building code, though the two codes do overlap in a few areas. For example,
the building code addresses smoke issues, but the building inspectors will defer to the Fire
Department in making determinations as to whether a building meets code on smoke issues. The
�� Bryson, John. Strategic P[anning jor Pub[ic and Non-Profit Organi=ations. Jossey-Bass, 1995 page 27.
2000 Saim Pa+J City Counci! Research
F
Perfomience Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 17
Fire Department will also defer to L[EP when a situation is more of a building code issue than a
fire safery concem. While it would seem logical that good communication between the two is
essential, it appears as though the positive relationship between the two Saint Pau! departments is
somewhat unusual."
Saint Paul Regional Water Services
Some overlap exists between the responsibilities of LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services
regarding the enforcement of the plumbing code. Traditionally, LIEP has done inspections of the
plumbing inside the building, and Regional Water has performed inspections for the plumbing
from the water main up to the building for new construction projects only. Regional Water deals
only with drinking water; LIEP handles the waste and ventilatioa However, ultimately, the
Building Off'icial has the responsibility for ensuring the plumbing code is enforced. Both
departments currently issue permits relevant to the inspections they perform. While this has not
caused any serious problems to date, the practice of both departments enforcing the same code
should be examined for potential efTiciency improvements.
Public Works
LIEP must also interact with other city departments such as Public Works. Part of the interaction
is through site plan review. The site plan reviewer in LIEP has done an excellent job of
convening a group that meets biweekly to review site plans. This review group has decreased the
time it takes to review site plans and increased coordination and communication between the
departments. All involved parties should be commended for their paRicipation in this group.
LIEP and Public Works both retain some responsibility for individual sewage treatment systems.
LIEP would like to see these treatment systems eliminated over time, though LIEP has stated
Public Works has not been as proactive in promoting sewer systems. City code does not require
that individual sewage treatment systems be eliminated, though the City's Comprehensive Sewer
Plan, written in 1980 and currently being updated, states as policy that the City should "phase out
septic tanks after sewers are made available in newly developed areas." In an interesting twist,
LIEP is proactively pursuing the objectives of this Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, unlike
the Land Use and Housing Chapters.
Department of Planning and Ewnomic Development (PED)
In addition to the site plan review group, LIEP and PED also collaborate on business
development projects, but it has been suggested further collaboration between all departments
who work with small businesses should occur. Small businesses may approach PED or PED's
Business Resource Center for funding and other development questions, while they approach
�� The reality is often poor communication and mrf battles between building and fire departments. This is
particularly apparent at the state level, which was discussed in detail in a report on the State Building Code by the
Minnesota Office of the Legislative Audiroc (Minnesota Oftice of [he Legislative Auditoc State Building Code, A
Program Evaluation Report. 7 January, 1999). The Departmen[ of Administratioq responsible for the Building
Code, and the departments of Pubiic Safety and Public Service, responsible for [he Fire Code and Energy Code
respectively, have not coordinated their efforts well. The codes were no[ adopted at the same time, and
consequently there were some conflicting requirements. Had coordination occurced, the code conFlicts could have
been resolved prior to adoption and implementation, thus reducing the confusion for builders who have to comply
with all codes.
2000 Sainf Patd Crry Council Research
18 Performance Audit of the City of Sain[ PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
LIEP for licensing and possibly permitting, plan review and inspections. Therefore, it would be
beneficial to both the departments and the small business owner if there was greater
communication and collaboration between the parties.
PED and LIEP also have a common interest in building construction and rehabilitation projects.
It is clear from many of LIEP's budget objectives they would like to be involved in these
projects, but they have not yet developed the relationship with PED or with neighborhood
organizations to be as effective as they would like. LIEP also stated they would like to know
more about development projects PED is considering. PED states that many of these projects
never progress beyond the development stage, therefore it would only create unnecessary work
for LIEP. The poor information-sharing practices between PED and LIEP are probably due, in
part, to the poorly shared information systems. The new computer systems in LIEP provide
potential for increased data sharing between PED, LIEP and other offices such as Code
Enforcement, provided they all have access to the systems. More information would allow all
involved parties to track the status of these rehabilitation projects, as well as other concems and
projects.
Community Organizations
In a similar vein, various community organizations aze stakeholders of LIEP. Community
Development Corporations (CDCs) aze stakeholders that are involved in building rehabilitations
and the identification of "improvement azeas" in which Code Enforcement, L[EP, the
neighborhood, and any other relevant departments or groups collaborate to improve the building
stock of an area. CDCs also have the option of working with LIEP to obtain a building
evaluation. According to LIEP, this is rarely done, although it could be a very valuable tool for
the CDCs. District Councils are often involved with LIEP, especially when projects have to go
through a public review process.
Saint Paul Design Center
This inter-agency group is composed of several city staff from Public Works, PED and Parks and
Recreation. They also have a number of outside partners, including Public Art Saint Paul, the
Capital City Partnership, the Riverfront Corporation, the Port Authority and Ramsey County.
The Design Center is technically overseen by the Riverfront Corporation. The Board and the
Director of the Riverfront Corporation manage the policy work. If the Mayor is in disagreement
with the Riverfront Corporation, the Design Center serves the interests of the Mayor.
Since the creation of the Design Center, there has been some confusion over its regulatory
authority. It does not exer[ regulatory authority, but rather serves as a consultant and advisor to
downtown design projects. LIEP maintains the regulatory authority for ensuring the buildings
aze safe. The Design Center makes recommendations to LIEP, at which point L[EP could choose
to make the recommendations paR of the design, or they could choose to ignore them. It is
repoRed that the Design Center and LTEP have a good working relationship, and that LIEP
recognizes the importance of the Design Center in ensuring downtown structures meet the
objectives of the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework. The Design Center is
working to be seen as part of a business-friendly environment in Saint Paul and less of a
regulatory body.
2000 Sainl Patd City Cormcil ResearcH
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building PermiG P�� Review and lnspections Func[ions �
on5
Business Review Council
�.
�
�s
�g
�r
�
The Business Review Council (BRC) is composed of representatives from City staff, labor,
neighborhood councils, residents with relevant experience, and Saint Paul business owners and
organizations. The BRC meets monthly, and has two subcommittees, the Business Issues
Committee and the General Legislation Committee, that also meet monthly. The BRC has been
most active in identifying unnecessary licensing regulations. They were recently involved in
reaching an agreement with the taxicab industry in Saint Paul to increase the number of licensed
taxis in the City and allow a rate increase. LIEP provides the staff support for the BRC, and
other departments, such as PED and Public Works, also participate and provide support as
necessary. The BRC is involved in only a limited capacity in the permitting, plan review, site
plan review and inspections processes of LIEP.
Citizen Service Office, Property Code Enforcement and the Police
Department
Citizen complaints are often funneled through the Citizen Service Office to the appropriate
departments. Therefore, some zoning complaints go through this office to reach LIEP, and the two
offices must share information. On a broader scale, LIEP and PropeRy Code Enforcement, a
section of the Citizen Service Office, interact in a number of ways. LIEP inspects vacant buildings
to determine the building code violations that must be addressed to bring the building into
compliance. L[EP will inspect later to determine ifthose issues have been addressed. Code
Enforcement inspects them for property maintenance code violations, and maintains the vacant
building list for the city. LIEP and Code Enforcement must interact to ensure that when a permit is
pulled for work on a vacant building, that the permit is not closed until the building meets the
minimum property maintenance requirements. Code Enforcement and L[EP's Mimal Control
Unit also cooperate extensively in rodent baiting efforts. Finally, LIEP and Code Enforcement
must interact on building projects which have become "problems" because of the long time it takes
for their completion, and the nuisance these projects create for neighbors. Notably, these two
offices view this issue very differently. Code Enforcement believes there aze many such projects
which are long-term problems, whi(e LIEP holds that there aze only a half a dozen such cases.
City Council
ent
�ose
LIEP leadership is also responsible for communicating with the legislative body of the City, the
City Council. The City Council is certainly a stakeholder in LIEP's activities, as many of the
policies passed by the Council directly affect LIEP, and the Council is also responsible for
approving LIEP's budget. The City Council is also [he final arbiter on many LIEP decisions
such as appeals from the Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals. Maintaining open communication is essentiai to the vitality of the department.
Overall, this relationship is handled relatively well. The BRC communicates with the Council on
a regular basis, and LIEP uses the BRC to communicate many of its concerns and issues,
particularly related to licensing, to the Council.
However, LIEP is also responsible for communicating directly with the Council, particulazly at
this time as a result of funding provisions for the new computer systems, known as ECLIPS and
earch
I
�. _
1000 Sainf Paul City Coanci! Research
�-
zp performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
AMANDA.�' LIEP has done some updates for the Council, though they do not appear to
adequately address the problems LIEP encountered in regard to the ECLIPS and AMANDA
systems." L[EP has fallen faz behi�d on its implementation dates for the systems, and has been
open about it, though not entirely clear about the reasons for the delay. Written documentation
given to the Council does not entirely explain the problems LIEP faced with its original software
developer, Online Services, Inc. Nor does the documentation explain the transition in the
software name from ECLIPS to ECLIPS II to AMANDA, which is an off-the-shelf software that
CSDC, [nc., the current contracted software developer, sells for permitting and inspections. The
original ECL[PS project was to include what AMANDA does. To differentiate it from the
original Online project it was call ECLIPS II before LIEP contracted with CSDC, Inc. While
this may seem insignificant, it is actually an impoRant piece to comprehending the current
situation in LIEP. LIEP has not updated the Council on the status of the computer systems since
April, 1999, though they have since implemented major portions of the programs.
Other Levels of Government
LIEP essentially enforces state law through enforcement of the building codes. However, the
state retains some responsibility. With few exceptions, LIEP maintains all responsibility for
inspections within the City, including inspection of most state property in Saint Paul and Saint
Paul School District propeRy. One outstanding exception is the permitting and inspections
process for tank installation and removal. 'fhe City is required to issue permits for above-ground
tank installations, but the State Fire Marshal is required to issue a letter of approval to the
contractor. The State Fire Marshal is responsible for inspecting them, but it is not clear that this
is happening, and it appears that no one is doing inspections.
The City of Saint Paul is also represented at the state level on a number of committees, including
the Minnesota Uniformity Committee, which is a group that shazes common equivalencies and
code interpretations.
The State gives primary responsibility to the City for hearing appeals to the Building Code.
Appeals are generally dealt with at the department level before they go to a Legislative Hearing
Officer. However, the City Code does not allow Saint PauPs Legislative Hearing Of'ficer to
grant waivers to the state building code. The Uniform Building Code, which the state building
code is based upon, requires all municipalities establish a local board of appeals. However, the
Minnesota Legislative Auditor reports that few municipalities have done this. Minnesota
5tatutes also state that anyone who disagrees with the final decision of a municipality may appeal
that decision to the Commissioner of Administration. Some concem exists that perhaps another
method should be used to hear appeals to the building code at the city ievel.
LIEP is also required to submit annual reports the State Historic Preservation Office on heritage
preservation activities, per our local govemment agreement. These reports are tardy by several
years. In the interview process, this was attributed to a significant staff shoRage in the heritage
preservation area. However, LIEP management indicate the reason for the lateness is that these
reports are a low priority.
� ECLIPS is an acronym for Electronic Computerizes License, Inspection and Permitting System. AMANDA is
an acronym that stands for Automated Management of Data and Applications.
13 The new computer systems are discussed in more detail in the Information and Analysis sec[ion.
2000 Sainl Paul Ciry Co�mcil Reseorch
Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions z1
LIEP also has to interact with the federal government either when the federal government is
doing a building project in Saint Paul or when a project is taking place in a floodplain. In the
first case, as with private parties, the federal government is required to pull permits for all work
as is required by law. However, LIEP reports the federal government refuses to pull permifs or
to let the City inspect its projects. The other situation where the City works with the federal
govemment is if a non-govemmental project is taking place within a flood plain. Federal
agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Administration and the Army Corp of
Engineers, will then become involved in permitting and inspections. With these projects, the
Site Plan Reviewer coordinates the involvement of the necessary parties.
Leadership Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #11: LIEP has developed a mission/vision statement.
Finding #12: LIEP has developed internal policies which are widely circulated.
Finding #13: LIEP has a wide variety of stakeholders, some of whom it works with very well,
and others with whom the relationship needs to be further developed or clarified.
Finding #14: LIEP has not kept the City Council as up-to-date as it should on the progress of
the automation or the problems LIEP has encountered in implementing the systems.
Finding #15: Some of LIEP's responsibilities overlap with those of other governmental entities.
Sometimes these are not coordinated effectively.
Finding #16: The City appears not to be in compliance with state law as it has not established a
local board of appeals to hear appeals to decisions of the building code official. Appeals can be
heard by the Legislative Hearing Officer, though the Hearing Officer is denied the authority to
grant waivers to the building code by the City Code. However, in the State Auditor's report on
this subject, the State did not seem concerned with this lack of local appeal boards.
Finding #17: LIEP has been tardy on reports it is supposed to submit annually to the State of
Minnesota's Historic Preservation Office .
Leadership Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 6: At a minimum, communication betrveett LIEP and the State Fire Marshal
needs to be improved so they can insure that inspections, installations, and removal offuel storage
tanks are occurring. In order to ensure comp/iance the approval should come from the City,
rather than from the state, leaving all responsibility a1 dhe City level. I,IEP should work with the
State Fire Marshal to determine procedural and legislative changes required to bring this about.
Recommendation # 7: LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services need to clarify their roles
relating to the plumhing code. ,4s the Building O�cial has ultimale responsibility for enforcing
the plumbing code, perhaps LIEP should conduct the inspections currently performed by Regional
Water. This may lead to enhanced e�ciency for both entities.
2000 Saint Pau! C!ry Co�mcil Research
�
Zy Performance Audit ofthe Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Rev and Inspect F�nctions Pe�
Recommenda[ion # 8: LIEP should market its service ofproviding building evaluations to
communiry developnrent corporations. This valuable tool would enhance the relationship behveen
CDCs and the Ciry and ensure that rehabilitations address building code prob(ems appropriately.
Recommendation # 9: LlEP and the Design Center should darify their respective roles and
level of authoriry and clearly explain them to permit applicants.
Recommendation # l0: LIEP and the Crty Attorney's O�ce need ta clarify whether the Ciry is
in compliance with state law regarding appeals of decisions of the building code o�cial.
Recommendation # 11: LIEP and PED should take leadership in developing a quarterly
interdepartmental meeting for al! staff who work with small businesses.
Recommendation # 12: LIEP should meet with Code Enforcement and other appropriate Ciry
agencies to discuss and find solutions to the issue of long-term incomplete projects in the City's
neighborhoods.
Recommendation # l3: LIEP needs to come into, and remain in, compliance with state
reporting requirements for both its 6uilding code and herirage preservatton activities.
Recommendation # 14: LIEP should provide the City Council at regularly scheduled intervals,
a complete explanation of the current automation situation including funding, hours spent on the
project, timeline and reasons for the lengthened timeline.
See also Recommendations 4 and 5 on inclusion in planning activities.
Quality of Leadership
Vision and Mission
As mentioned previously, the vision and mission have to be clearly articulated from the top of
the organization down. This is a vitally important characteristic of a high-performing
organization. In the case of the City, the Mayor has uhimate responsibility for communicating
his vision to staff, whether this is communicated directly from him or through department and
office directors. According to the survey responses, the Mayor's vision is ineffectively
communicated to staff. However, based on a January 20, 2000 presentation at LIEP's training
for small contractors (held after the survey was conducted), it was evident the Mayor does have a
vision of enhanced customer service which portrays LIEP as an easy place to do business—a one-
stop shop. Clearly, a vision exists, but the Mayor has either failed to find a way to communicate
this to L[EP, or management has failed to articulate the Mayor's vision to staff. On the other
hand, acco�ding to the majority of survey responses, the Director and managers effectively
convey the Office's mission and vision. But, it must also be mentioned that one-quarter of L[EP
staff surveyed feel the Director and managers do not effectively convey the mission and vision.
From interviews with staff, it seems there is some confusion between the definition of vision and
mission. PaR of this may stem from LIEP management, who use the words "mission" and
"vision" interchangeably in internal documents. There£ore, most interview responses indicated
2000 Saint Paid City Counci! Research
Pedom7ence Audit of ihe City of Sxint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 23
that the mission and vision are the same for LIEP. Upon closer examination, Council Research
determined that the mission statement does not fit exclusively into either category. By
definition, "a mission outlines an organizational purpose while a vision goes on to describe how
the organization should look if it is working extremely well in relation to its environment and its
key stakeholders." A vision incorporates the mission, values, goals, strategies and perforcnance
criteria. According to staff, this vision/mission comes from the Director, though it does not seem
to be integrated into the practices of the organization. It appears the employees do not
understand how their responsibilities contribute to achieving the mission and vision, at least
partially because there are no clear objectives directly linked to the mission.
LIEP reports that as a part of the recent planning retreat it clarified its organizational vision, in
order to make it "more inspiring and challenging." LIEP also reports that it has established core
organizational values. However, in tha interview process which followed this retreat, no staff
mentioned any specific vision---distinct from the mission, or organizational values.
VaIUCS
By definition, values are a"desirable code of behavior to which the organization adheres or
aspires." Despite the lack of a cleaz values statement in LIEP, staff reported that the managers
and the Director effectively convey the values of the organization, another characteristic of high
performing organizations. Intarviewees responded that values are exemplified through the
actions ofthe Director and the values applied to policy decisiops. During the interview process
the values of good customer service and timeliness were emphasized, though rarely was anything
more specific stated. Values statements that were articulated were essentialiy the same as the
mission statement. LIEP clearly places a high value o� offering good customer service, although
it does not have a cleaz and uniformly identified set of well-articulated values. However, one-
quarter of the staff felt the managers and Director were not effective in conveying the values of
the organization.
Staff Recognition
Another essential component of effective leadership is staff recognition. Overall, it was reported
the Director and managers do a good job of recognizing staf�: This seemed to be particularly true
for plan review staff, 42% of whom felt managers and the Director do a good job recognizing
staff. LIEP clearly places a high value and emphasis on employee recognition. In interviews,
many staff inentioned they feel recognized through the respect they are shown and level of
decision-making authority they are given by their colleagues and by management. Management
also expressed they are trying to determine the best ways to recognize staff without being
patronizing. Management curtently use both informal methods to recognize staff, such as "I
Love AMANDA" buttons (AMANDA is one of the new computer systems) and polo shirts, and
more formal methods such as an employee-of-the-month program. The City also had a city-wide
employee of the month program, but it appears to have been terminated. LIEP staff expressed
frustration with the termination, particulazly since one of their own employees had been
nominated for the program. In response, LIEP staRed its own program.
14 Bryson, page I55.
15 Ibid. p. 77.
1000 Sarn1 Pard Gry Cormcil Research
�
Z4 Perfortnance Audi[ of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions P�
Leadership Quality Findings
Finding #18: The Mayor has not effectiveiy communicated his vision directly to LIBP staff.
Finding #19: LIBP Director and managers are good at communicating the organization's
mission to staff.
Finding #20: LIEP does not have clearly articulated values.
Finding #21: L[EP management do a good job of recogn�z�ng staff contributions. They
continue to seek better methods to recognize staff.
Leadership Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # I5: LIEP should evaluate its mission statement to ensure it answers the
following questions:
❑ Who are we? What distinguishes LIEP from other Ciry departments?
❑ yVhat do we do?
❑ For whom do we do it?
❑ Why do we do it?
Recommendation # 16: LIBP should adentify objectives to put the mission statement into action
and also identify specific objectives for each area of LIEP. This will enhance employee
understanding of how their particular responsibilities help meet those objectives and thus fulfill
the mission. Finaily, L(EP should identify specific organizational values under which all
employees operate and ezemplify them at all levels of the organization.
2000 SainfPatJCityCotmcilRese
r
�
ons Functions
staff.
Pcrformence Audit of lhe City of Sain[ Pau�'s Building Percni[, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Func[ions 25
TRAINING
KEY TItAINING CONCEPTS: �
❑ Education & Training Resource Allocation
❑ Employer Commitment �
:� �,��>..�.��:�_r��w,��;_. ,.���.�___� �.._�
Policy Compliance: -�-
Quality Rating: ���.`c'
The Malcolm Baldrige Quality system pairs the concepts of training and development. We have
chosen to split training and development into two subsections because our findings warrant two
separate discussions.
•s the
to action
rus fulfill
all
Employee success depends on having opportunities for personal learning and oppoRunities to
develop and practice skills. "Persona] learning can result in more satisfied and versatile
employees, greater opportunity for organizational cross-functional learning, and an improved
environment for innovation." Providing training and education is also a good way to
demonstrate commitment to employees.
Employees in successful organizations aze provided the tools they need to produce quality
services. These same employees aze given encouragement and the resources to develop a set of
skills that allows them to contribute more effectively to the organization over time. Training can
help employees better serve customers. Successful organizations also link the training and
development of their employees to the organization's goals and priorities. This linkage occurs
through the development and implementation of a long-term strategic plan tied to basic
organizational values.
Training Objectives and Policies
LIEP has clearly placed a high level of importance on training. One of the stated goats of its
1996 Strategic Plan was "to provide continuing education and training that achieves customer
service goals and ensures competency in new technologies, codes, regulations and procedures."
Objectives to achieve this goal include providing adequate funding for training, ensuring that the
training staff receive is appropriate, and completing an educational plan for every employee. The
Director also stressed the importance of providing relevant and meaningful training particularly
when it is difficult to add more staff:
LIEP provides a great deal of information to its new employees. New front-counter employees
receive a packet of information which contains LIEP policies, time cards, and other human
resource information. New inspectors are paired with more experienced inspectors during the
initial weeks of their employment with LIEP. Employees also have a comprehensive LIEP
handbook that assists them in answering customer questions.
L[EP provides a substantial amount of both financial and time resources for staff to obtain
training, and they have developed educational plans for all employees. Counter staff have
16 Z000 Criteria for Performance ExceUence, Baldrige National Quality Program.
t
rncilResearch I
1000 SqIn7 Poul City Council Research
�
Z6 Performance Audit ofthe Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
received customer service training and have also been cross-trained to handle boch permit and
license applications. Inspectors have received trade-specific training primarily through the
Minnesota Department of Administration or through their particular trade associations. Plan
examiners have also received some general training in the basics of the electrical and mechanical
codes, and are able to do structural reviews for residential projects and basic zoning reviews.
With the implementation of the new computer systems, many staff have received relevant
training in order to utilize the systems and train other staff members.
Some concerns have been raised by LIEP staff and by other City staff that too many training
resources have been focused on the trade inspectors, while other staff have more limited training
opportunities. Some of this may simply be because there aze more training opportunities
available for inspectors due in part to certification requirements.
Training Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #22: LIEP has invested significant financial and human resources in training.
Finding #23: The LIEP handbook is a very comprehensive and useful tool to which all staff
have access.
Finding #24: Each employee has an annually-updated educational plan.
Finding #25: Counter staff aze cross-trained in percnitting and licensing. Other staff have
received some limited cross-training.
Finding #26: Too many training resources may be allocated to the trades inspectors, potentially
limiting training opporhxnities for other staff.
Training Policy Recommendation
Recommendation # 17: LIEP shoudd reassess where resources are allocated for training to
determine if some staff have less access to training than others, and whether tlris is appropriate.
LIEP should also determine if, and how, the training is affecting workload allocation.
Quality of Training
LIEP employees were asked their opinion on the effectiveness of LIEP's use of education and
training opportunities. The survey results indicate that 98% of staff feel LIEP "effectively" or
"very effectively" uses education and training opportunities. This speaks very well for the
organization and demonstrates its willingness to invest in its employees. From the interviews, it
was apparent that training is widely available and encouraged. Some staff, such as the
inspectors, aze required to obtain a certain amount of training to maintain their licenses. LIEP
provides the funding and the time for this training. Commendably, this Oftice sets aside a
relatively large amount of its budget for these necessary training activities. Also mentioned
previously, there is some intemal cross training for front counter staff, but not in the other areas.
2000 Smnf Paul Ciry Councif Research
�
;tions
Ical
Perfo A of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions 27
Finally, the development of the Project Facilitator positions has assisted the organization in
having at least two staff operate as "generalists." The Project Facilitator [ works as a generalist
in the licensing area, although she is somewhat knowledgeable in plan review and inspections as
well. The yet-to-be-filled Project Facilitator II position will be a genera(ist in permitting, review
and inspections area.
Training Quality Finding
ing
Finding #27: Through the survey, we found the vast majority of LIEP staff feel the resources
provided by LIEP are "somewhat effective" or better. As mentioned above, training is widely
encouraged and available, though more so for trade inspectors than for other staff.
Training Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 18: LIEP needs to encourage all staff in all work areas to pursue relevant
training and provide the resources whenever possible,
Recommendation # 19: More cross-education of all LIEP functions would be valuable. Staff
tead to have limited krrowledge of the functions of work areas beyond their own. Having a good
working knowledge of the other functional areas will assist staff in answering customer
questions and coordinating e,f�'orts to prevent problems.
ally
ate.
s, it
:as.
search
2000 Sainl Panl Ciry Co�mcif Research
28 Pedormance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
KEY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS:
a Employee Contribution
DEVELOPMENT � WorkEnvironment
o Labor/Management Relationship
❑ Employee Evaluation
Policy Compliance: —
Quality: �`C�
An organizatiods success depends largely on the knowledge, skills, innovation, creativity and
motivation of its employees. Valuing employees means committing to their development,
satisfaction, and well-being. High performing organizations often provide opportunities within
the organization for development and g+'owth. Organizational knowledge is shared so employees
can better serve customers and contribute to achieving the organization's goals and objectives.
Development also includes building internal partnerships with employees through means such as
laborvmanagement cooperation and the creation of a supportive work environment for all
employees.
Development Policies
One of LIEP's goats from its 1996 Strategic Action Plan was to improve employee inorale in all
azeas of the Office of LIEP. This goal included the following objectives:
❑ Encourage managers to nominate employees for recognition. (As mentioned previously,
LIEP does a good job of recognizing staff.)
❑ Use the Labor Issues Focus Group to resolve job and morale concems. (This group is no
longer meeting.)
Relating to the last objective, one of LIEP's 1998 Budget Objectives was to "Monitor employee
views and ideas for improvements and develop a labor-management partnership to address areas
of mutual concern." Clearly, this labor-management partnership has not come to fruition. The
need for such a group will be more clearly articulated in the following quality discussion.
Development Policy Findings
Finding #28: L[EP addressed the need to improve employee morale in its 1996 Strategic Action
Plan, but has not followed through on some important objectives to reach this goal.
Finding #29: LIEP does not have an active labor-management group.
Development Policy Recommendations
Recommendation # 20: L/EP should follow through on its commitment to open communication
benveen staff and management and discuss together issues related to morale and ather
2000 Sainl Pa�d City Co�mcil Research
— unctions � Pedormance Audit of the City oPSaint PauPs Building Permi4 Plan Review and Inspections Functions 29
; workpface concerns. This could involve increased management attendance at work-group or
�PTS: j' feam meetings, as well as more proactive involvement ofstaffnot traditionally involved in
organization-wide discussions.
��P $ecommendation # 2/: LIEP should reconvene a labor-management group to actively pursue
issues of mutua! concern. Clear guidelines and expectations should be established so meetings
�"'°' ��""=}"' are a place for cooperation, not confrontation and complaining. Leaders should emphasize this
is a non-grievance discussion forum. The leaders of the group widl also need to engage the
problems encountered by the f:rst labor-management group, such as too many participants —
The last group had two representatives from each bargainittg unit in LIEP which may hwe made
�d the group too unwieldy and lneffective.
—ithin
�loyees
ves.
zuch as
c in all
sly,
3 110
_pioyee
:s areas
. The
c Action
rication
Quality of Development
Staff Contribution to Organizational Goals and Processes
It was cleaz through the survey results staff feel disconnected from decision-making in LIEP. When
asked about opportunities to contribute to decisions made about operations and procedures in LIEP,
58% of staff surveyed stated there were few to no opportunities. We found very similar results to
the question regarding opportunities to contribute to the organization's goals. We examined more
closely the overal) responses of the group that stated few to no opportunities exist to contribute to
decisionsregarding operations and proceduresto determine whetherthis group's responses differed
from the general population. Their responses are highlighted in the following chart.
Responses and characteristics of staff who felt there were few to no
to contribute to decisions —
When asked about opportuni[ies to contribute to decisions made about operations and procedures of LIEP,
58% of staff felt there were few to no opportunities. Common characteris[ics and responses of this group:
❑ Tenured and representative of all work areas surveyed;
O Generally less involved in professional organizations;
❑ See work emironment as slightly more negative than the general population;
❑ Significantly less aware of da[a collection prec[ices and whether the data is used effectively;
❑ More negative on the usefulness of ECLIPS, AMANDA, and o[her computer sys[ems;
O Generally see less monitoring and responsiveness of cus[omer needs and satisfacaon; and
❑ Unaware of any results measwement in LIEP, and don't know if goals are achieved.
It appears this group is less imolved in the organization. This may be due partially to
management not involving them in the decision-making process, and partially due to their own
lack of motivation to be involved. One interviewee suggested management creates the "big
picture" and staff have to decide how to fit in. This sentiment was reflected in comments from
other interviews where staff expressed that opportunities exist, but that staff have to pursue those
�cil Research j M00 Satnf Paul City Councl! Research
30 Performance Audit of the CiTy of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
opportunities. However, one of the expectations the Director has of L1EP managers is that they
"involve employees in decision making; seek input." Involvement may also vary by work unit—
different units within the Office seem to have different means to garner staff input. Some use
very formal methods, such as staff meetings, while other supervisors visit informally with their
staff on a daily basis. 5ome methods may be more effective than others and the effectiveness of
methods will vary by employee.
Work Environment
Nearly two-thirds of the LIEP staff surveyed feel the emironment is "conducive" or `bery
conductive" to the well-being of all staff. However, 36% of staff stated they feel the
environment is "not conducive" to the well-being of ail staff. While it is alarming that one-third
of the staff feel this way, it is also important to note this negativity could impact the rest of the
staf£ This group's responses are explored in the following table. ,
Responses of staff who felt the work environment was not conducive to well-
being and growth of all staff— � __ ^_ ;
36% of LIEP staff surveyed feit the work environment was not conducive to the well-being and gfowth of
all staff. This group typically gave more negative responses to nearly every question. General responses
of this group:
❑ See less planning in their work area and staff involvement in planning;
❑ Feel the Mayor, Director, and managers do not effectively convey a clear vision,
mission, or values;
❑ Do not feel encouraged to participate in professional organizations;
❑ Less positive about labor-management relationship;
❑ Less involved in decisions made about operations, procedures, and goals of LIEP;
❑ See less monitoring and responsiveness to customer needs and satisfaction; and
❑ Less aware of the resuks measurement ac[ivities of L[EP, less knowledgeable as to whether LIEP
compazes its cesults with othec organizations, and less knowledgeable as to whether or not LIEP meets
its goals.
- :�:.. -- -- —
Possible explanations for the less conducive work environment include stress due to increased
workloads and computerization, staff shortages, and the high volume of construction over the
past couple of yeazs. It was also repoRed by a number of people that there is a division between
those in the Office willing to make changes and those who prefer the old methods of operation.
An uneven workload distribution between sections may exist in LIEP. Some sections, such as
plan review, seem to have more work than staff. The lack of planning by LIEP may also be
contributing to the stress level. LIEP has not done an adequate job of anticipating and planning
for the changing workloads resulting from increased construction, the health of the economy, and
the automation of the office. Another possible explanation for the lower rating of the work
environment may be the lack of empowerment some staff feel, which makes the environment
more stressful. Some staff expressed a sense that their needs and input are largely ignored by
decision-making staff, notably those involved in developing and implementing the ECLIPS and
AMANDA systems. Other extemal factors beyond LIEP's control may also affect morale such
2000 SaintPa�JCityCouncilResearc6
:tions Perfortnence Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Func[ions 3I
;y as potential privatization/competition of city services and drawn-out labor negotiations. LIEP
it— management report the reason some staff feel the work environment is not conducive to their
well-being is the changeover to a new computer system, although Council Research believes the
9� dynamics are significandy more complex.
of
Finally, with respect to work environment, another survey question asked how the Director and
managers aze at creating a work environment that is equally supportive of all employees
regardless of race, color, class, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation or physical ability.
Fully ninety percent of the staff surveyed stated they are "fairly good" to "very good" at creating
a supportive work environment.
Labor-Management Relationship
The lack of a formal labor-management partnership was mentioned in the policy wmpliance
section of Development. This lack of partnership may have an impact on the staff's view of the
relationship. Overall, most staff feel the labor-management relationship is mediocre or fair,
although one-fourth of staff say labor and management "work together poorly: ' This group's
responses are examined in more detail in the following table. There is a general sense from other
City staff who frequently interact with LIEP that within LIEP, particularly within the trades
inspection area, loyalty is to the union first and then to the City. This attitude may influence the
way staff perform their duties, as discussed further in the Customer Focus section. It should be
mentioned that LIEP management is not exclusively responsible for the bargaining uniYs
relationship to the City. Contract negotiation is not conducted by L[EP, but rather by the Office
of Labor Relations. However, LIEP management is directly involved in the grievance resolution
process for LIEP staff. Notably, an examination of the number and type of grievances filed by
LIEP employees shows they aze similar to those of other departments, taking into account
department size. So this reportedly poor relationship does not manifest itself in grievances filed.
from staff who believe labor & management work
One-fourth of s[aff feel that labor and management "work together poorly.° This group's responses aze
consistentty more negative than LIEP staff is, in general, in all ca[egories. Lis[ed below are some key
£ndings of the responses of this group:
❑ Not aware of the Mayor's vision for L[EP, do not believe the director canveys the vision effectively,
do not see [he director or managers as conveying the mission or values of the organization effectively;
O View the work environment as not conducive [o [he well-being of staff;
❑ State the overall work environment for persons of pro[ected classes is not good to fairly good;
�
❑ See few to no opportmi[ies to con[ribute to decisions;
❑ Not aware of what data is coliected for permitting, ptan review, or inspections;
❑ Do not know if the computer sys[ems meet the needs of LIEP;
O Not aware of any systema[ic intemal evaluation in LIEP;
❑ Not aware of any monitoring of changes in customer needs or satisfaction performed by LIEP, and fee!
that at best L[EP is "partially responsive" to changes in customer needs and satisfaction; and
❑ Unaware of any results measuremen[ and goal achievement in LIEP.
earch i 1000 Saini Po�d Ciry Counci! Research
�..
3z Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Pl Review and lnspecliuns Functions
Laboc representatives within LIEP may view themselves as having less of a role in decision-
making. At the same time, some management staff also expressed a sense of hopelessness about
their ability to work with the unions. Unions are seen as an obstacle rather than as a partner.
Unions may also perpetuate this feeling by being adversarial and uncooperative. These attitudes
may permeate throughout the organization, hampering the relationship. An example of this
situation is the creation and implementation of the Project Facilitator positions, recommended in
the 1994 Functional Redesign Plan. In 1998, the Process Redesign Change Management
Committee was reorganized into a formal labor-management committee to address union
concerns regarding the creation of these positions. The proposal was held up in this committee
as the unions could not agree on who would represent the Project Facilitator positions.
Emptoyee Evaluation
The majority of surveyed employees responded their perforcnance is reviewed annually. LIEP
continues to make a concerted effort to review employee evaluation methods for their usefulness.
Sixty percent of respondents feel the evaluations aze somewhat useful or better, the other 40%
feel they are not useful.
Development Quality Findings
Finding #30: Over half of the surveyed LIEP staff say there are "few" to "no opportunities" to
contribute to the organization's decisions about operations and procedures. The same statistic
exists for opportunities for staff to contribute to the goals of the organization.
Finding #31: Two-thirds of staff feel the work environment is "somewhat conducive" to "very
conducive" to the well-being of all staff: The other one-third of staff who feel the work
environment is "not conducive" have a more negative view of the organization in general.
' j j; ', ' Finding #32: Ninety percent of staff surveyed feel the Director and managers have created a
i! i! ' supportive work environment for people of protected classes.
�i�:i,
Finding #33: The labor-management relationship is mediocre to fair. One-quarter of LIEP staff
surveyed feel the two groups work together poorly. This group gave consistendy more negative
responses to survey questions than LIEP staff as a whole.
��
Development Quality Recommendation
I' Recommendation # 22: LIEP shoutd address work environment issues. The proposed Labor-
,, Management Committee should discuss both the factors negatively impacting the environment
and what specific steps can be taken to decrease the stress level experrenced by many stafJ'
° Additionally, Jhis group could examine what specifically could be do»e to make LIEF a more
supportive work environment for those who feel it is not currently supportive.
2000 Sain� Paul Ciry Coxneil Research
4
unctions � p�'p�gpCe Audit of lhe Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
3bOUI
=udes
ea �n
ttee
; INFORMATION
AND ANALYSIS
Policy Compliance: —
Quality Rating: �
33
KEY INFORMATION & ANALYS[S
CONCEPT5:
❑ Data Collection
o Analysis of Data
o Effec[ive Use of Automation Systems
Information and analysis is the foundation of a perfortnance management system. Relevant
EP information relates to customers, services, employees, and costs. Analysis of this data should be
Iness. used for evaluation, decision-making and operational improvement within the organization. Data
'% are used to determine trends, projections, and cause and effect. They also support planning,
performance reviews, comparisons and benchmarks.
Automation Policies
'to
iery
staf�
dive
Given L[EP's activities related to permitting, plan review and inspections, one might expect a
great deal of data to be collected on functions such as permit fees collected, inspections
completed and change orders written — among numerous other functions. In the past, LIEP has
collected data on the number of inspections conducted, permit values, permit revenues and other
budgetary data. However, LIEP is currently collecting very little data beyond the budgetary
information to support its operations. Some of this is due to the changing information systems in
LiEP from a dBase system that was not Y2K compliant to ECLIPS and AMANDA. The dBase
system did not allow communication between functions such as licensing and permitting.
7'herefore, LIEP began, back in 1995, to look for a new information system that would be useful
across activities. To this end, they contracted with Online Business Systems, Inc. in late 1995 to
design a system that would integrate the licensing, permitting, plan review, zoning and
inspections processes, known as ECLIPS, The goal was "to install a custom designed computer
system that will allow a single point of contact for the customer, a single request (application) for
information, and a 48-hour maximum response time to customer requests."��
Unfortunately, Online failed to deliver a product in a reasonable, specified amount of time and
the contract was terminated. In early 1999, LIEP contracted with CSDC Systems, Inc. to design
ECLIPS 2, which is now known as AMANDA. The system is in the early stages of operation.
A great deal of information remains to be loaded into the system and other functions to be
completed before AMANDA is entirely operational. LIEP is over one year behind schedule on
implementation of the systam, though they remain within budget. The following table outlines
each system's budget to date.
Paid Balance
ECL[PS (Online Business Systems) $697,228 $0
AMANDA (CSDC) $319,712 $211,099
�� LIEP report ro the City Comcil, April 1, 1997.
rsearch � 1000 Sa1nl Patd C!ry Councfl Research
34 Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
The problems with office automation have also pushed back the implementation dates for the
hand-held computers for the inspectors. LIEP is hopeful that some inspectors will be able to
begin using them this year, with the remainder in use in 200L The hand-held computers will
allow inspectors to retrieve inspections records and issue and log written citations in the field.
Other City departments have also expressed interest in implementing AMANDA. LIEP is
cunently assisting the Fire Department with developing the system for fire inspections, and PED
and Citizens Service Office have also expressed interest in utilizing the system. A unified
system would allow all departments access to the same property information through the shared
address files. This would create efficiencies for City operations and improve communication
between the various departments. A City-wide GIS team is also working to identify software
that would interface between AMANDA and GIS. The current software, Arcview, is cost
prohibitive to install City-wide (about $1000 -$1500 per copy), thus only a limited number of
people have access to it. Other, far less expensive programs exist, and the GIS group is
developing specifications for these products. Such a program would allow all departments that
currently use or will be using AMANDA to access the same information from the GIS system.
Information and Analysis Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #34: In the past, LIEP collected some information on the number of inspections
conducted and some budgetary data such as permit values and permit revenues. Currently, no
data is collected or analyzed beyond required budgetary data.
Finding #35: LIEP staff should be given a great deal of credit for taking on the task of automating
the Office's information systems. It has involved many staff hours to monitor the contracts as well
as develop and leam new systems. It has also required that staff not directly involved in
developing the systems take on responsibilities formerly assigned to the staff now working on
developing the new computer systems. Staffhave shown a strong commitment to the project.
Finding #36: The anticipated implementation dates of 2000 and 2001 for hand-held computers
for inspectors seems lengthy given the potential usefulness and efficiency of hand-held
computers. It does not appear that specific plans aze in place to begin the implementation of the
hand-heids or train inspectors to effectively use them.
Finding #37: Other departments are interested in implementing AMANDA. L[EP is providing
them with staff assistance.
Finding #38: A City-wide GIS team is working to identify economically feasible software that
would interface between AMANDA and GIS.
Information and Analysis Policy Compliance
Recommendations
Recommendation # 23: The City of Saint Paul shou[d provide the financial resources to allow
for the purchase of an economical software package that would interface between the G/S system
and AMANDA. This would allow broad access to GIS for all departments utilizing the
2000 Sainl Paid Ciry Councrl Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 35
AMANDA system and enhance the ability to coordinate activities and information behveen
various departments.
Recommendation # 24: Not only must LIEP work to implement hand-held computers as soon as
possible due to lheir usefu[ness, LIEP must also train its inspectors to integrate the hand-held
computers into their work practices. Inspectors must make it a practtce to load all inspections
comments into the database so other inspectors have the same information. Inspectors should
also begin the practice of looking up information to ensure they are providing permittees with
accurate information.
Quality of Information and Analysis
Data Collection and Analysis
From the interviews, it was clear LIEP did have data on paper and in the old computer systems,
though it was rarely wmpiled for analysis. When data was collected, it was primarily basic
performance statistics, such as the number of inspections done, and used for balancing workload.
LIEP is also collecting data on revenue received from permits and the value of the permitted
projects. This data is used for budget prepazation. LIEP is not currently doing any fuMher data
compilation. One-third to one-half of LIEP staff surveyed stated they do not know what data is
collected on the customer service/permitting, plan review, and inspections processes. One-third
of staff do not know if data is used effectively. Of those who answered the question, they believe
data is used "somewhat effectively." Therefore, the data that is collected is not widely shared or
used by many staff:
Staff Awareness of Automation
We found staff to be generally unaware of the effectiveness of LIEP's automation efforts. When
asked if needs were met through ECLIPS:
❑ One-half of staff surveyed do not know if LIEP's needs aze met.
❑ Of those who do know if LIEP's needs are met, the average answer was "few needs are met "
❑ Over one-third of staff indicated "needs are not met "
We received somewhat similar responses to the same questions regarding AMANDA:
❑ One-third of L[EP staff surveyed don't know if needs are met through AMANDA.
❑ Of those who do, the majority stated that "few of the needs are met "
❑ 37% indicated "needs are not met."
We also asked about the other information systems in the o�ce (word processing, e-mail,
Internet access). In this case, we found one-quarter of LIEP staff do not know if needs are met,
and, of those who do, the most common response was "few of the needs are met "
We anticipated finding that needs may not yet be met with AMANDA, but were somewhat
surprised with the responses regarding ECL[PS and the other computer systems. There may be a
number of reasons for these findings:
2000 Saint Pa+d Ciry Council Research
36 Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Funct �
❑ They could be a result of the problems with the company originally hired to design ECL(PS, !
and that once AMANDA, the second phase ofthe ECL[PS projecy is fully operational, more �
needs will be met. �
❑ Most staff surveyed do not work directly with ECLIPS, and may have heard only complaints
of some staff.
❑ We heard in interviews that it sometimes takes longer to perform routine tasks now with
ECLIPS and AMANDA. Interviewees suggested that it will take time to learn the new
systems, and once staff are comfortable with the systems, efficiency will be improved.
❑ Some staff are resistant to change and rather unwilling to learn the new systems.
❑ Planning for LIEP's information systems may not have been sufficiendy inclusive of all
users such as inspectors and counter staff. Some staff stated their input was not considered
in the development of ECL[PS. Additionally, they report that when problems have arisen
with ECLIPS, they were not addressed because information systems staff were working on
AMANDA.
The move toward increased automation is a highly commendable task. The development of the
address files and their integration with the GIS system will be very beneficial to the City.
However, the City needs to be more proactive in pursuing GIS City-wide. Other departments
will also be utilizing AMANDA: Fire, Citizens Services Office, Public Works and PED. LIEP
also has staff members in each area who aze on-site experts in the computer systems and can
answer questions. This is a very good practice and likely helps to alleviate some frustration on
the part of end-users.
Information and Analysis Quality Findings
The Future of LIEP's Information and Analysis -�`s�r�
We felt it necessary to not only rate LIEP on their current infortnation and analysis
activities, but also speculate on a future rating if they aze able to successfully implement
systems and follow through on statements made in the interviews. Therefore, if we were to
audit LIEP one year from now, we anticipate they have the potential to receive three stazs.
However, if they do not effectively use their computer systems to collect and analyze data,
we do not believe their assessment would improve. The automation should:
❑ assist with fee justification based on data and workload analysis;
❑ provide inspectors with an inspections results database allowing them to provide
consistent information to property owners and wntractors; and
❑ give other departments such as PED, Public Works, and the Fire Department
comprehensive data that will allow them to coordinate activities.
Finding #39: LIEP currently does very little data collection or analysis.
Finding #40: Staff are generally unaware of what data is collected and how it is used.
1000 Saint Pau! City Councr! Reseprch
Performance Audit of lhe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 3 �
Finding #41: Staff do not feel the ECLIPS or AMANDA system currently meets their needs.
Finding #42: Great potential exists for LIEP to perform meaningful data collection and analysis
and improve its performance by utilizing new automated system. LIEP should be given credit
for taking on such a task.
Information and Analysis Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 25: LIEP should clearly ident� the information gathering potential of the
new computer systems and the usefulness of the data. (See previous box for suggestion). Data
collected and analyzed should be related to the mission and objectives of the organization.
Recommendation # 26: LIEP should analyze the effectiveness of the computer systems. One
method to analyze the effectiveness would be to follow-up with staff based on survey responses
indicating the systems are not useful. LIEP should encourage and gather input on the systems
and respond to the input, even if it is not possible to immediately address all concerns or
suggestions.
See aJso Recommendation #41 in Results and the Performance Measures Chapter.
2000 Sain! Pau! Ciry Council Research
38 Perfortnance Audi� ofthe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functiops
IMPROVEMENT
KEY PROCESSES FOR
IMPROVEMENT PRACTICES:
PRACTICES
Policy Compliance: °�
Quality Rating: �
Identification of Potential Improvements
[mplementation of Improvements
Evaluation of Improvement Efforts
Improvement practices occur when an organization considers the design, management and
improvement of internal organizational processes. Similarly, improvement processes such as
internal evaluation should be part of daily work within the organization, and should seek to
eliminate problems at the source and be driven by opportunities to improve. Improvements may
enhance value through new and better services, increased responsiveness, and a higher level of
efficiency. Notably, the development of new services may or may not be an improvement practice,
depending on whether it meaningfully improves services already provided by the organization.
[mprovement processes must contain cycles of planning, implementation and evaluation which
require information and methods for assessing progress. All practices of an organization should be
continually evaluated to identify problems and successes, and should be incorporaCed into an
organizatiods daily practices. These practices are charted in the following diagram.
The Improvement Process
Identify Identify Maihods to
Dafic�encies � Addrass Deficioncios;
in the Select the Most
urrent Process Appropriate
Evaluate the
Effectivenass and
EfFiciency of the
New/Revised Method
�-
Plan Implamontation
of Now/Revisad
Method(s)
♦
Implesnenl the Now/
Revised Method(s)
Quick Fixes and Past Improvement Efforts
The very development of LIEP was an improvement practice. The City saw the need to combine
functions to increase efficiency and better meet citizens' needs. Historically, LIEP itself has
been very active in engaging in improvement practices. Since its inception in 1992, LIEP has
developed plans and action steps to address both major and minor problems and processes.
20q0 Sainl Panl City Council Research
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions . 39
Many of these were developed in the mid-1990's along with the Office's Strategic Action Plan
and its Functional Redesign Report. LIEP's past improvement effoRs include the repoR titled
! 19 Targets for Redesign, which was paR of the Business Process Redesign Project. This report
also identified a number of "Quick Fixes," many of which were implemented. CeRainly, it was
not possible to implement all of them either because it simply was not feasible or perhaps even
necessary. LIEP should be aclmowledged not only for such a proactive effoR to improve its
operations, but also for involving many levels of staff in these improvement efforts. Indeed, all
of the quick fixes were identified by employee work teams.
Improved Automation
The most visible of LIEP's improvement practices is its current automation efforts. The new
computer systems will have a number of valuable features including: access to the City's address
files; the ability to track plans currently in the review process; and checkoff lists for plan
reviewers and inspectors allowing them to quickly note deficiencies or compliance. While these
are good practices which will likely have a positive impact on its functions, LIEP did very little
planning to handle activities and problems created by automation, such as increased workloads,
stress and the inability to effectively collect data during the transition period. It also remains to
be seen how much evaluation LIEP will do of the systems once they have been implemented,
particularly given LIEP's historical lack of internal evaluation, discussed later in this section.
Project Facilitators and Experts-on-Duty
The Project Facilitator positions were originally identified as part of LIEP's Functional Redesign
Plan, and have taken a long time to implement. The Project Facilitator positions were originally
designed to encompass a wide range of functional knowledge in zoning, environmental health,
licensing, construction and heritage preservation and to track lazger projects and serve as a
resource for customer questions. Since then, LIEP determined that some of the functions should
be sepazated to allow for specialization. Currently, a Project Facilitator I assists businesses in
obtaining the necessary licenses, and will also help them through the permitting, plan review and
inspections process if necessary. The position is primarily focused on the licensing aspect and
reports to the Customer Services Manager. The Project Facilitator II, soon to be hired, will be
the primary contact person for customers for permitting, plan review and inspections. This
position will report to the supervisor for Plan Review and Historic Preservation. Currently plan
reviewers track their own projects, so it is unclear how responsibilities will be shared between the
Project Facilitator II and the plan review staff,
LIEP also has a policy designating a daily expert-on-duty who is available to handle customer calls
and walk-in customers. The expert-on-duty answers questions when the person who usually handles
those questions is unavailable or when technical issues ue encountered that front wunter staff are
unable to handle. The expert-on-duty is a commendable practice and valuable to the organization.
Recent Improvement Practices
LIEP has not—actively—identified new improvement practices since the mid-] 990's. Perhaps
more importantly, LIEP has not reviewed the effectiveness of its past efforts. Improvements
have to be evaluated in order to determine their worth and to learn from past efforts. While L[EP
2000 Saint Pau! Ciry Council Research
40 P erfo r man c e Audit of t City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Pl Revie a n d In F�nctions
typically does not evaluate the effectiveness of its improvement effor[s, L[EP has taken one
particular experience to heart: the problems encountered with Online Services, Inc. during the
development of the ECL[PS systeih. LIEP used the experience with Online to formulate a more
effective contract with CSDC Sys{ems, Inc. With the new contract, LIEP decided to use an off-
the-shelf system which could be customized internally as necessary primarity utilizing their own
staff. They also wrote the new contract to better protect the inierests of LIEP.
LIEP has incorporated a number of their improvement practices into their annual budget
objectives, and LIEP should be given credit here for their efforts. One such example is their
2000 Budget Ongoing Performance Indicator which lists their complaint response time (for
zoning complaints) in days as four, down from nine in 1997. Clearly, LIEP focused efforts on
this as part of their goal of increased customer service. Other performance indicators, though,
have not been monitored and do not have supporting information to show the indicator has been
met. Without supporting data, the indicators are meaningless.
LIEP staff have also been very active in reducing plan review and site plan review times. As
mentioned previously in the Leadership chapter, the site plan reviewer coordinates the
interdepartmental site plan review group, which has effectively reduced review time and
increased communication. The plan reviewers also make it their goal to turn plan reviews around
quickly and return them to the applicant as soon as possible. And certainly, front-counter staff
have also pursued methods to decrease the time it takes to issue permits, and are able to issue
"express" permits for simple projects such as basic re-roofing projects.
Heritage Preservation staff in LIEP should also be commended for their efforts in developing
some Heritage Preservation brochures which will be sent this spring to every resident of the
City's Heritage Preservation districts. The brochures explain the benefits and responsibilities of
living in such districts. These same staff inembers aze currently working to have Heritage
Preseroation information included on the Truth-in-Housing forms, though this has taken longer
than anticipated due to lack of staff resources.
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #43: In the past, LIEP has actively engaged in developing improvement practices.
Finding #44: Most current improvement initiatives are manifestations of past improvement
efforts. Examples are the office automation efforts and the project facilitator positions.
Finding #45: While LIEP has committed to improvement, it has not evaluated the results of its
efforts, and, therefore, cannot say with any certainty that changes in practices have led to actual
improvements. They did, however, learn from the experience with Online Services, Inc., and
used that experience to create a contract that better serves the interests LIEP.
Finding #46: Select sections and staffmembers in LIEP are working on improvement practices
such as plan review with its interdepartmental review team and heritage preservation with its
informational brochures.
1000 Sainl Paid Cify Council Reseorclt
Perfortnance Audit oCthe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review a�d Inspec[ions Func[ions 41
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendulion # 27: LIEP shauld involve itself in a complete improvement practices process
that includes planning, implementation and evaluation of its improvements.
Recommendation # 28: LIEP needs to use data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of its
improvement practices. So far, they have little documentation to substantiate claims of
improvement other than anecdotal evidence.
Quality of Improvement Practices
Internal Evaluation
As mentioned above, an important component of improvement practices is evaluation of cunent
practices. It was clear from interviews and surveys that there is very little systematic evaluation
taking place in LIEP. Alarmingly, 72% of survey respondents stated they "don't know" if L[EP
systematically evaluates its activities. Of those who did know, they stated it was once a year.
Most evaluation in LIEP seems to be very informal — essentially reacting to a problem when it
arises and devisittg a method to address the problem, but not really seazching for the source of
the problem. It is entirely possible staff who stated evaluation is done annually were considering
their annual reviews as the systematic evaluation of LIEP. It is also possible that the high
number of "don't know" responses may be a result of respondents not understanding the
meaning of systematic evaluation. We consider systematic evaluation to be periodic
measurement and examination of organizational results. An example is a caz owner calculating
miles per gallon under different circumstances. The responses in this category aze similar to
those in Planning, with a lazge percentage of staff saying they don't know how often eval aation
occurs or what the results aze.
Improvement Practices Quality Findings
Finding #4'7: LIEP staff aze largely unawue of any intemal evaluation taking place in LIEP.
Finding #48: LIEP has not prepared concrete plans to implement its lazger improvement
practices, such as the automation efforts.
Improvement Practices Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 29: It is apparent that LIEP has few formalized and widely understood
goals. Therefore, LIEP staff should be involved in defining improvement practices, setting goals
and evaluating activities. (Goal setting is discussed in the planning, leadership and results
quality sections). Improvement practices should link activities to goals and objectives. They
should a(so help organizations achieve theii�, goals and objectives.
See also Recommendation #41 in Results and the Performance Measures Chapter.
2000 Sainf Paul City Counci! Research
.
42
Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
CUSTOMER
FOCUS
Policy Compliance: —
Quality Rating: ��.`C
KEY CUSTOMER FOCUS
CONCEPTS:
❑ Customer ldentification & Knowledge
❑ Managing Customer Relationships
❑ Customer Service Practices
❑ Customer Service Standards
Attention to customer needs is critical for achieving organizational excellence. Through the
creation and management of relationships with their customers, organizations which excel in
customer satisfaction obtain information on customer service requirements, expectations and
satisfaction. Knowing the requirements of its customers enables an organization to develop
standards which are designad to enhance customer satisfaction. For these standards to be
effective, they must be understood and followed by everyone in the organization.
In recent years, LIEP has placed a great deal of emphasis on providing good customer service,
although there are still some areas in whicli LIEP could improve. It deserves mention that
developing a culture of providing good customer service requires a cultural shift from a rigid
code and "rule" enforcement emphasis to a more customer focused approach. Recently published
research indicates that the burden associated with regulation is not inspection per se, but the
manner in which enforcement is carried out. "Bringing about the right kind of building code
enforcement is more difficult than taking a meat axe to regulations and enforcement staffs, which
has been the rallying cry of those who wail against regulatory burdens."
Improvement in this area also requires that staff understand the importance of customer service
training and that good customer service skills can be leamed or enhanced. Some members of
LIEP's staff do not believe good customer service can be learned, so management has felt the
only option in these cases is simply to model good customer service in the hope that staff will
mimic that behavior.
LIEP's Customers
LIEP considers its primary customers to be those who apply for building permits and go through
the plan review and inspections processes. They have improved a number of their services and
practices to better meet these customers' needs. Unfortunately, few people outside LIEP know of
these improved services. Marketing these services may improve code compliance and assist
LIEP in enhancing its one-stop-shop image. For example, LIEP offers an express site plan
review if the customer is anxious to begin the project. LIEP also provides preliminary plan
reviews, issues express permits for such things as roofs, and offers one-hour free parking while
visiting LIEP. Marketing these valuable services to the general population could be beneficial in
assisting property owners and contractors in understanding that the process of obtaining a
�$ Raymond J. Burby, Peter J. May, Emil E. Malizia, and Joyce Levine, Building Code Enjorcemen/ Burdens and
Central Ciry Dec(ine. Journal of the American Plannine Associatioq Vol. 66, No.2, Spring 2000. page I55.
2000 Saint Poul City Conncil Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 43
building permit is not nearly as cumbersome as they might expect. Certainly word-of-mouth is
also an impoRant method for sharing this information as many contractors work with each other
on various projects and are likely to share experiences.
A very useful marketing tool, largely neglected by LIEP, is the Intemet. Not only could LIEP's
website be used for marketing, but also for providing services directly to customers, such as
building permits, zoning and code information, plan review and inspections results. LIEP has as
one of its objectives, identified in its 1996 Strategic Action Plan, to "Develop a Home Page on
the Internet to provide information to our customers and a means to accommodate remote
transactions 24 hours per day" by the end of 1996. Online Business Systems, Inc. was to
develop this resource, but their contract was terminated prior to completion. The fact their web
site is essentially useless to customers demonstrates a gap in LIEP's efforts to become a
customer-focused organization.
Customer Service Practices
Permitting/Customer Service Section
In general, LIEP's first point of customer contact is the &ont-counter stafE Property owners and
contractors will most likely call LIEP to ask questions or come to the front counter to apply for a
permit. LIEP has a number of informational sheets avaiiable answering basic questions about
requirements for certain types of projects, and sample plans indicating the minimum building
requirements for common projects such as stairways and garages. It was repoded by other LIEP
staff that the front-counter employees are very good at providing customer service and aze always
willing to make cfianges that improve customer satisfaction. LIEP has also designed a system to
issue express permits for simple and straight-forward projects such as roofing and fences. LIEP
will also issue "early start" permits which allow a project to begin before all permits have been
issued. An example would be issuing a foundation permit for a building bafore the mechanical
plans have been approved. In some cases, LIEP also maintains accounts for contractors or
businesses that frequently pull permits, and simply deducts the permit fees from that account.
Plan Review and Zoning Site Plan Review Section
While the plan reviewers and site plan reviewers have few formal customer service guidelines,
they all attampt to review plans as quickly and accurately as possible. Another very positive
customer-oriented practice is the aforementioned preliminary plan review process, during which
LIEP staff ineet with developers, contractors, or property owners to go over plans informally to
look for any potential problem areas. This allows the plan submitter to make changes to the
plans prior to formal review, at which point changes become more expensive to make and the
process takes longer. The hardest step for many people is initially gathering the right
information for plan review. The preliminary plan review provides them the opportunity to find
out what they still need before they pay any fees or spend a lot of time changing plans and
adding information. If necessary, staff will also perform a preliminary site plan inspection.
Plan Review staff ineet with plan submitters to discuss the necessary changes upon formal review
of the plans, and will follow up the meeting with a]etter explaining the required changes. Plan
reviewers will also call the applicant if they do not meet with them. Staff should be commended
for this customer-focused practice.
�
2000 Sainl Paul City Counci! Research
44 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Sain[ PauPs Building Pemiit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Inspections Section
Council Research found several areas where inspections policies could be clarified across trades
groups. We also found several situations in which a policy would be helpful in creating clearer
expectations for both the inspectors and the customers. Customer service standards would also
assist in alleviating some of this confusion.
LIEP does not have a policy pertaining to providing customers with appeals information. Some
inspectors provide verbal information when they give the correction orders; others provide
written information when they send out change orders. The lack of clarity may be causing
confusion for the customer. Without a cleaz policy and a uniform practice, customers will not
receive the same information in a consistent manner.
Council Research found through the interview process that some inspectors do not suggest
equivalencies when they require changes. They simply say "you can't do that." Inspectors have
a great deal of latitude, as they aze given the authority to grant equivalences provided the intent
of the code has been met. Interviews with LIEP staff indicated some inspectors will grant
equivalences themselves, others will defer to their supervisor or to the building official, and
others simply avoid granting them if to hide at all possible. However, it is important to also
mention that although consistency is in use of equivalencies is necessary, a"business-friendly"
approach demands that inspectors maintain a fair amount decision-making authority in the field.
Linked to the lack of equivalencies granted may be an attitude of a few inspectors that contractors
and property owners are attempting code violations from them. In many cases, it could simply be
an oversight or the property owners or contractor's lack of knowledge. If the inspector took time
to explain why the code infraction is a life/safety issue, contractors or property owners may
willingly comply. It is possible that the less flexible inspectors may lack a sense of accountability
for their actions. Some inspectors do not appear to feel accountable to anyone except themselves
and operate seemingly in a vacuum. They know many contractors fear retaliation if they complain
about an inspector. A couple of business owners mentioned to Council Research they have felt
sufficiently intimidated by particular inspectors that they did not complain about an inspection,
when they otherwise would have. These problems may be linked to comments from other City
staff who interact with LIEP's inspectors and customers that some inspectors serve the interests of
their own trade associations before the interests of LIEP or the City. Some inspectors forego more
customer-friendly actions because they view safety as their main objective and use enforcement as
their primary method of obtaining compliance. [t must also be mentioned that many of L[EP's
inspectors are interested in working with contractors and property owners. The few who are not
damage relationships between the City, its residents and businesses.
Another problematic practice in inspections is the final inspection. Most inspectors will sign the
back of the permit indicating the work meets code standards. Some inspectors will leave either a
yellow card, if they are unable to sign-off on the permit because changes still need to be made, or
a green cazd if they aze unable to get in to inspect a project because no one is home. Most
communication appears to be with the contractor. While this is certainly important, it would be
beneficial to the owner if they were given the same information as the contractor, particularly
when a permit cannot be closed out due to remaining required changes.
19 "Business-friendly supervisory practices emphasize the attainment of enforcement goals while giving inspectors
a considerable degree of freedom in how they interact with contractors and developers." Burby, et al, Ibid. p. 155.
2000 5ain! Paid City Ca�ncil Research
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 45
One final problem discovered with the inspections process is that not alt inspectors readily identify
themselves by either showing or wearing a badge stating they are an inspector for the City of Saint
Paul. This has caused some wariness and concem by property owners who find an unfamiliar
person on their property. Notably, it is LIEP policy that all inspectors verbally make known their
presence and purpose as soon as is practical at the work site. Certainly wearing a badge to a site
that an inspector visits on a regular basis may seem unnecessazy, but it would aid all workers on
site in identifying the inspector. However, we found during our field visits with inspectors that the
inspectors immediately identified themselves to the contractors or property owners.
The Housing Initiative
Another customer-focused improvement practice is the Housing [nitiative, which is an effor[ to
increase the number of housing units in Saint Paul. Part of the Initiative is to speed housing
projects through the site plan review process and lower the permit and plan review fees.
Reportedly, the Initiative has been mazketed through newsletters, seminars, newspaper reporters,
the BRC, and relevant organizations.
Initially, the community received misleading information regarding the purpose of the Housing
Initiative. The original resolution establishing the Housing Initiative, presented by LIEP and
approved by the City Council and Mayor, stated the amount of fees for all housing units
approved from September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000 would be cut in hal£ Two problems
existed with the resolution. First, LIEP cut the fees for new housing projects only, not for
rehabilitation projects, which caused some confusion. Second, the permit and plan review fee
cuts were instituted through a resolution, not through an ordinance as is required, as Council
Research discovered. The problems were corrected in late 1999 through passage of an ordinance
cutting the fees in half during this time period for new construction only.
Customer Service Poficy Compliance Findings
Finding #49: LIEP has improved a number of practices which benefit customers, but they have
not mazketed them effectively. We found a number of good customer-focused practices such as:
❑ express permits;
❑ handouts with basic information particulazly beneficial to first-time applicants;
❑ pre-paid permit fee accounts;
❑ express site plan reviews;
a preliminary plan reviews and inspections; and
❑ euly start authorization.
Finding #50: LIEP has not effectively developed its website to allow for online permit
applications, zoning and building code infortnation, plan review, inspections results notification
and Housing Initiative information.
Finding #SL• LIEP encountered a number of problems with the Housing Initiative, such as the
deFnition of applicable projects and the legislative authority required to implement the program.
Finding #52: Only a few trade inspectors weaz badges visually identifying themselves on-site
during inspections. While it is policy that all inspectors identify themselves and carry
1000 Salnt Paul City Counci! Research
46 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
identifrcation, a policy requiring them to wear a badge may assist contractors and building
owners in more readily identifying the inspector.
Finding #53: No uniform procedure exists for giving customers appeals process information.
Finding #54: No uniform process exists for granting equivalencies, and some trade inspectors
are resistant to granting them.
Finding #55: Some inspectors seem to hold the attitude that contractors and property owners are
trying to hide violations from them. This attitude sometimes results in antagonistic behavior
toward the contractor or property owner.
Finding #56: No uniform process exists for leaving final inspection information with a
contractor or property owner.
Customer Service Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 30: Develop marketing strategies for promoting the express permits, the
preliminary plan review process, pre paid permit accounts, parking reimbursement and any
other customer focused practices.
Recommendation # 31: LIEP is one of the City agencies which has the most direct contact with
residents and businesses seeking information, and stands to 6enefit greatly from having as much
information as possible on its web page. Completion of the web site should be a high priority
for LIEP, particularly in light of the goal to have it completed by the end of 1996. Information
that should be available Jo customers on-line includes:
0 permit apptications and permit status information;
❑ inspeetions results;
❑ general building code and zoning information, similar to the paper handouts available;
❑ information on special programs and projects, such as the Housing lnitiative;
❑ a Frequently-Asked-Questions (FAQ) page; and
G] an "ask-the-inspector" page in which visitors could post general questions to trade
inspectors.
Recommendation # 32: LIEP should develop a policy requiring trade inspectors to wear an
identification badge at all times while performing inspections.
Recommendation # 33: LIEP should develop a policy for granting equiva(encies which is known
and used by all inspectors in an effort to make the practice fair, consistent and usefu(. The City
Attorney should be involved in developing this policy to ensure it is legally sound. The
development of these policies will enhance LIEP's image in !he City.
Recommendation # 34: LIEP should work to change the attitude of its inspectors who believe
that contractors and property owners are trying to hide something from them. They should
immediately cease threatening properry owners with retaliation, which is cantrary to LIBP
policy, but is reported to happen from time to tdme.
2000 Sain! Pa�d Ciry Conncil Researcl�
Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permi4 P�en Review and Inspections Functions 47
Recommendation # 35: LIEP should deve[op a process for leaving information with both
property owners and contractors upon ftnal inspections, particularly when changes are still
required before the permit can be closed.
Recommendation # 36: LIEP should [ook at the practices of building inspections departments in
other cities for possible customers service improvements. One suggestion wou(d be maintaining
evening hours one or trvo nights a week to make it easier for homeowners who work during the
day to apply for permits, such as is the practice in San Diego.
Quality of Customer Focus
Customer ldentification
It is vital that employees in an organization identify a uniform group of customers in order to
best serve the interests of their customers. Within LIEP, both survey and interview respondents
identified very similar customers: property owners, citizens and contractors. LIEP staff indicated
that sometimes these different customers have competing interests, which aze difficult to balance.
What a contractor wants may not be in the best interest of the citizens, and LIEP staff are
required to make determinations based on life-safety criteria, rather than on what the "customer
at the desk" may want.
Customer Knowledge
Customer knowledge consists of understanding the customers needs and desires, and having
mechanisms in place to monitor those needs and desires. The survey indicated that many staff
feel customer needs and satisfaction aze monitored occasionally, though approximately one-third
of staff are not awaze of how often this is done. Interviews and documents indicate LIEP has
done customer service surveys in past yeazs and is preparing to do another one in 2000. The last
survey, done in 1998, was not useful due to a low response rate. LIEP also tracks complaints
and gets information on customer needs through professional associations, word-of-mouth,
correspondence and elected officials. Most information gathering on customer needs and
satisfaction is informal. LIEP does little to anticipate the future needs of customers.
Customer Relations
Staff indicated through the survey that LIEP is "mostly responsive" to changes in customer needs
and satisfaction, though again, one-half to one-third of staff do not know how responsive LIEP is.
One staff inember in an interview described very well what good customer service is for LIEP:
❑ being as responsive and timely as possible;
❑ being as proactive as possible by going to housing fairs and having a LIEP booth at fairs and
at home improvement stores to answer questions;
20 Evaluation of this experience could help LIEP in making fuWre improvements ro[he survey process.
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research
48 Performance Audit of th City of Saint Paul's Buildi P Pl an R e v iew an lnspections Function
❑ meeting with contractor groups to get information and feedback;
❑ hotding classes on code compliance;
❑ meeting with engineers to go over plans before work begins; and
❑ answering questions.
The lack of planning affects LIEP's ability to respond to customer needs and satisfaction
thoroughly. Planning takes into account potential changes in needs that result from changing
economic, technological and social factors and other influences. Associated with this lack of
planning is the slow development of the Intemet site for LIEP. The ability to look up permits,
apply for permits, and receive zoning and other information over the Intemet would be invaluable
to many of L[EP's customers. However, LIEP has focused very little energy on developing this
resource.
Some staff also mentioned the struggle between enforcement and customer service. They seem
to be unsure of how to provide good customer service while also enforcing codes effectively.
Many staff stated good customer service is defined in the LIEP employee performance evaluation
form, although they could provide no universally understood definition. The lack of a useful,
well-known definition of good customer service indicates a gap between the vision of senior
leaders and the implementation of that vision.
Customer Service Standards
Formal customer service standards help all staff understand what is expected of them by the
organization and by their customers. About half the staff indicated there are customer service
guidelines for LIEP, but about one-third do not know of their existence. Staff surveyed indicated
"some" customer service standards are written, though one-half of staff didn't know of their
existence. Staff also felt customer service guidelines aze "somewhat widely circulated," again
with one-half of staff not knowing of their existence.
The customer service guidelines LIEP has in place aze "mostly understood" and followed
frequently. The survey question relating to how often customer service guidelines are followed
received one of the highest average scores of all the survey questions, indicating staff felt very
strongly that the guidelines aze followed. Interviews also indicated that staff are very good at
providing customer service, and take great pride in this aspect of their work.
Customer Focus Quality Findings
Finding #57: LIEP staff consistently identified property owners, citizens and contractors as their
primary customers.
Finding #58: Staff are either unaware of customer needs and satisfaction monitoring or feel it is
done only occasionally.
2000 Sainf Pard Ciry Cormcil Researcb
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 49
Finding #59: A useful customer service survey has not been done in three years, though LIEP is
preparing to conduct one in 2000.
Finding #60: The lack of planning may affect L[EP's ability to effectively respond to changes
in customer needs and satisfaction.
Finding #61: LIEP has few formal written customer service standards.
Customer Focus Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 37: LIEP should consider other options besides an annual or biennial
survey for monitoring customer needs and satisfaction. Some suggestions include survey cards
issued with the Certificate of Occupancy or when a permit is closed. Another option is to focus
on evaluating one activiry per month. For example, give surveys to everyone who applies for a
permit in February, in March give surveys to everyone who has a site plan review, and in August
to everyone who receives an ittspection. This way, not all sections are burdened with conducting
a survey at the same time. If another, organization-wide survey is desired, LIEP should consider
consulting with organizations which have been successful in reaching a high response rate from
their customers.
Recommendation #.?8: LIEP should formalize customer service standards, such as pZan
review's three day turn-arouttd for basic plan reviews. This would help all staff understand the
customer service standards and how their work contributes to the goals set by the organization.
Recommendation # 39: LIEP should provide more customer service training for inspectors to
help them understand how they can provide good customer service and good code enforcement.
Recommendation # 40: Develop an idea/complaint/compliment line and/or e-mail address that
would allow customers to directly communicate with LIEP at their own convenience and at any
time, rather than just through the annual customer survey.
See also the Performance Measures Chapter.
1000 Saint PaW City Councif Research
50
PerFormance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
RESULTS
Policy Compliance: --
Quality Rating: �.`C
KEY RESULTS CONCEPTS:
❑ OrganizationalOutcomes
❑ FinancialOutcomes
❑ Customer Satisfaction
❑ Use of Performance Indicators
Results is the section of the Malcolm Baldrige system which deals with an organization's ability
to determine if and how well it is accomplishing its mission. Results should focus on creating
and balancing value for all stakeholders, whether they be customers, employees, suppliers, the
general public or individual neighborhoods. The use of performance indicators, also known as
performance measures, offers an effective means to communicate both short- and long-term
priorities and provide a focus for improving results. Results measurement should be the last
phase in an ongoing cycle involving goal setting, planning, the execution of plans and
improvement practices. Using results information in this way, can help staff provide the best
service in the most efficient way possible. Decision and policy makers can also use results
information to monitar the provision of services on the public's behalf, ensuring government
accountability.
LIEP received its lowest rating in this performance audit in the Resuits area. This is particularly
problematic in that the Malcolm Saldrige system weights Results the most heavily of its seven
categories. In recent years, the Results category in the Malcolm Baldrige awazd program has
been given between 40% and 60% of the total points available. The reasons for LIEP's low
rating are discussed in detail below. However, Council Research also believes there is potential
for improvement in this area in the near future due to computer system improvements. Those
possibilities aze discussed on page 36. Finally, the essence of Results is a system of performance
indicators. Although the presence and use of performance indicators is covered in this chapter,
the following chapter, beginning on page 53, is dedicated exclusively to performance indicators
for LIEP.
We did not include a separate discussion of policies in the Results azea, only a quality assessment
discussion. Results policies aze embedded in the City's annual budget process, as well as other
places, and aze discussed in detaii in the Performance Indicators chapter.
Results Measurement in LIEP
Results measurement requires adequate information sys;ems, a carefully thought-out system of
indicators and consistent, periodic measuring. As discussed at iength in earlier sections of this
report, LIEP has nearly completed its transition to using the ECLIPS and AMANDA systems.
These systems have the potential to provide a variety of data for the organization to analyze. The
challenge will be determining what is good and useful information for the day-to-day
management of operations, and what are good indicators of how the organization is performing.
Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that measures of results can and often do involve
assessments which are not quantitative in nature. Not all useful things can be "counted," but they
do need to be taken into account, documented and reported over time.
1000 Soin( Pard Ciry Coancrl Research
�dormance Audil of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions 51
LIEP has historically gathered and analyzed some information on its performance. This is
exemplified in past years' budgets and in the annual reports prepared by the former Building
Inspection and Design Division. However, in recent years, these activities have ceased almost
completely. L[EP continues to only estimate all vitat organizational statistics, except for the
revenue derived from licenses and permits. For 1998 and 1999, there are no firm numbers in
the budget indicating the annual number and type of permits, the number and type of plan
reviews conducted or inspections performed. However, it must be noted that in the budget
process, the Mayor's Budget Office did not review LIEP's performance indicators with staff to
determine their usefulness in poMraying LIEP's workload. This is perplexing given the
reportedly high volume of construction and rehabilitation in Saint Paul in recent years. However,
this lack of ineasurement is symptomatic of inadequate performance measurement and
accountability standards on a Citywide basis.
Given this lack of information and analysis, it is not surprising that over half the staff surveyed
do not know how often LIEP measures its results. In fact, this survey question elicited the
highest proportion of "don't knows" of all 46 of the surveys questions. Of those who did answer,
the most common response was `bccasionally." Not surprisingly, most staff are unaware of
comparisons between LIEP and other, similar organizations. The interviews conducted also
indicated that when comparisons are made, they tend to be anecdotal.
Despite the lack of specific performance measures, the most common response to the survey
question on how often LIEP meets its goals was "frequently" for those who answered the
question. This question received one of the highest average responses of al] survey questions. In
a follow-up survey question, Council Research asked how staff knew they were meeting their
goals. The majority of the written answers indicated staff knew they were meeting the
organization's goals because of 1) positive customer feedback received in customer surveys and
in person; and 2) the quality of the City's building stock. Notably, these aze two areas where
some specific performance measures can and have been done.
It also became apparent in the performance audit process that staff had valid concems about the
use of performance indicators. Some were concerned that activities which could not be easily
"measured" would lose value. Others thought it would be near impossible to measure the final
"results" oFLIEP's activities---such as a quality building stock and urban landscape which is
likely to have a useful life well into the future. Therefore, they believed the organization would
then begin to shift its focus to work "outputs," such as the number of inspections conducted or
plans reviewed, which can be easily tabulated, but may not speak to the quality of work
performed. The Performance Indicators chapter will provide guidelines and suggestions for
alleviating these concems and creating useful performance measures.
Z � From permit revenue information, LIEP can determine the approximate value of all projects undertaken.
22 There are several indicators of the quality of [he City's building stock. These include, among others: 1) the class
ratings for the City's commerciat office space; 2) the Housing Survey conducted by PED in the 1980s; 3) results of
the Certificate of Occupancy Program which provides minimum standards for buildings; and 4) pos[ major storm
assessments done both by the public and private sectors.
2000 Sainf Pa�J Ciry Coimcil Research
52 Perfortnance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Results Quality Findings
Finding #62 There has been a significantly reduced focus on examining the results of
organizational activities recently. This ►ack of emphasis may seem justified because past
performance measures had little meaning and held little value for their users. However,
meaningful measures can be developed. This seems to be true not only for L[EP, but also more
broadly throughoutthe City.
Finding #63 In spite of the lack of performance indicators, staff use the ones they have available
(customer surveys and building data) to determine if they are meeting the L[EP's goals.
Finding #64 LIEP's emphasis on customer service is clearly internalized by many staff:
Finding #65 Despite the poor rating given in this azea, Council Research believes LIEP is
poised to develop a meaningful performance measurement system. Many of the "building
blocks" are in place to make a useful perfonnance measurement system in LIEP. The new
information management systems will have the capability to provide many types of information
to staff. These information management systems will also act as a catalyst for changing and
rethinking some work processes. For example, the use of handheld computers by inspectors wili
significantly change the flow of information from the field to the central office, and from one
inspector to another. LIEP is also in the process of initiating another cycle of planning, albeit a
much less formal undeRaking than used in the past. These events combine to make this an ideal
time for the organization to develop new performance measures which will meet its needs. If
LIEP fully takes advantage of these circumstances and pursues an inclusive process for
developing perFormance measures, the rating would improve substantially.
Results Quality Recommendation
Recommendation # 41: LIEP needs to develop a meaningful performance indicators system for
determining how well they are meeting the organization's goals. This process needs to overtly
take into account issues which may not be "measurable, " but which also need to be documented
and reported over time. The development process should also be inclusive and incorporaJe staff
ideas. A performance measurement system should function not only to give feedback to
managers and policy makers, but also to staff who rely on it to provide them regular feedback on
individual activities. Al! of the organization's stakeholders have an interest in knowing how well
the organization is meeting its goals. Examples ofspecific measures are outlined in the nex�
chapter. Additionally, the Mayor's O�ce should much more actively monitor performance
indicators used in the budget and assist the City's departments in developing more meaningful
indicators.
2000 Saint PaiJ Ciry Cotmci! Research
I
Performance Audit of the City oFSaint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions 53
Performance Measures
Performance indicators are a means by which an organization determines the degree to which it is
achieving its mission. Not evetything an organization does and seeks to accomplish can be
quantified, but rather thare are some measures that are good indicators of its success. LIEP's
mission is clear, and it bears restating here. It is "to be a unified customer service organization,
which promotes a healthy and safe environment through information and enforcement of codes
and ordinances." In this chapter we will explore how LIEP seaks to inform itself, its customers
and its stakeholders about how well it achiaves its mission. This chapter is intended to provide a
basis for discussion and assist LIEP in refining the measures cunently in use. LIEP is just now
completing implementation of AMANDA, the information system which will track much of the
needed data for performance measurement. Therefore, it is a critical juncture for LIEP in the
consideration of these issues.
Council Research has approached this examination of performance indicators with several
assumptions in mind. First, we believe the City Council has a vasted interest in examining
performance indicators as a part of the budget raview process. The use of performance indicators
gives the Council a ciear picture of what has been accomplished in past years, and expectations
for future years. They meaningfully connect dollazs spent and the services expected of City
govemment. Indeed, as the Council deliberated upon "managed competition proposals," the
need to translate City activities into meaningful performance indicators became very apparent.
The development of such indicators is necessary to make clear to anyone— employees or private
vendors just what performance is required. Second, we believe performance indicators can be
useful management tools for communicating with staff about expectations. However, we also
put forward the notion that staff must be a part of the creation of perforrttance indicators and see
their usefizlness in their daily work lives. The people who will, in practice, provide information
for performance indicators are also pmfoundly affected by what the indicators may reveai.
Finally, although we recognize there aze timitations in what performance indicators can
communicate about the success of an organization, there is little else available to provide "a
gauge" on progress. The logical altemative, comprehensive program evaluations, are time
consuming and expensive when compared to tracking performance indicators. Also, such
evaluations do not necessarily provide for incremental improvement.
Two problematic performance indicator issues came to light in the audit process. First, the
Director indicated that 1997 was the last yeaz they used actual figures for the budget process—
after which time LIEP has been using conservative estimates. It should be taken into account that
the Office was undergoing a significant transition from a mix of computer and paper information
management systems, to its new automated systems, ECLIPS and AMANDA. In this
environment it may well have been difficult to piece together and tabulate the required
information. However, it was not cleaz in tha budget that estimates were being used, which is
particularly apparent in reviewing 1998 data in the 2000 proposed budget, where no such
notation was provided. Council Reseazch views this situation as particularly problematic because
the Council was informed that we have recently been experiencing record construction years in
Saint Paul. At the same time, the impact of this increase was not reflected in data, projections or
estimates provided by LIEP, although the workload had clearly increased. The second
problematic issue is that the Budget Office does not, as a practice, review the performance
indicator information provided in tYte budget. Yet, it is likely most staff and the Council assume
2000 Sain1 Pad Ciry Council Research
54 Pert'ormance Audit ofihe City of Saint PauPs Building Per P R an in Functions
this a standard practice, and, therefore, believe the Budget Office knows, understands and
monitors these indicators.
LIEP has, of course, some performance indicators in its budget. They are organized by activity
area, and we have followed this organization in our discussion: customer service and permitting,
plan review, zoning and inspections. Notably, sometimes the objectives and indicators in one
area of L[EP's budget will overlap with those of another. In those cases, we cover the topic in
the area to which the objective relates most clearly. For each area, we have looked for
performance indicator coverage of the following:
❑ customer service, which includes timeliness, helpfulness and accuracy;
❑ efficiency, which includes timeliness, costs and staff time; and
❑ effectiveness, which includes quality and results from activities.
Permitting/Customer Service
LIEP has made improving its customer service in all parts of the organization a priority. This
emphasis on providing excellent customer service can be measured, as is demonstrated in the
excerpted poRion of the Customer Service activity budget in the following box. [n that budget
activity we see a performance indicator stating that customer service surveys should show that
95% of customers will be satisfied. The data for this performance indicator have been garnered
from some informal surveys conducted by staff. PED also conducts a biennial business survey,
with specific questions pertaining to LIEP services. With respect to the other customer service
indicator, number of complaints registered in the area of customer service, it was not clear to the
audit team how, and if, such complaints were compiled and tracked. Given that reported
complaints have been zero for several yeazs, perhaps a more meaningful indicator should be
developed, such as tracking "counter" errors in the processing of permits and licenses.
There aze several indicators in this budget activity which speak to efficiency. Among these are
the number of permits and licenses issued, and files maintained. While these are no doubt useful
in some regards, given that the Office has been using estimates, these numbers have little value
when examined over time. They also give little indication of the effort involved to generate
permits. Therefore, another area which may be useful to pursue is to examine the average
amount of time it takes to process permits and licenses. For example, it would be useful for
stakeholders and customers to know that for a simple project, such as a roof or fence, 75% or
90% of customers will need only %z hour to obtain a permit. Such a measure need not be done on
a daily basis, but surveyed periodically. Similar measares could be developed for projects
requiring plan review or zoning staff involvement. Initiation of such measures would make
meaningful the following objective from LIEP's 1998 budget: "Since the initiation of the Process
Redesign effoR in 1994, LIEP has realized a reduction in processing time for permits and
licenses, a reduction in the number of delinquent license renewals, an increase in collection for
these renewals, and a decrease in the time required to obtain permit and license services from the
City." The problem was well-articulated by one tenured manager interviewed who said "I know
it's true, but [ don't know how to prove it."
2000 Sainl Pn�J Ctty Co��ncil ResearcA
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Pian Review and Inspections Functions 55
Customer Service 2000
Ongoing Program Objectives
(omits non audit area activities) —
❑ Continue to provide accurate information
and excellen[ cus[omer to bo[h intemal and
external customers. �
0 Continue implementation of process redesign
to simplify in[ernal procedures as well as
ex[ernal process (ordinance changes).
❑ Develop a written poiicy and procedure
manual for all customer service functions.
2000 Projects
❑ Design, distribute and report on Customer
Service Survey for LIEP customers.
❑ Continue and comple[e the ECLIPS project
by the implementation of AMANDA and
performance enhancemen[s.
Performance Indicators:
❑ Customer service survey sa[isfaction results
❑ Complaints registered in the areas of
customer service
❑ Ordinance changes enacted
❑ Procedures revised
Customer Service Statistics:
❑ Permits Issued
❑ Compe[ency Certificates issued
❑ Number of trade licenses issued
❑ Licenses issued (all types)
❑ Number of property files maintained
❑ Purchase orders and vouchers processed
Finally, the Customer Service Activity Perfortnance Plan has a performance indicator which
states that 50 procedures will be revised in 1999 and 30 in 2000. The audit team was perplexed
as to the value of counting the number of procedures changed. Change is expected to be
ongoing, usually leading to improvements in other performance indicators. Although we
compliment LIEP on trying to improve its procedures, we believe other performance indicators
would better capture this concept.
Zoning and Site Plan Review
Although the budget activity discussed in the above paragraphs bore the title "customer service,"
other areas in L[EP also have customer service concepts embedded in their work activities,
including Zoning and Site Plan Review. There is only one specific customer service
performance indicator in the budget for Zoning and Site Plan Review. It states the average
response time for zoning complaints will be 4 days. This is an excellent indicator that L[EP may
wish to enhance. The indicator could also speak to average complaint resolution times, or
indicate that some percentage of zoning violation complaints are responded to in 4 days. Also in
the azea of customer service, LIEP has been striving to streamline and shoden the site plan
review process. There were no performance indicators addressing these effofts in the 2000
budget. However, it seems evident that LIEP could be clear about the average length of time for
site plan reviews, once LIEP has all the required materials. It also seems reasonable that other
customer service indicators should be developed for zoning activities, such as looking at average
or expected turn-around times on projects and also customer survey results. Finally, an excellent
customer service practice is that all applicants who go through the site plan review process
receive both a call and a letter explaining the results.
As was the case in customer service and permitting, some statistics are maintained on the staff's
workload. These include counts of site plans reviewed, zoning variances processed, appeals
processed, and zoning histories researched to determine legality of use. And again, while these
2000 Saim PatJ City Council Research
56
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Punctions
indicators have some value, actual figures have not been gathered in recent years. Also, there is
little indication of the staff effort involved in performing these activities. Such an indicator could
be used for monitoring workload, as well as developing minimum or maximum time
expectations for customers.
Perhaps the most logical measure of the effectiveness of zoning and site plan review is
wmpliance with the City's Zoning Code and adherence to the specifications of approved site
plans. Compliance with the City's Zoning Code can be gauged best by using zoning complaints
and zoning histories researched to determine compliance. Relatedly, monitoring the types of
variances and appeals can give indications of the effectiveness of the Zoning Code in addressing
current circumstance in the community. ff a particular type of appeal is received repeatedly, it
may indicate procedures could be streamlined or revised to better handle the problems. It could
also mean the Code is unnecessarily restrictive in a given azea. For example, the Zoning Code
provides for "planned development districts." All staff interviewed indicated this section of the
code was so difficult to use they avoided it, if at all possible, and tried to use other portions of
the code to achieve similar ends.
LIEP
Zoning/Site Plan Review 2000
Ongoing Program Objectives:
0
0
n
To provide prompt, thorough zoning information
to the public; to assist those businesses and
property owners applying for permits or licenses,
explaining the processes necessaty to meet zoning
code requirements.
To investiga[e and enforce zoning regula[ions. 1)
Responding to complaints, 2) Assuring
compliance with conditions placed on approved
site plans, variances, special and nonconforming
use permits and business licenses, and 3) using
the Housing Court and District Court when
appropriate to achieve compliance.
To review site plans, both preliminary and
formal, and coordinate the interdepartmentai si[e
plan review process.
Plan Review
C
To staff the Board of Zoning Appeals, preparing
staff reports, and providing information to Board
members, applicants and neighbors.
To certify zoning compliance for new
construction and alterations, licenses, and
certificates of occupancy, for which fees aze
collected through permits, licenses and
certificates of occupancy fees.
0
Performartee Indicators:
�
■
■
site plans reviewed
zoning variances and appeals processed
zoning histories researched to determine legality
of use
complain[ response time in days
�]
Plan Review, like Customer Service and Permitting, has contact at the counter with customers
every day, in addition to the more in-depth reviews of plans. It is a very customer-oriented work
group and is perceived by peer groups to be effective in both applying appropriate codes and
helping customers. Strangely, it has no customer service performance indicators of its own in the
budget, although some used by Customer Service and Permitting have relevance to this activity
as well. Through the audit process it became clear that Plan Review had several concrete
performance indicators it relied upon on a daily basis, although these do not appear in the budget,
and we were not clear if they were ever overtly measured. First, there has been an emphasis on
shortening approval time for permit applications. Second, there is an expectation that plan
reviews for new single- and two-family houses will be completed within 72 hours of receiving
2000 5ain� Po�d Crty Ca+mci! Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni[, Plan Review and [nspec[ions Functions 57
complete plans. No doubt, the use of checklists in the AMANDA system will both facilitate
faster plan review times, and make their measurement possible. Third, LIEP does offer a service
of providing "partial project permits," where a customer can get part of a project reviewed and
permitted while plans for other parts of the project are still in development. This is an especially
helpful practice for large, complicated projects. LIEP may be able to develop performance
measures to better gauge how often this is used.
Plan review has several performance indicators in the budget related to effwiency. These
indicators include: the numbers of permits issued, plans examined, historical permits received,
inspections made, and the annual construction value for Saint Paul. These indicators suffer from
the same problems discussed earlier; namely, they have not actually been counted for several
years and they have no context in terms of effoR necessary to accomplish them. Benchmarks and
standards should be developed to make these indicators more meaningful. Plan Review may also
wish to examine the code to develop ideas for potential performance indicators. For example, the
audit team was informed that plan check time specified in the L,egislative Code, Chapter
33.04(c�the City has 180 days to do a plan check—never expires without a permit being
issued. Clearly, such indicators have the added benefit of demonstrating compliance with
applicable laws. Finally, there are occasionally performance measures in this area which have no
meaning, and therefore no useful value. For example, the resolution establishing the Housing
Initiative (CF#99-815) states that one performance indicator of the Initiative is "number of new
housing units approved within 72 hours of receipt of complete plans: 500-700." This indicator
has no context, and as we discovered, there is no way to measure such an improvement, because
the Office has no data for recent years.
The effectiveness of Plan Review activities is ultimately determined in wmbination with the
effectiveness of Inspections. Literally, effectiveness needs to be measured in terms of the
improved safety and habitability of structures in the City because of the application of building
and other codes. As mentioned in the Results section, there are some ways the quality of the
City's building stock can be measured over time. Taking into account the other influences on the
quality of building stock, such as aging, we know at least a portion of the quality is attributable
to the use of building codes.
Although the quality of the City's building stock is ultimately the best measure to determine the
effectiveness of Plan Review, there are other measures that could be made inside the Office
which would also be appropriate for examining individual plan review activities. For example,
staff mentioned an informal indicator of the quality of their work is the number of plan review
200Q Saint Patd Ciry Cotmci( Research
58
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions
LIEP Operations: Plan Review 2000 Budget —
Ongoing Program Objectives
O To assure safety of citizens [hrough construction
standards compliance.
❑ To educate customers to achieve code compliance
without controversy or mnecessary expense.
❑ To maintain adequa[e records to demonstrate
efficiencies in administration and compliance to
constmcfion standards.
O To maintain professional standards of technical
ability while being accessible by and accountable
to our customers and [he public.
O To maintain telationships with organiza[ions and
agencies to assure Saint Paul remains a respected
leader in code and design professions.
2000 Budget Objective-
n
�
1
Continue [o work on the design and
implementation of the new computer system for
pennits and inspections.
The Office has participated in and will continue
to be active in public forums such as the Home
Tour, District Council Home Fairs, e[c., where
citizens have a chance to work wi[h [he inspectors
and plan reviewers in a more neutral
environmen[.
Our present computer system and the new system
under development will enable us to ensure that
our level of service will con[inue to improve.
❑ Our challenge is ro balance the requirement for
continuing education against the needs of our
customers. Our goal will be to allow sufticient
opportunities for this education while
maintaining adequate staffing levels to ensura
quick response to our cus[omers.
❑ We have several inspecrors who are involved
with National Code organizations. These groups
develop ffie codes that are adopted by Minnesota,
and directly affect the construction in Saint Paul.
In order ro ensure fair codes both now and in the
future, our inspec[ors will strive to maintain their
participation level for the future.
O There are several inspectors on the task group
whose responsibility is the analysis of various
software packages for the office-wide computer
system. These participants will be fully involved
until the end of the project.
Performance Indicators:
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we (LIEP) can verify that all
construction projec[s are inspected to protectthe
citizens of Sainl Paul.
0 The number of permits issued, cons[ruction valu
in millions, plans examined, historical permits
received;and
❑ Total inspections made.
mistakes discovered in the field. Tracking such an indicator would be a useful management
undertaking to determine the circumstances under which mistakes are made, as well as the types
of mistakes. Also, as is the case with the suggestion that Zoning monitor the types of appeals it
processed, it would also be useful in the same way for both Plan Review and [nspections to
monitor information on the granting of equivalencies. Finally, staff indicated that when
customers come in for preliminary plan reviews, they have a better understanding of
expectations. Customers aza then able to "get it right the first time" which decreases the time,
effort and money in the spend in plan review process. It also likely decreases total staff time
expended on the project. Clearly, preliminary plan reviews make the plan review process more
effective, and their use could be measured.Z
Z3 The Customer Focus Chapter discusses [he importance of promoting [he Preliminary Plan Review process on
page 43.
2000 Sainf Pa�d Crty Council Research
Performance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building PermiG Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions 59
Inspections
Inspectors differ from the other LIEP staff in that they tend to see the customer out in the field,
and not at the front counter or in a meeting. However, the customer focus considerations they
have are very like those of the rest of the Office. Inspections has only one goal in the budget
specifically addressing customer service; "to maintain professional standards of technical ability
while being accessible by and accountable to our customers and the public." The value of this
budget objective lies not with its ability to describe performance expectations, but rather in that it
articulates a problem in the inspections area that stafTclearly fee[ conflicted about "enforcing the
code" or "providing customer service." It would be very useful for the Inspections azea to begin
addressing this asing specific customer service performance indicators. In order to develop these
indicators, they would benefit from reviewing customer service surveys done by LIEP and PED.
These would help to identify areas of concern to customers.
In the area of timeliness, it is dearly an informal goal of staff to complete reports and arrive for
appointments in a timely fashion. Both ofthese activities will be much easier to document with
the advent of the AMANDA computer system. In terms of the reports of inspection findings, the
use of handheld computers in the field will help significantly with the timely "processing" of
inspection findings. This will help both from a management perspective, in that information will
be immediately available to other trades inspectors, and it will also be more quickly available to
the customer, in the event they aze not on site to hear the inspection repoR verbally.
Providing customers with information on the appeals process and sharing information and ideas
on appropriate "equivalencies" is central to good customer service. Council Research heard
consistently that information on appeals process is provided to the customer when change work
orders or stop work orders are given. However, there was inconsistency in that some inspectors
and trades would provide this information verbally and in letter form, while others would provide
it only in a letter. This inconsistency between staff work processes should be eliminated, with a
focus on providing the customer with appeal information in both settings. The use of the
AMANDA system and hand held computers in the field could provide a reminder in the form of
an item on one of the check-off lists. Council Research also became aware that some staff and
trades are much more likely to discuss equivalencies with contractors and property owners than
are others. The Office's approach to discussing and granting equivalencies should be consistent
across trade groups and among staff inembers. The AMANDA system has the potentiai to
monitor this and help the Office in developing a measurable standard.
As with the other work areas we examined, Inspections does little to measure the efficiency of its
operations. There was one objective in the year 2000 LIEP budget which spoke to efficiency,
which was "to maintain adequate records to demonstrate efficiencies in administration and
compliance to construction standards." Although such information is likely maintained, we saw
no use of the information which acted to demonstrate e�ciencies. The only performance
indicator in the budget related to efficiency is the number of inspections conducted, and this has
been an estimate in recent yeazs. It would be very useful to know the number of inspections by
type and trade, and time invested in them. At the very least, the average number of inspections
2a Equivalencies are altemative me[hods for accomplishing a[ask or project that mee[ [he in[ent of the Code,
althoagh they may not be specifically described in the Code. An example is the use of a piece of sheet metal
screwed [o the back of a standard wood door in order to make it a`bne-hour fire door." This accomplishes the end
of fire safety and saves the building owner money in the purchase of a new one-hour fire door.
2000 Saint Pau! Ciry Counci! Research
60 P e rf ortnance Audi[ of the Cityof Saint PauPs Building Pertni[, Plan R eview and lnspections Functions
and average times involved could be used for planning. Also, the advent of AMANDA makes
possible the tracking of activities in a way that takes into account the complexity of the task.
L[EP did this type of analysis in 1998 in preparing a proposal for the addition of a plumbing
inspector position. Clearly, they understand the importance of such information in describing
staff's workload.
LIEP
1
u
r•n
2000
❑ Our present computer system and the new one under
development will enable us to ensure that our level
of service witl continue to improve.
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construc[ion
projec[s are inspected to protect the citizens of St.
Paul.
0 To maintain adequate records to demonstrate
efficiencies in adminisUation and compliance to
construction standazds.
❑ To maintain professional s[andazds of technical
ability while being accessible by and accountable to
our cus[omers and the public.
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construction
projects aze inspected to protect citizens of St. Paul.
Ongoing Program Objectives:
2000 Budget L[EP Strategic Plan Statement:
Maintain quality services in light of the ever
increasing constmction levels (Tlvee record
consVUCtion yeazs in a row) with a minimum
increase in staff.
Implement the use of project facilitators to navigate
customers through the license, permit, and/or wning
processes and continue Process Redesign Initiative
to continualiy streamline procedures and eliminate
unnecessary regulations.
Integrate new ECLIPS sys[em with oiher
depar[mental systems through a single address file,
to achieve a fully seamless provision of service for
the City's customers.
Performance Indicators:
❑ 17uough monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construction
projects are inspected to pro[ect the citizens of St.
Paul,
❑ Construction value in millions
❑ Total inspections made
ZS RobeR Kessler Memo to Joe Reid, January 26, 1998.
Ongoing Pragram Objectives tor NHS/Vacant
Buildings:
❑ To maintain housing stock by returning vacant
buildings to sound structures.
❑ Inspec[ Vacant, Boarded and A6andoned
buildings for code violations, issuing permits,
and reinspecting for compliance.
❑ Maintain and improve neighborhoods by
inspecting one and two-family homes for
improvement areas and aiding owners in
prioritizing repairs within the limited funds
available.
❑ Iden[ify and work toward preserving desirable
buildings and significant s[ructures within
neighborhoods.
❑ Perform inspections and building' evaluations
for PED, East Side Neighborhood Developmen
Corpora[ioq Wes[ 7th Street Federation,
Neighborhood Housing Serv- ices Programs,
Non-Profit Corporations, or any other
organiza[ion needing these services.
Performance lodicators:
❑ Inspection to[als for original and repeat
inspec[ions
2000 Budget LIEP Operations pertormance
indicator:
❑"we have several staff involved with Na[ional
Code organiza[ions"
2000 Budget LIEP Operations Objective:
❑ Iden[ify and work toward preserving buildings
and significan[ structures within
neighbothoods.
2000 Sainl PaiJ Ciry Cmmcil Research
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 6 �
The effectiveness of inspection services can be measured in a fashion similar to the eff'ectiveness
of the other services we have discussed. There are two instances in the budget where the issue of
effectiveness is engaged. First, as an ongoing objective, the LIEP budget states "through
monitoring of the permit volume and valuation, we can verify that all construction projects are
inspected to protect citizens of Saint Paul:' While inspecting ail construction projects surely
does act to protect the citizens of Saint Paul, this can not be monitored using permit volume and
valuation data. These data, together with the actuai number of permits, do give an indication of
the complexity of the work undertaken. However, it is the number of permits which most
accurately estimates the number of projects requiring ittspection. LIEP should modify its
objective accordingly.
Second, the 2000 Budget LIEP Strategic Plan Statement states as a goal to "maintain quality
services in light of the ever increasing construction levels (three record construction years in a
row) with a minimum increase in staf£" This is an excellent goal, which takes into account a
changing environment—dramatic increases in construction. However, there are no performance
indicators connected to it which demonstrate the quality of LIEP's work. Such goals can be
consUucted at several levels. At one level, they could speak to the quality of the building stock,
as we discussed earlier. 1'hey could also measure the consistent quality of inspections in spite of
increased work volume. These indicators could include the average length of inspections, and
the types of inspections findings.
On a more pedestrian level, LIEP may wish to add effectiveness performance indicators in the
following areas:
❑ Number of correction notices which need to be re-issued;
❑ Number of mistakes in the various inspection activities, which would be collected by
supervisors;
❑ The number of stop work orders and number of times work is required to be redone;
❑ The average length of time buildings are on the vacant buildings list before Certificate of
Compliance issuance or demolition; and
❑ The effectiveness of the Housing Initiative at increasing housing construction, as discussed in
the Information and Malysis chapter on pages 33 though 37. Notably, a recent article
suggests the following: "...a central city thaY had adopted a business-friendly philosophy of
enforcement could have increased both the amount and the value of single-family detached
housing by about 9% over the period 1985-1995. Commercial rehabilitation could have
increased about 4% in the number of buildings and about 5% in the value of construction,"
This research could help the Housing Initiative establish useful benchmarks to measure their
progress at meeting their program goals. However, it does indicate that progress is slow, and
research attributes improvements to enforcement philosophy, rather than fee levels.
Z6 Burby, et al, Ibid., page 152.
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research
62 P erfort nanc e A of lhe Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
CONCLUSION
Overall Council Research found the quality criteria present and practiced in some parts of the
organization. LIEP is also generally in compliance with the policies that govem its activities.
Where deficiencies were found, we believe staff have the skills and interest to address them.
Notabty, staff were very helpfut in the performance audit process both in the interview process in
sharing their time and ideas, and later in responding to questions. What follows is a summary of
our findings.
Planning
LIEP did a great deal of planning during the mid-1990s to accomplish the merger of previously
separate operations that formed the Office. This planning took several forms. It addrassed the
actual co-location of these operations, necessary cross-training of counter staff, the raHonalization
of administrative procedures between the previously distinct units, and the improvement of
information support systems. Virtually no planning has taken place in recent years and L[EP
views itself to be in a"plan implementation" mode, rather than a"planning" mode. The
enormous amount of stafftime spent on implementing first ECLIPS, and then AMANDA have
also left staff with the impression there is little time for planning. It is also apparent that few
staffhave been involved in planning activities. Broader participation in plan development will
help staff become more aware of the existence of plans and give them a sense of ownership in the
plans' success. LIEP has also not been involved with the development of Comprehensive Plan
chapters affecting its work, and has not taken these plans into account in their decision-making
on individual building projects. Council Research found that planning activities in LIEP would
act to better allocate the resources of this office and prepare it for changing circumshances, such
as the record construction years recently experienced.
Leadership
Our examination found several aspects of LIEP's leadership policies and practices to be very
good. Namely, the commitment of senior leaders to provide a cleaz mission and vision for the
organization was quite apparent. This is in spite of survey results indicating a lack of vision
provided by the Mayor. Council Research noted that staff repeatedly commented on the
concerted efforts of leaders to recognize individual and team contributions. Finally, LIEP
leadership in recent years has acted to cultivate key stakeholder relationships, such as with the
advent of t6e Business Review Council. However, there is still more effort required in this area,
especially in terms of communication and inclusiveness in planning activities which should be
taking place. L[EP and the City are out of compliance with two state reporting requirements and
the requirements for a local board of appeals.
2000 Sainl Pa�d Ciry Counci! Research
Performance Audit o£the City of Saint PauPs Building Permi4 P�an Review and Inspections Functions 63
Training
Stafftraining in L[EP received the highest quality rating. LIEP clearly emphasizes training and
education for its staff, and sees its importance in the context of diminishing staff numbers. LIEP
should be lauded for its training and education efforts and co�tinue them. [n terms of improving
this area, LIEP should consider doing more cross-education of all its staff, so they may develop a
better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of their peers within the Office. LIEP
should also examine the allocation of training resources.
Development
Staff development was an area in LIEP in which Council Reseazch had a mix of good and
problematic findings. The survey indicated somewhere between one-fourth and one-fifth of staff
believe the work environment is not conducive to their well-being, that the labor management
relationship is poor, and there are few or no opportunities for them to contribute to the
organizations goals and work procedures. While it is good that three-fourths to four-fifths do not
shaze these perceptions, it is problematic that there is a fairly large core of people who rate these
azeas poorly. LIEP leadership must find a way to engage these staff and their concems. Council
Research suggests LIEP proactively involve them in planning activities, rather than waiting for
volunteers. Also, re-instituting a labor-management group of some type to identify specific
changes which would address problem areas would likely be helpful.
Information and Analysis
LIEP has been undergoing significant changes in the area of information management in recent
years. Council Research is ambivalent in many ways in its findings. While undertaking the
formidable task of automating the management of its infortnation is commendable, several
aspects of implementing ECLIPS and AMANDA could have been better handled, such as
communication with the Council on progress. There ue several types of problems we found in
this azea, some of which are attributable to LIEP directly, and other which aze more Citywide in
nature. However, these new information systems do give LIEP the ability to perform meaningfyl
analysis of its undertakings in the future. Therefore, we havc taken the unusual step of indicating
that it has the potential of significantly increasing its rating in this azea if improvements aze
made.
Improvement Practices
LIEP did not fare well in Council Research's examination of its improvement practices. These
mediocre findings are lazgely attributable to LIEP's lack of planning and evaluation activities,
and cunently poor information and analysis capabilities, which are integral components in the
improvement process. History shows the Office has an adequate basic understanding of
improvement processes, as this is demonstrated in the "quick fixes" undertaken in the mid-1990s.
2000 Sain� Paul Crty Council Research
64 Perfortn Audi[ of [tie City of Saint Paul's Building P Plan Review and In Functions
Customer Focus
The merger of separate operations into L[EP was the result of an increasing awareness—both in
City government and in the community—of the need for a more customer focused approach, The
merger also provided a means to "refocus" LIEP activities with customers in mind. Much credit
should be given to all involved for their efforts in this area. As with most organizational
initiatives, however, customer focus efforts need tending and continued refinement. There is still
a problem in the organization with the perceived conflict of providing "code enforcemenY'
service, as opposed to "customer service." These concepts need not be conflicting and LIEP
must strive to clarify their vision in this azea. Also, some new customer services are called for,
such as a dramatically improved web page.
Results
Given the recently poor quality of information used in LIEP, it is not surprising it received a poor
Results rating. LIEP needs to take time to figure out what are good performance indicators of
their work. This is a critical juncture for the Oftice to undertake this project, as ECLIPS and
AMANDA are just now capable of providing meaningful data for these measures.
Performance Indicators
The performance indicators and objectives used in the budget process in recent years have been
neglected both by LIEP and the Budget O�ce. Using performance indicators in an ongoing
cycle of planning, evaluation and improvement could significantly assist L[EP in years to come.
It will help for purposes of internal management, where there is almost no information on
workloads, activities or outcomes. Meaningful performance measures aze also key for a
government agency to remain accountable to its customers and stakeholders.
2000 Sarnf Paul City Co�mcil Research
Perfomiance Audi[ of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions 65
APPENDIX A: RESOURCES
Council Resolutions:
❑ Council File 94-293 / acceptance of grant funds for LIEP Process Redesign
❑ Council File 94-I550 / establishment of Business Review Council
❑ Council File 97- 1214 / establishment of funding for the Design Section
❑ Council File 97-1314 / acceptance of repod on Design Section aad release of contingency funds
❑ Council File 98-588 / establishing pay rate for "City Building Official°
❑ Council File 98-609 / establishing pay rate for "Plan Review Coordinator"
❑ Council File 98-1076 / establishing pay rate for "City Building OfficiaP'
❑ Council File 98-1077 / establishing pay rate for "L[EP Help Desk Coordinator"
❑ Council File 99-287 / authorizing contract and copyright agreement with U of M Press and the HPC
❑ Council File 99-357 / no developer fee associated with any multi-unit housing project shall exceed
certain guidelines
❑ Council File 99-553 / changing portion of salary plan and rates of compensation for the Building
Inspector
❑ Council File 99-587 / directing the HPC to develop a Heritage Preservation Site and Building
Designation Workplan
❑ Council File 99-815 / approval of special one year pilot program to reduce costs and speed
approvals for new housing construction
Saint Paul City Charter and the Legislative and Administrative Code:
Chapter 5 Permit Fees
Chapter 18 Legislative Hearing Officer
Chapter 19 Power of Inspectors to Enforce Provisions of Code
Chapter 33 Building Code and Inspection
Chapter 34 Minimum Property Maintenance Standards for All Structures and Premises
Chapter 37 Installation or Connection of Gas Equipment
Chapter 38 Elevators, Hoists, Lifts and Moving Stairways
Chapter 43 Vacant Buildings
Chapter 48 Condominium and Conversion Condominium Notice Filing Requirements
Chapter 50 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems
Chapter 60 Zoning Code-Adoption; Purpose; Definition; Districts Uses and Requirements
Chapter 61 Zoning Ordinance-Schedule of Regulations Limiting Heights, Bulk, Density, and
Area by Zoning Districts
Chapter 62 Zoning Code - General Provisions
Chapter 64 Zoning Code - Administration and Enforcement; Amendments; Miscellaneous
Provisions
Chapter 65 Zoning Code - River Corridor
Chapter 66 Zoning Code - Signs
Chapter 67 Zoning - Subdivision Regulations
Chapter 68 Zoning Code - Wetland Conservation
Chapter 72 Floodplain Management Regulations
Chapter 73 Heritage Preservation Commission
Chapter 74 Heritage Preservation Districts and Programs
Chapter 76 Sewers and Drains
Chapter 92 Water Code-Plumbing
2000 Sainf Paul City Cormci! Research
66 Perfortnance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and InspeCtions Func[ions
Chapter 95 Water Code-General Provisions
Chapter 310 Uniform License Procedures
Chapter 326 Building Contractors
Chapter 368 Wrecking of Buildings
Chapter 369 Building Trades Business Licenses
Chapter 370 Building Trades CeRificates of Competency
Chapter A-6 Service Availability Charges
Budget Documents
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 2000 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1999 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1999 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1998 Adopted Budget
Books / Miscellaneous Documents
The Urban Institute (1980). Performance Measures: A Guide for Local Elected O�cials,
Washington D.C., The Urban Institute.
Raymond J. Burby, Peter J. May, Emil E. Malizia, and Joyce Levine, Building Code
Enforcement Burdens and Centra! Ciry Decline. Joumal of the American Plannine
Association, Vol. 66, No.2, Spring 2000.
Bryson, John (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organization. Jossey-Bass.
2000 Criteria for Performance Excellence, Baldrige National Quality Program.
City of Saint PauPs Comprehensive Plan / Land Use and Housing Chapters
2000 Sainf Po�d Ciry Counci( Research
Pert'orcnsnce Audit oPthe City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni4 P�� Review and [nspections Functions 67
APPENDIX B: LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Recommendations
Recommendation # l: PED shoutd perform, in conjunction with LIEP, a thorough analysis of the
current Zoning Code. In order to be in compliance with current City Code, this should be done every
five years. The analysis should consider the Code's compatibilities with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and other development priorities, and the Code should be modifted accordingly.
Recommendation # 2: Both PED and LIEP need to take more responsibiliJy for including LIEP in the
development processes for the City's Comprehensive Plan. By taking responsibility for development,
LIEP will feel more responsible for the objectives of the Plan, and will incorporate the Comprehensive
Plan into its own internal plans and practices.
LIEP's involvement in the planning and implementation processes of the Cidy's comprehensive plans will
enable it to make more recommended changes to the zoning code, so that the code and the p[ans are
compatible and mutually enforceable. In cases where the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan are
not compatible, LIEP should consider granting variances, equivalencies, or bringing the problem the to
Business Review Council for further review and recommendations.
Recommendatinn # 3: LIEP should incorporate objectives of the Comprehensive Plans into its plans for
its own operations. By doing so, LIEP will ensure it considers future changes and remains flexible and
uses opportunities to ensure the building stock of the City is solid, safe and contributes to the vitality of
the Ciry.
Recommendaiion # 4: LIEP shauld resume proactive planning, including assessing the current
landscape and future economic, social, human resources, political, and technical impacts on LLEP's
work.
a LIEP must understand the co»»ection between ptanning and resource allocation to prevent
situations such as the one curre»t!y occurring with staff being overworked, resulting in a highly
stressful work environment because technological, economic, and human resource changes were
not comprehensively planned. Closer monitoring of outside influences will assist in projecting
changes in workload and resources, such as those resultingfrom increased construction in
recentyears.
❑ Outcome measurement must be incorporated into future planning. LIEP must look at the results
of past planning efforts for lessons learned and areas to continue to work on. They must also
Jook at results ofpast quickfrxes to determine effectiveness and remaining issues to be reso[ved
resulting from the changes.
❑ LIEP should involve other stakeholders, such as the City Attorney's O�ce, Planning and
Economic Development and Public Works in planning process to incorporate the requirements
of other departments and devetop an understanding as to how the work of LIEP affects other
departments.
Recomme»dation # 5: LIEP should involve staff in defining organizational goals and offer ways for staff
to contribute to them. LIEP needs to find ways to include less-involved staff in decision-making and
make them more aware of planning and improvements taking place in the o�ce and how they can
contribute. LIEP shoutd not wait for them to approach management, as history shows <hey will not.
2000 Sa(nf Pa�d Ciry Co�mcil Research
68 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Pertni�, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Leadership Recommendations
Recommendation # 6: At a minimum, communication between LIEP and the State Fire Marsha! needs to
be improved so they can insure that inspections, installations, and removal of fuel storage tanks are
occurring. !n order to ensure compliance the approval should come from the Ciry, rather than from the
state, leaving all responsibiliry at the Ciry level. LIEP should work with the State Fire Marshal to
determine procedural and legislative changes required to bring this about.
Recommendation # 7: LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services need to clarify their roles relating
to the plumbing code. �4s the Building O�cial has ultimate responsibility for enforcing Jhe plumbing
code, perhaps LIEP should conduct the inspectiotts currently performed by Regional Water. This may
lead to enhanced e�ciency for both entities.
Recommendation # 8: LIEP should market its service ofproviding building evaluations to communiry
deve[opment corparations. This valuable tool would enhance the relationship behveen CDCs and the
City and ensure that rehabilitations address building code problems appropriately.
Recommendation # 9: LIEP attd the Design Cettter should clar� their respective roles and level of
authoriry and clear[y explain them to permit applicants.
Recommendation # l0: LIEP and the City Attorney's O�ce need to clarify whether the City is in
compliance with state law regarding appeals of decisions of the building code o�cial.
Recommendation # 11: LIEP and PED should take leadership in developing a quarterly
interdepartmental meeting for all staff who work with small businesses.
Recommendation # 12: LIEP should meet with Code Enforcement and other appropriate Ciry agencies
to discuss and f:nd solutions to the issue of long-term incomplete projects in the Ciry's neighborhoods.
Recommendation # 13: LIEP needs to come into, and remain in, compliance with state reporting
requirements for both its building code and heritage preservation activities.
Recommendation # 14: LIEP should provide the City Council at regularly scheduled intervals, a
complete explanation of the current automation situation including funding, hours spent on the project,
timeline and reasons for the lengthened timeline.
Recommendation # IS: LIEP should evaluate its mission statement to ensure it answers the following
questions:
❑ Who are we? What distinguishes LIEP from oJher Ciry departments?
❑ What do we do?
❑ For whom do we do it?
❑ Why do we do it?
Recommendation # 16: LIEP should identify objectives to put the mission statement into action and also
ident� specific objectives for each area of LIEP. This will enhance employee understanding of how
their particular respansibilities help meet those objectives and thus fulfill the mission. Frnally, LIEP
should ident� specific organiaational values under which all employees operate and exemplify them at
all levels of the arganization.
2000 Sainl Paul C!ty Connci! Research
PerPurmance Audit of lhe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Pian Review and Inspections Functions 69
Training Recommendations
Recommendation # 17: LIEP should reassess where resources are allocated for training to determine if
some staff have less access to training Chan others, and whether this is appropriate. LIEP should also
determine if, and how, the training is affecting work[oad allocation.
Recommendation # 18: LIEP needs to encourage all staff in a!! work areas to pursue relevant training
and provide the resources whenever possib[e.
Recnmmendation # 19: More cross-education of all LIEP functions would be valuable. Staff tettd to
have limited know(edge of the functions of work areas beyond their own. Having a good working
knowledge of the other functional areas will assist sta,ff in answering customer questions and
coordinating efforts !o prevent problems.
Development Recommendations
Recommendati�n # 20: LIEP should follow through on its commitment to open communication behveen
staff and management axd discuss together issues related to morale and other workplace concerns. This
could involve increased management attendance at work-group or team meetings, as well as more
proactive involvement of staff not traditionally involved in organization-wide discussions.
Recommendation # 21: LIEP should reconvene a labor-management group to actively pursue issues of
mutual concern. Clear guidelines and e.rpectarions should be established so meetings are a place for
cooperation, not confronJation and complaining. Leaders should emphasize this is a non-grievance
discussion forum. The leaders of the group will also need to engage the problems encountered by the
first labor-management group, such as too many partieipants — The last group had two representatives
from each bargaining unit in LIEP which may have made the group too aenwieldy and ineffective.
Recommendation # 22: LIEP should address work environment iseues. The proposed Labor-
Management Committee should discuss both the factors negatively impacting the environment and whar
specific steps can be taken to decrease the stress level experienced by many staff.' Additionally, this
group could e.ramine what specifically could be done to make LIEP a more supportive work environment
for those who feel it is not currently supportive.
Information and Analysis Recommendations
Recommendation # 23: The City of Saint Paul should provide the financial resources to allow for the
purchase of an economical software package that would interface between the GIS system and
AMANDA. This would allow broad access to GIS for all departments uti[izing the AMANDA system and
enhance the abiliry to coordinate activities and information behveen various departments.
Recommenda[ion # 24: Not only must LIE'P wark to implemerrt hand-held computers as soon as
possible due to their usefulness, LIEP must also train its inspectors to integrate the hand-held computers
inio their work practices. Inspectors must make it a practice to load all inspections comments into the
database so other inspectors have the same information. Inspectors should also begin the practice of
looking up information to ensure they are providing permittees with aeea�rate information.
2000 Sain! PoeJ City Council Research
70 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Recommendation # 25: LIEP should clearly identify the information gathering potentia( of fhe new
computer systems and the usefulness of the data. (See previous box for suggestion). Data collected and
analyzed should be related to the mission and objectives of the organization.
Recommendation # 26: LIEP should analyze the effectiveness of the computer systems. One method to
analyze the effectiveness would be to follow-up with staff based on survey responses indicating the
systems are not useful. LIEP should encourage and gather input on the systems and respond to the
input, even if it is not possible to immediately address all concerns or suggestions.
Improvement Practices Recommendations
Recommendation # 27: LIEP should involve itself in a complete improvement practices process that
includes planning, implementation and evaluation of its improvements.
Recommendation # 28: LIEP needs to use data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of its improvement
practices. So far, they have little documentation to substantiate claims of improvement other than
anecdotal evidence.
Recommendation # 29: It is apparent that LIEP has few formalized and widely understood goals.
Therefore, LIEP staff should be involved in defining improvement practices, setting goals and evaluating
activities. (Goal setting is discussed in the planning, leadership and results qualiry sections).
Improvement practices should link activities to goals and objectives. They should also help
organizations achieve their goals and objectives.
Customer Focus Recommendations
Recommendation # 30: Develop marketing strategies for promoting the express permits, the
preliminary plan review process, pre paid permit accounts, parking reimbursement and any other
customer focused practices.
Recommendation # 31: LIEP is one of the City agencies which has the most direct contact with
residents and businesses seeking ittformation, and stands to benefit greatly from having as much
information as possible on its web page. Completion of the web site should be a high priority for LIEP,
particularly in light of the goal to have it completed by the end of 1996. Information that should be
available to customers on-line includes:
❑ permit applications and permit status information;
❑ inspections results;
❑ general building code and zoning information, similar to the paper handouts available;
❑ information on special programs and projects, such as the Housing Initiative;
❑ a Frequently-Asked-Questions (FAQ� page; and
❑ an "ask-the-inspector" page in which visitors could post general questions to trade inspectors.
Recommendation # 32: LIEP should develop a policy requiring trade inspectors to wear an
identif:cation badge at all times while performing inspections.
Recommendation # 33: LIEP should develop a policy for granting equivalencies which is known and
used by alJ inspectors in an e, fJ"ort to make the practice fair, consistent and usefu[. The Ciry Attorney
1000 Saint Paul City Ca�mci! Research
Performance Audit of [he City of Sain[ Paul's Build�ng Permit, Plan Re�iew and Inspections Functiuns
il
should be involved in developing this policy to ensure it is legally sound. The development of these
policies will enhance LIEP's image in the City.
Recommendation # 34: LlEP should work to change the attitude of its inspectors wha be(ieve that
contractors and properry owners are hying to hide something from them. They should immediately
cease threatening property owners with retaliation, which is contrary to LIEP poiicy, but is reported to
happen from time to Jime.
Recommendation # 35: LIEP should develop a process for leaving information with both property
owners and contracJors upon final inspections, particularly when changes are sdill required before the
permit can be closed.
Recommendation # 36: LIEP should look at the practices of building inspections departments in other
cities for possible customers service improvements. One suggestion would be maintaining evening hours
one or two nights a week to make it easier for homeawners who work during the day to apply for
permits, such as is the practice in San Diego.
Recommendation # 37: LIEP should consider otNer options besides an annual or biennial survey for
monitoring customer needs and satisfaction. Some suggestions inctude survey cards issued with the
Certificate of Occupancy or when a permit is closed. Another option is to focus on evaluating one
activity per month. For e.rample, give surveys to everyone who applies for a permit in February, in
March give surveys to everyone who has a site plan review, and in August to everyone who receives an
inspection. This way, not all sections are burdened with conducting a survey at the same time. If
another, organization-wide survey is desired, LIBP should consider consulting with organizations which
have been successful in reaching a high response rate from their customers.
Recommendation # 38: LISP should formalize customer service standards, such as plan review's three
day turn-around for basic plan reviews. This would help all staff understand the customer service
standards and how their work contribufes to the goals set by the organization.
Recommendation # 39: LIEP should provide more customer service trainingfor inspectors to help them
understand how they can provide good customer service and good code enforcement.
Recommendation # 40: Develop an idea/complaint/compliment line and/or e-maiJ address that would
allow customers to directly communicate with LIEP at their own convenience and at any time, rather
than just through the annual customer survey.
Results Recommendation
Recommendation # 41: LIEP needs to develop a meaningful performance indicators system for
determining how weli they are meeting the organizatio»'s goals. This process needs to overtly take into
account issues which may not be "measurable, " but which also need to be documented and reported
over time. The deveJopment process should also be inclusive and incorporate staff ideas. A performance
measurement system should function not only to give feedback to managers and policy makers, but also
to stafJ`'who rely on it to provide them regular feedback on individual activities. All of the organization's
stakeholders have an interest in knowing how well the organization is meeting its goals. Examples of
specific measures are outlined in the nert chapter. Additionally, the Mayor's O�ce should much more
pctively monitor performance indicators used in the budget and assist the Ciry's departments in
developing more meaning/ul indicators.
1000 Sain! Po�J Ciry Coimcil Res¢arch
__.. -
_ _
��-ya�
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit,
Plan Review &
Inspections Functions
Council Research Report
May 2000
Research Methods
• 67 Surveys Analyzed
• 92% return rate
• 35 Interviews Conducted
� Majority were LIEP Staff
• Some key stakeholders
Ratings
• Policy Compliance
+ substantially in compliance with policies
— not in compliance with poGcies
• Quality Assessment
s� criteria sometimes present, occasionaily
stst criteria present and practiced to some e�
sKcst criteria well-developed and practiced
ttstsf�c criteria fuliy developed and practiced
Key Concepts
• City Plan Policy Consistency
• Plan Quality Concepts
• Internal Plans
■ Plan Development
• Plan Dissemination and Implementation
Planning
Findings
• LIEP's Intemal Planning in Mid-1990's
was Very Good
• Business Redesign Project
� 1996 Strategic Plan
Planning
Findings
• Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan
■ LIEP was not involved in development
• Not LIEP's practice to consult Comp Plan
when reviewing building plans
• Little / No Planning Recently
Oe - �l`l�
Planning
Recommendations
• Revisit Past Organizational Plans with
Broad Staff Participation and
Dissemination
• Play a Stronger Role in Comp Plan
Development
• Incorporate Comp Plan into Decision-
Leadership
Key Concepts
Compliance with Leadership-Related
Policies
Leadership Quality Concepts
• Mission, �sion, Values
■ Stakeholder Relationships
• Staff Recognition
Leadership
Findings
• Good Stakeholder Relationships
• Clarification needed in some stakeholder
reiationships
• Some policy misalignment
. Saint Paul Re9ional WaterServices
. State Fire Marshal
� Design Center
. PED QuarteAy Small Business Mee6ng
� Cotle Enforcement
Leadership
Findings
• Clear Mission and vsion
• No Clear Objectives Linked to Mission
• Good Staff Recognition
Leadership
Recommendations
Link Organizational Objectives to Mission
and �sion
• Establish Useful Performance Measures
Leadership
Recommendations
• Clarify Stakeholder Relationships and
Mutual Responsibilities
• Link Organizational Objectives to Mission
and �sion
■ See Results and Pertormance Measures
Training
Key Concepts
• Training and Education Resource
AUocation
Employer Commitment
po _ `�`t�
Training
Findngs
Significant Resources Invested
LIEP Handbook is a Good Tool
Yearly Updated Employee Educationai
Plan
Counter Staff Cross - Trained
Training
Recommendations
• Review Allocation of Training Resources
Across Staff Groups
Emphasize More Cross-Education
Devetopment
Key Concepts
• Staff Development Policy Compliance
• Staff Development Quality Concepts
■ Empioyee Contribuiion
. Work Environment
• 4abor-Management Relationship
• Employee Eva{uation
Development
Findings
Unfulfilled 1996 Sfrategic Plan Objective
to Address Employee Morale
Labor-Management Group Inactive
Work Environment Good Overall, But...
• Up to 1!3 of staff say work environmenf is F
■ Similar proportioa (1/4) feel labor-managen
Development
Findings
■ Over Y: of staff feel "fevl' to "no opportunities"
to contribute to organizational decisions or
goals
■ Negativity evenly spread across all work units
and tenure levels
Development
Recommenda6ons
Engage Disaffected Staff and Discuss
Their Concems
Reinstitute Labor-Management
Committee Incorporating Lessons of Past
• 90% of Staff Feel Work Environment is
Supportive of Staff in Protected Classes
� z� - `lQ�
Information 8� Analysis
Key Concepts
• Data Gathering & Analysis Policy
Comptiance
Info & Analysis Quality Concepts
• Data Colleetion
• Analysis of Data
■ Effective Use of Information Systems
Information & Analysis
Findings
ECLIPS & AMANDA Systems Operational
as of Aprii 2000
� Software provider contract changes poorly
communicated
• Hand-hetd field computers criticaf for trades
inspectors
• Little data available during transition periods
■ Petforma�ce Measures need to be developed
Information & Analysis
Recommendations
Relate Data Collection & Analysis to
& Objectives
LIEP Has Potential to Dramatically
Improve Info & Analysis Assessment if
Recommendations Pursued
Make Handheld Field Computers Top
Priority for Trade Inspectors
improvement Practices
Key Concepis
Improvement Practices Policy
Improvement Practices Quality Concepts
� Identification of Potential Improvements
� Implementation of Improvements
• Evaluation of Improvement Efforts
Improvement Practices
Ratings
• Policy Compliance +
Quality t�'/=
Improvment Practices
Findings
LIEP Strives to Incorporate Improvements
Regularly
• '119 Targets for Redesign
� Project Facilitator
� ECLIPS &AMANDA
LIEP Doesn't Gather Info On or Evaluate
Improvement Efforts
tmprovement Practices
Recommendations
LIEP Should Gather Info On and Eval�
Improvement Efforts
• Continue, change, or cease improvement
efforts based on these evaluations
• Improvement Practices Should Link
Activities to Goals and Objectives
t) a - `�`��a
Customer Focus
Key Concepts
• Customer Service Policy Compliance
� Customer Focus Quality Concepts
• Customer ident�cation and knowledge
• Managing customer relationships
■ Customer service practices
• Customer service standards
Customer Focus
Findings
LIEP Understands Who its Customers Are
LIEP hasn't surveyed customers recently
Number of Practices Benefit Customers
Ineffective Marketing of Practices
Poor Web Site Development and Use
Customer Focus
Findings
• Housing Initiative Pooriy Communicated
Initially
• Appeals Process Inconsistently
Communicated
Customer Focus
Recommendations
Clarify Customer Service Philosophy
• Clarify policies relating to granting
equivalencies
• Develop Web Site and Market Services
• Express permits
• Preliminary plan review
• Parking reimbursement
Results
Key Concepts
Results Policy Compliance
• Results Qua�ity Concepts
• Organizational Outcomes
■ Financial Outcomes
• Customer Satisfaction
• Use of Performance Indicatore
Results
Findings
Throughout City, Reduced Emphasis on
Organizational Outcomes in Recent Ye�
• LIEP Has Few Pertormance Indicators
• Use the few availabie to determine whether
goals are met
LIEP is Poised to Develop a Meaningful
Pertormance Measurement System
oa -`�`��
Resuits
Recommendations
• LIEP Needs to Develop a Meaningful
Performance Indicators System to
Determine How Weil They are Meeting
Organizational Goals
Performance Measures
• Customer Service
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
Performance Measures
• Necessary for Accountability to Elected
Officials and the General Public
• Used to Gauge Progress on Achieving
Organizational Goals
Performance Measures
• Timeliness
• Helpfuiness
• Accuracy
• Cost: Staff and Capital
• Qualitv
o�������.
COUncil File # 00-496
Green Sheet # 104503
PAUL, MINfVESOTA
Presented
Refe[red To
Committee Date
ZO
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COUNCIL RESEARCH
PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL'S
BUILDING PERMIT, PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTIDN FUNCTIONS
1 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council directed the preparation of the Council Reseazch Performance
2 Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions, as a part of
3 its Performance Audit Program established in Council File # 95-1392; now therefore be it resolved
4 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council hereby accepts the Council Research Performance Audit of
5 ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions.
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Adopted by CounciL• Date p
� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Adoption Certified by Council Secretaij
By: `"'� d '� ,,�-0 �
Approved by Mayor: Date
B Y' � � � --
O� z
�ErartrtnenrrroF�cErcourici�
Council Research
XMJTACT PERSON & PFiONE
Marcia Mcermond, 266-8570
AUST BE ON COUNCIL AGEPIDA BY (DAiE
5/24/2000 �ikuff�sv�i
TOTAL # OF SIC,NATORE PAGES
DATE INRLITED
5/17/2000
�3
00-496
GREEN SHEET
No1C4�03
� �.,�,�.�.� � �� _
� arcwnomEr ❑ anara�c
❑ RL1xCLtkaNCFSOR ❑ AMNtl�laFmlutta
❑ WYDRI�M�iCSfAMI) ❑
(CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Council acceptance of the Council Research Perjormance Audit ojthe Crry of Saint Pau!'s Building Permiy Plan Review and InspeMioas
FunMions.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIBCAMMITTEE ,
CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION
OF TRANSACTION
SOURCE
tias tnis a��irm ever woncea under a conhau ta th� deparhnem7
YES NO
tias tliis v��rm ever teen a cdy empwyee7
YES �
Doec this peisorvhrm posaess a sldN not rwmullypoasessed by arry current cRy empbyee'7
YES Ntr
is ihis pe�soNfirm a targeted ventloYt _
YE3 NO
COST/REVRIUE BUD6ETm (CIRCLE ONE)
ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
(IXPWN)
0 0 - �1�1�
CITY COUNCIL RESEARCH REPORT
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan Review
and Inspections Functions
��
�
:n.
��
�� _,
,� .:
a�.
,
�:.
�,.
�
�
Saint Paul City Council
Council Investigation and Research Center
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Saint Paul City Council
City Council Investigation &
Research Center
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
651.266.8560
http://www. stpaul. gov/council/circ. html
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan
Review and rnspections
Functions
May 2000
Director
Gerry Strathman
Policy Analysts
Jennifer Dunn
Marcia Moermond
Kenneth L. Smith
Questions?
If you have questions regarding this
report please contact
Gerry Strathman at
651.266.8575 or
c�errv strathman(a�ci.stpaul.mn.us
City Council Research Report
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit, Plan Review
and Inspections Functions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
OVERVTEW OF LIEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 5
Permitting, Plan Review, Site Plan Review &
Inspections ......................... 5
LIEP Organizational Chart , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 6
Permit, Ptan Review & Inspection Process
FlowchaR ..........................8
PLANNING ............................9
Planning Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Quality of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Planning Quality Findings & Recommendations 13
INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . 33
Information & Analysis Policy Compliance
Findings & Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 34
Quality of Information & Analysis . . . . . . . . 35
Information & Analysis Quality Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
[MPROVEMENT PRACT[CES . . . . . . . , . . . 38
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance
Findings & Recommendations . . . , . . . . . 40
Quality of Improvement Practicas . . . . . . . . . . 41
Improvement Practicas Quality Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
LEADERSHIP ....................... 15
Leadership Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations ................... 21
Quality of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z2
Leadership Quality Findings
& Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
TRAINING ............................. 25
Training Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Quality of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Training Qua�ity Finding 8t Recommendations 27
DEVELOPMENT ........................ 28
Development Policy Findings
& Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Quality of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Development Quality Findings
& Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CUSTOMER FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Customer Focus Policy Compliance Findings &
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Quaiity of Customer Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Customer Focus Quality �'indings &
Recommendations ................... 48
RESULTS .............................. 50
Results Measurement in L[EP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Results Quality Findings & Recommendation . 52
PERFORMANCE MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Permitting/Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Zoning and Site Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Plan Review .......................... 56
Inspections ........................... 59
CONCLUS[ON .......................... 62
APPENDIX A: List of Resource Documents ,... 65
APPENDIX B; List of Recommendations ...... 67
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and [nspec[ions Functions
INTRODUCTION
The City Council, as the governing body of the City of Saint Paul, is responsible for establishing
City policies and ensuring that City practices are consistent with these policies. As the body
responsibte for approving the City Budget and aathorizing Yhe tax levy, the Counci] must also
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of City operations. Therefore, the City Council
established a Performance Audit Program in the fall of 1996 to help it fulfill these legislative
oversight and budgetary responsibilities and it directed Council Research to conduct performance
audits of City operations. Performance audits analyze the consistency of departmental practices
with City policies, as well as provide insight into how policy directives are implemented. The
performance audit also examines whether an organization's practices are efficient and reflective
ofthose used by high-performing organizations.
The City Council is very interested in the value received by citizens for the money expended.
Taxpayers rightly expect that money provided for services will be spent to achieve the best result
possible with the least expenditure of public funds. The efficiency and effectiveness of
goveroment operations and processes can be assessed in many ways. One common approach is
for auditors to examine an organization at a micro-level to try to detertnine if the organization is
following sound procurement practices, properly protecting its resources, and complying with
laws and regulations. This micro-level approach to auditing is closely related to financial auditing
and is often conducted by accountants who spend a great deal of time and effort examining the
inner workings of the organization. While we accept there are situations where this type of micro-
level auditing is appropriate, such as when fraud is suspected, we believe a higher level audit is
most appropriate here. The City Council is less concerned with the minutia of daily operations of
its departments and more concemed with knowing if its departments and offices aze top-quality
organizations whose operations are efficient, effective and in compliance with appropriate laws
and policies. If they are not, the Council is interested in knowing what can be done to remedy any
deficiencies preventing the department or office from achieving a level of excellence.
SCOPE OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT
This audit is an examination of the policy compliance, efficiency and effectiveness of the
permitting, trade inspections and plan and zoning review activities of the Office of License,
Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP).' Future references to LIEP in the audit will
refer to only these activities, not the entire organization. The office and functions selected for
review were identified by the City Council because of the importance of LIEP's activities in
relation to promoting and protecting the City's housing and building stock. The structure and
functions of LIEP will be described in more detail in a following section.
� The audit does not examine other Ponc[ions performed by LIEP, which include Mimal Control, Gambling Enforcement,
Environmenlal Health, License Inspections or License Imestiga[ion and Compliance Checks.
2000 Satnt Pau! Ciry CouncJ Reseprch
Perfortnance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permil, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
RESEARCH METHODS
Policies peRaining to the functions of L[EP were gathered from the Saint Paul Administrative
Code, the Saint Paul Legislative Code, City Council resolutions, the Land Use and Housing
Chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as LIEP's own internal plans, policies and
budget objectives. It is not Council Research's intent to make specific findings on every
individual policy statement. Rather, we focus on groups of policies that relate to specific
functional areas within LIEP (permitting, plan review or inspections), and have grouped them
according to the most relevant quality category. It is our belief this approach is more useful to
both policy makers and participants in understanding how to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness and compliance of the organization.
We believe the best way to assess the level of organizational development is to ask those most
knowledgeable about the organization—the people who work in the organization. We believe
that the people who work in LIEP best know the strengths and weaknesses of their organizations
and will, when asked, candidly report their opinions. Therefore, we have gone directly to LIEP
staff to ask them about their work. We were able to survey 67 of 73 (92%) LIEP staff involved
in the permitting/ customer service areas, plan review and zoning and trade inspections, and we
also conducted 35 interviews with LIEP staff inembers. The findings and recommendations in
this report are based on these surveys and interviews as well as an examination of written
materials on LIEP's practices.
ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT
A key aspect of an organization's performance is its compliance with the laws and directives
under which it is required to operate. Governmental agencies have a high level of responsibility
to operate within the parameters established by governing bodies, as well as within pazameters
established by the organization itself. Because LIEP is a regulatory agency, it not only has to
comply with regulations as do all City depaRments, it also has to enforce regulations to which
developers, builders, home and business owners and contractors have to comply. Quite often,
these policies can be closely linked to the quality of an organization's operations. Throughout
this repoR, we will illustrate how wmpliance with certain policies does or could enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of L[EP. A listing of policies, practices and documents reviewed is
in Appendix A of this report.
The efficiency and effectiveness of LIEP's permitting, plan review, zoning, and inspections
functions aze evaluated using an Organizational Quality Assessment. While there aze several
methods to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency, our approach is based on work done by the
organizers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awazd who identified the characteristics of
a high-performing organization.
The study of high-performing organizations has typically identified seven characteristics believed
to be essential for an organization to achieve excellence. These criteria have been identified from
W�
2 For a complete listing of all policies reviewed, please see Appendix A.
1000 Saint Paid City Cotmcil Research
Performance Audi[ of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions
studies over many years and are widely accepted as indicators of organizational excellence. The
criteria used by the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and the Minnesota Quality Award
to assess organizationai development and to identify quality organizations are summarized in the
table below. For the purposes of this audit we have split the category of Training and
Development into two separate discussions for a more useful discussion of both areas. None of
the quality categories stand alone. Each impacts the other, and all are essential to achieving a
high level of performance. Quite often improvement in one quality category will positively
impact another. For example, improvement in the category of Information and Analysis often
significantly impacts both Results and Improvement Processes.
Assessment Categories
Quality Category Key Concepts Discussed on Pages:
Planning
Intemal Plans
Plan Development
Plan Dissemination & Implementation
9-14
Leadership
Training
Development
Information and
Analysis
Improvement
Practices
Mission, Vision, Values
Stakeholder Relationships
Staff Recognition
Training & Education Resource Allocation
Employer Commitment
Employee Contribution
Work Environment
Labor-Management Relationship
Employee Evaluation
Cotlection of Data
Malysis of Data
Effective Use of Automation Systems
Identification of Potential Improvements
Implementation of [mprovements
Evaluation of Improvement Practices
Customer ldentification & Knowledge
Customer Focus Managing Customer Relationships
Customer Service Practices
Customer Service Standards
Organizational Outcomes
R0SU1tS FinancialOutcomes
Customer Satisfaction
Use of Pedormance Indicators
15-24
25 - 27
28 - 32
33 - 37
38-41
42 - 49
50 - 52
Each of these quality categories is a chapter in the report, and each chapter is comprised of the
following discussions:
❑ Ratings
❑ Policy discussion, Findings, Recommendations
❑ Quality discussion, Findings, Recommendations
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Counci! Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
In addition to the Results chapter, which focuses on organizational outcomes, an overview of
performance measures and their potential application in LIEP is provided in the Performance
Measures. Performance measurement in this performance audit means the regular collection of
specific information about the effectiveness, quality and efficiency of services and programs.
The suggested measures will enable LIEP to eva{uate on its own whether the resources expended
(labor or financial resources) on an acYivity are used efficiently, have the intended effect and
result in a quality outcome. Measures can be based on information obtained from written
records, observations by specially trained staff or through surveys of customers. This
performance audit will examine existing performance measures and suggest other performance
measures. However, the audit will not perform the actual measurements.
Criteria Ratings
We have gathered a wealth of information about the permitting, plan review, zoning and
inspection activities of LIEP while conducting this performance audit. Although capturing all of
this information in any rating system is impossible, we believe a rating system will help
decision-makers grasp the essence of the information. We have developed a simple summary
rating system we believe conveys the essence of our findings. We intend these ratings to reflect
what interview subjects have told us about LIEP. While organizations and processes consist of
individuals, we intend the ratings to reflect current organizational practices and they should not
be interpreted as judgements about individuals.
The rating system used for policy comQliance is simple and straightforward using a plus (+) sign,
indicating LIEP is substantially in compliance with the relevant policies, or a minus (-) sign
indicating LIEP is not in compliance. If it is not found in compliance, recommendations will be
made to assist the organization in achieving wmpliance.
The summary ratings for the quality categories are intended to portray both the level of
development and the level of integration of each quality criterion. Development, in this
performance audit, means the extent to which high-valued characteristics are in evidence. High-
value characteristics aze ones in which the criteria being examined are systematic, manifest, pro-
active, fact-based, and evaluated. Integration refers to the extent criteria are practiced. It is
possible, indeed likely, for criteria to be practiced in some parts of the organization, but not in
others.
The summary ratings used for quality assessment are:
**** Criteria fully developed and practiced throughout the organization.
*** Criteria well developed and practiced throughout most of the organization.
ic * Criteria present and practiced in some parts of the organization.
* Criteria sometimes present, occasionally practiced in parts of the organization.
3 The Urban [nsti[ute Q980). Performance Measurement A Curde for Local Elected OfficiaLc. Washington D.C.:
The Urban Institute, p. 1.
Z000 Sain/ Pu+J Ciry Counci) Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni[, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions
OVERVIEW OF LIEP
Before discussing the findings of the audit, it is necessary to give a brief overview of the Office
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP). LIEP was forcned in 1992 as a
result of the consolidation of Environmental Health, the Building Inspection and Design Division
(BIDD), the License Division and Animal Control. Four reasons were offered for the merger:
"L The need for improved customer service and the creation of a bne-stop-shop' for
businesses.
2. The desire to provide customer service training for inspectors and to improve the
coordination of seroices.
3. The need to review and update the City's regulations.
4. A desire to reduce the overall costs of enforcement in order to save money."
The graph on the following page illustrates the cunent organizational structure of LIEP. The
blue boxes indicate the areas of LIEP that were examined in this audit. LIEP currently has just
over 100 employees, and an adopted year 2000 budget of $9,136,890. The vast majority of
L[EP's revenues are from license and permit fees collected. Only about 15% of LIEP's year
2000 budget is money allocated from the City's general fund.
Permitting, Plan Review, Site Plan Review and Inspections
The graphics on the page 8 iliustrates the permitting process, from entering the office to filling
out a permit application to completing the work and receiving a ceRificate of occupancy or
compliance, if required. The permitting, plan review and inspections activities are closely
intertwined. Typically, the first point of contact for a customer is with a member of
permitting/customer service staff. A customer will either call with questions or come in to obtain
information and apply for a building permit. A permit is required for all structural revisions for
residencas, garages, carports, decks and similar structures or buildings. Non-structural revisions
or remodeling projects may also require a permit if the labor value and the cost of the materials
exceeds $300. Permits can be paid for with cash, check or charge, and payments aze accepted in
person or by fax, phone or mail. The fee schedule is established in City Code, and is based on
the fee schedule in the 1994 Uniform Building Code.
Staff must verify the information contained in the permit application, such as the address, the
contractor's license, whether the building is a dangerous structure or nuisance building. The
address file is currently used to verify this information, but it will be eventually availabte through
the new computer systems.
4 Information taken from Robert Kessler, Director of LIEP, letter to employees, May 18, 1992.
5 City code s[ates that refunds can be given for permit fees if the work was no[ started within a given amount of
time, and or if the fee was calculated incorcectly. Project values can also be ceassessed according [o Code, and new
fees cfiarged or refunds given. Finally, fees can be imposed for work that is started prior to obtaining a permi[.
Typically LIEP finds out about such work through contractors, neighbors, or when inspec[ors are out in the field and
[hey see work occurcing wi[hout a permit.
2000 Sainl Paul City Council Research
6 P erfurmance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPS Bnilding Permit, Plan Review and lnspections Functi�
LIEP ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Director, ?�
Robert Kessler �
a
.n.....u"xwt$a"vn: :'r`:`y �.5�'::;%`
Building Code Official,
Thomas Riddering
Environmental
Health and
License
Inspections
Trade
Inspections
Program
Analyst
Zoning
Plan Review
and BZA
BudgeG
Accounting
Legislafionl
Poticy BRC
Customer Services
Manager, Christine Rozek
L'fcense
Invastigation
&
Compliance
Checks
Computer
System
Devalopment
Help Desk
Plan Review
& Historic
Preservation
Housing
Initiative
IndicndesArea Covered by
Performance Audit
Animal
Co�trol
Gambling
Entorcement
Clerical Support
and Payrotl
Hearing
OKcer
2000 Sain� Pa�d Ciry Counci( Researeb
Plrfortnence Audil of �he Cily of Saint Paul's Building Pettnit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Fwctions �
In most cases, a customer must submit building plans and possibly site plans for review in order to obtain
the necessary permits. The few cases in which plans are not required include roofing, so�t and fascia
improvements and furnace replacements. LIEP staff involved in plan review include the plan reviewers,
site plan reviewers, the structural engineer and the inspectors, though they are not all involved in
reviewing every plan. The following table shows their involvement.
LIEP Staff [nvolved in Plan Review -
Plan Revlewers
3ite Plan Reviewer
Structural Engineer
Trade Inspectors
All plans not requiring sigmficant structural changes or changes in use of the proper[y
Commercial, multi-family additions, new construction, changes in use of the property
All significant struc[ural changes or additions
Complex building plans
The site plan reviewer also coordinates an interdepartmental review team that includes representatives
from Zoning, Public Works, the Water Utility, and Police and Fire departments, as appropriate. The
applicant will meet with staff two to three weeks after the site plan is submitted. At this meeting
questions can be answered and revisions offered. Staff also work diligently to assist applicants if their
plans do not meet code standards.� District Councils may also be involved if the project will have an
impact on the surrounding area. While site plan review is occurring, the trade inspectors may be
involved in reviewing specific plans designed to show the electrical, plumbing, mechanical or other
relevant work. In some cases, the plan review process is on-going, such as for the Minnesota Wild Arena
which is a lazge construction project and requires a variety of different plans. The site plan reviewer also
prepares stafT'repoRS for site plans that are reviewed by the Planning Commission and he handles any
subsequent appeals to the City CounciL This staff person also serves as backup staff for the Boazd of
Zoning Appeals.
Once the plans have been reviewed and the permits issued, the inspectors will do an initial inspection.
Depending on the type of project, there ue given points at which a project must be inspected. The
contractors or property owners are responsible for calling LIEP to arrange for an inspection at the
appropriate time. In general, inspections are required at the "rough-in" stage and upon project completion.
However, inspections are done weekly at bigger construction projects such as the Lawson.Commons
building and the Minnesota Wild Arena. Once the work is completed and approved, the inspector signs the
back of the permit, signs the copy of the permit kept in LIEP's files, and submits it to clerical staff to be
formally closed out. LIEP issues the temporary certificate of occupancy, if required, upon permit closure.
If the Fire Department is also performing inspections of the project, they aze notified of LIEP's approval of
the project. The temporary certificate of occupattcy will not be issued until the Fire Department has also
signed off on the permits. LIEP issues only the temporary certificate of occupancy; periodic
(annualPoiennial) inspections and ongoing certificates of occupancy are issued by the Fire DepaRment.
6 Building plans indicate all intemal or structural work, site plans show existing and proposed condi[ions of [he
property (such as site layout, grading, drainage and utilities, landscaping), and building information (such as height,
type of construction, sprinklers, and elevation). [n limited cases, a[ree preservation plan must also be submitted.
� It is possible [hat plans cannot feasibly meet code standards. In [hose cases, �the zoning code provides a couple of
options to allow for uses other than those specifically stated in the code, namely variances and special condition use
permits (SCUPs).
2000 Sainf PatJ City Council Research
8
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Permit, Plan Review and Inspection Process
Informatton Provided on
Permit Application, Review
and Inspection Processes
Front Cowter, Rqect Facili[ator
(Potemtal FuMre Use af Web SiteJ
Permit Issued, Payment Made,
and (ifnecessary)Temporary
C oi O Issued
Building Official, Fire Marehall
�
Inspection at Rough-In and
Complete Stages, As
Necessary on Large Projects
Tradee Inspec[ore and Fire Prevention
�
SIgnAH on Permit(s) and
Issuance oi C o} O's
Tcadea h�apectois, Fire Preveatioq
Building Official
Soard of Zoning Appeals, Herilage Preeerva�ion
Commiesion, Planning Commiesion
could aleo be appealed [o [he Cily Council,
and poeaibly dielrict court
Plans Fail
Review and
Are Not
Modified to
Pass Review
�
Appeal(s) of
Plan Review(s) Denied
�
Permit Application Danied
contractor/owner prepares
materials for permit
applmation (plans, e[c.)
Potential Use of
Preliminary Plan Review
�
if small/simple project,
such as roof or fence
�
�
Plans Approved
8
SCUPs and variances
granted if needed
� Appeal(s)
of Plan
Review(s)
Granted
V
Permit Application Submitted
(if partial project permit,
repeat process for
other project phases)
Pront Counler, Experl on Duty
Revlew of Permit Appllcatlon
Pian Review - alI non "eimple" projecle
Zoning Review - new eWCturee, new use, complex zoning
9ite Plan ReWew - multi-unit reeidentail or commercial
Siructural Plan Revlew - mulli-mil reeidenlial, commercial,
or complex eWClw'e
Heritage Pr¢serva[fon Revlew - in heritage preaervation
dia[ricl or deeignated hiamric eWCture or eite
V
Public hearin9s for zoning, site plan,
heritage preservation or plan reviews
1000 Saint Paul City Couneil Research
ins perfonnnnce Audil of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 9
PLANNING
Policy Alignment: —
Quality Rating: ��
KEY PLANNING CONCEPTS:
O Intemal Plans
❑ Plan Development Participation
❑ Plan Dissemination & Implementation
Planning is an activity that incorporates a strong future orientation and a willingness to make
long-term commitments to stakeholders. High-performing organizations actively engage in
planning and recognize the impact not only of intemal changes, but also of environmental factors
on the organization. Planning considers resource allocation, economic projections, future needs
of employees, future customer needs and expectations, technological developments, and
stakeholder requirements. Plans can be long- or short-term, and can be issue specific,
organization-wide, departmental-wide or unit-wide. In order to be effective, plans need to be
carried out and updated frequently. Comprehensive plans are also considered policy documents.
LIEP's Internal Plans
L[EP has a history of engaging in planning activities. In the mid-1990's, LIEP developed a
number of plans to enable and enhance its streamlining efforts. While these plans were
reactionary (they were necessary to meet the objectives for consolidation and mandates from the
Mayor's Office), LIEP was addressing a problem, namely integrating functions, and did the
appropriate planning to manage the changing circumstances. The plans LIEP produced were:
O Business Process Redesign Project (1994-1996), which consisted ofthe following plans:
❑ Functional Redesign Report/P►an (Business Process Redesign Project), 1994
A high-level plan that identified common data and info used across all L[EP functions.
Its objective was to design work processes azound shared, property-based information. It
focused on customer service delivery and sought to replace repetitive, duplicative, and
labor intensive administrative processes. (The Business Review Council has in many
ways collaborated in doing much of the work of identifying unnecessary regulations and
duplicate processes.)
❑ Administrative Redesign Report/Plan, 1994
The focus of this plan was on service delivery processes and line employees as
customers. It sought to replace administrative processes that were repetitive, duplicative
and labor intensive through information sharing and technology support tools.
❑ Change Management Plan 1994-1996
This plan had 5 objectives for which steering teams were developed to work on:
❑ reduce processing time for permits and licenses;
❑ reduce number of and increase collections on delinquent license renewals;
a reduce cost to businesses by reducing time to obtain permit and license;
o eliminate redundancy and complexity in local codes; and
o reduce papenvork and eliminate forms.
❑ Strategic Action Plan, 1996
This plan was required as part of the O�ce's annual budget.
2000 Sarnt Paul Ciry Counci! Research
10 Performance Audi[ of [he City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions
Since 1996, LIEP has not done any long-term strategic planning. All recent planning is very
short-term and meant to address very specific issues such as the computer systems. However,
these plans focused only on the steps to make the new computer systems operational. They did
not include plans to help LIEP transition from the old methods of operation to new ones.
Extensive work on basic automation of L[EP's services appears to have consumed much of the
oftice's creative energy in recent years, and LIEP, in effect, has used the automation as an excuse
not to plan. An attitude also exists in LIEP that it is difficult to do planning because of the
regulatory nature of the Office's functions and the constraints LIEP faces as a govemmental
entity. However, a number of factors could have been considered in LIEP's planning such as the
growth in construction and the current vitality of the economy.
Overall, LIEP is currently engaging in very limited planning activities. However, L[EP held a
retreat in late 1999 to look at azeas that still need to be addressed. They identified three areas of
importance for focused improvement effor[s: communication, staff and training, and technology.
There is no clear product yet from this retreat, such as specific activities, or a clear commitment
from the organization to follow through. However, LIEP reports that individual staff member
commitments have been made to facilitate and lead committees to work on the areas identified
for improvement. Nonetheless, in light of the current City culture which does not value
planning, the fact they are still engaging in planning efforts is noteworthy.
The Saint Paul Zoning Code, in Chapter 64.40Q requires the zoning code be reviewed every five
years. LIEP and PED staff report that routine text amendments are done on a regular basis, but
the zoning code has not been examined or reevaluated. PED maintains primary responsibility for
fulfilling this requirement, though LIEP shares responsibility for implementing the requirements
of the zoning code. Had LIEP engaged in a planning process that considers its responsibilities
related to the zoning code, it may have addressed this and, therefore, been in compliance.
Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan
I
LIEP activities are directly related to the City's Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use
and Housing Chapters. For example, an objective of the Land Use Plan is to "ensure that
building supports broader city-building goals," and "make a contribution to the neighborhood
and public realm."$ Clearly, activities related to this goal would require permits, plan reviews
and site plan reviews, and inspections. LIEP's site plan review activities could easily incorporate
such objectives into their criteria. However, it is clear from staff statements that while certain
staff inembers try to incorporate these objectives, they feel they can only apply them to a certain
extent because the Comprehensive Plan is not adequately incorporated into LIEP's practices.
Not only does LIEP fail to actively pursue the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, they also
fail to use it to identify changing circumstances and priorities. L[EP does not see a direct
relationship between its activities and the objectives of the Plan. They do not consider the
Comprehensive Plan when preparing their own internal plans and look for areas of change or
growth in activities. Rather, it is used by a few select staff inembers to a limited extent as they
perform their duties. To LIEP, the Plan fails to have the same level of authority as the code,
though in reality the Comprehensive Plan has the same effect of ]aw when used in the review
process as justification for City actions and decisions.
$ Land Use Plan, page 17.
2000 Sain� Pau/ City Conncil Research
-�ns � Pedomience Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Punctions 11
LfEP tends only to minimally respond and react to the Comprehensive Plan, but is not a part of
the plan formulation process. I[ is also apparent there are conflicts between some strict
� requirements of the zoning code and the objectives of the Plan. If L[EP were involved in the
plan formulation process, these conflicts may be more readily and easily resolved, and the code
„, and Plan would be more compatible.
� Policy Compliance Findings
�e
F►nding #1: LIEP did a great deal of internal planning in the mid-1990's. Recent planning
activities have been very limited.
� Finding #2: LIEP followed through on many of its planning objectives. An example of this is
�' LIEP's 1996 Strategic Action Plan, where LIEP has done an admirable job of following through
t on many of its objectives, such as trying to respond to inquiries within 48 hours, providing
information to customers through meetings, written material, classes (such as the January 20,
2000 session held for small contractors), testing, and developing two project facilitator positions.
Finding #3: Many of LIEP's activities relate directly to the City's Comprehensive Plan, but
LIEP is not involved in developing the Plan.
�e
�or Finding #4: LIEP does not view the Comprehensive Plan as a policy document to which it must
comply.
- ts
Finding #5: LIEP does not use the Comprehensive Plan as a guide when making its own
organizational plans.
�te
Flnding #6: LIEP did not prepare adequate plans in regard to the transition from a system that
involved paper and an outdated, non-Y2K compliant computer system to a fully automated
system. This type of work process analysis and planning at all levels of the organization would
have assisted LIEP in its difficult and complex transition.
Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 1: PED should perform, in conjunction with LIEP, a thorough analysis of
the current Zoning Code. In order to be in compliance with current Ciry Code, this should be
done every five years. The analysis should consider the Code's conrpatibilities with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and other development priorities, and fhe Code should be modified
accordingly.
Recommendation # 2: Both PED and LlEP need to take more responsibility for including LIEP
in the development processes for the Ciry's Comprehensive Plan. By taking responsibiliry for
development, LIEP will feel more responsible for the objectives of the Plan, and will incorporate
the Comprehensive Plan into its own internal plans and practices.
9 One objective [hat has not been implemented will be discussed in the Development section.
�rch i 20(Xl Safnt Paul Ciry Cnuncil Research
!
4.v . .
��
12 Performance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspectiuns Functiuns p�
LIEP's involvement in the planning and implementation processes of the City's comprehensive
ptans witl enable it to make more recommended changes to the zoning code, so that the code and
the plans are compatible and mutually enforceable. In cases where the zoning code and the
Comprehensive Plan are not compatible, LIEP should consider granting variances,
equivalencies, or bringing the problem the to Business Review Council for further review and
recommendations.
Recommendation # 3: LIBP should incorporate objectives of the Comprehensive Plans into its
plans for its own operations. By doing so, LIEP will ensure it considers future changes and
remains flexible and uses opportunities to ensure the building stock of the Ciry is solid, safe and
contributes to the vitaliry of the Ciry.
The Quality of Planning
Planning was evaluated above on a policy compliance level, but an examination of planning from
a quality perspective is also essential to ensure that planning activities are effective and efficient.
If the activities are not evaluated, then the planning effoRs will be futile and the plans will mean
nothing to staff.
Knowledge of Plans
According to the survey results, there seems to be a disconnect between those who do not know
about planning efforts or are not involved in planning and those who are. According to the
survey, one-half the staff surveyed do not know if plans exist. This question received the highest
level of "don't know" responses of all the survey questions. FuRher analysis of this group of
respondents gave us no indication that some staff inembers or groups of staff were purposely
omitted from planning activities.
'„ Plan Development Participation
, From survey responses, it appears only a few key line staff are consistently involved in planning.
For example, according to the survey, 85% of plan review staff are not aware of any of LIEP's
planning efforts. From interviews, it seems staff are not actively recruited to participate in
planning. We heard many comments echoing the sentiment that "if you want to be involved, you
can be." Involvemenk in planning clearly has to be self-motivated. This is somewhat
;„ problematic, as employee participation in planning at all levels is valuable to an organization as
often the line-staff aze in the most direct contact with customers and other outside influences.
, , Their input and perspective may be more aligned with the realities of daily operations, and they
may have ideas on how to do things better in the future. It also enhances their ability to
' understand how their work contributes to the future of the or anization. However, it should be
B
noted many organizations struggle with how to involve all employees in important decision-
making processes. Clearly, not every employee can be directly involved in writing the planning,
but they should be given the oppoRunity to provide input before the plan is finalized. It was also
clear the Budget Office, PED and the City Attomey's Office are not involved in LIEP's planning,
though they aze key stakeholders and participants in LIEP's activities.
2000 Sain� Pard Ciry Co�mcil Reseorch
�ns p etfom�BnCe Audi� of � he Ci of Sai Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions 13
� P[an Dissemination and Implementation
The recent (imited planning efforts that have taken place could not be based on data analysis
because LIEP did not have comprehensive data, partially due to its antiquated computer systems.
Stafi'iodicate the new computer systems will allow them to collect more comprehensive data.
Finally, it is evident the plans created in,the mid-90's have not been analyzed to determine azeas
, of success, failure, or continued development and inclusion in other plans for the future.
What L[EP now considers to be plans, such as progress updates on the new information systems,
are disseminated through e-mail, meetings and monthly newsletfers. As for implementation,
according to the survey, 40% of staff "don't know" how often plans are implemented. In tha
past, committees have implemented various aspects of the plans, particularly the quick fixes that
were identified.
While not considered LIEP plans, some LIEP staff aze involved in the planning activities of
related organizations. Some inspectors are involved in code planning for their respective trades
at the national, state and local level. They meet to discuss how to implement changes in the
codes, which happen every three years, The Heritage Preservation Commission does an annual
workplan, which is commendable given that it is a citizen commission with very limited staffing.
Very few voluntary commissions in the City of Saint Paul do such planning.
Planning Quatity Findings
Finding #7: Many staff are unaware of plans made by LIEP.
Finding #8: Only a few staff are involved in planning. It seems staff have to actively pursue
opportunities to contribute to planning, Leadership ruely seeks out employee participation in
terms of cultivating involvement from those traditionally not involved.
Finding #9: There is an appazent lack of connection between information gathering, analysis,
results evaluation and planning. LIEP does not measure results and therefore cannot plan as
effectively based on their outcomes. In other words, they do not look at where they have been,
so it is difficult to know where they are going.
Finding #t0: Many L[EP staff, particularly inspectors, aze involved in planning efforts of the
professional organizations to which they belong.
Planning Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 4: LtEP shou/d resume proactive planning, including assessing the current
landscape and future economic, social, human resources, political, and technical impacts on
LIEP's work.
❑ L/EP must understand the connection behveen planning and resource allocation to
prevent situations such as 1he one currently occurrittg with sta� being overworked,
resulting in a highly stressful work environment because techno[ogical, economic, and
7 21X10 Suin� Paul Ciry Conncil Research
L
14 Performance Audit of tMe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
human resource changes were not comprehensively planned. Cfoser monitoring of
outside inJluences wiU assist in projecting changes in workload and resources, such as
those resu[ting from increased construction in recent years.
❑ Outcome measurement must be incorporated into future planning. LIEP must look at the
res:�lts ofpast planning efforts for lessons learned and areas to continue to work on.
They must also look at results ofpast quickfrxes to determine effectiveness and
remaining issues to be resolved resulting from the changes.
❑ LIEP should involve other stakeholders, such as the Crty Attarney's O�ce, Planning and
Economic Development and Public Works in planning process to incorporate the
requirements of other departments and develop an understanding as to how the work of
LIEP affects other departments.
Recommendation # 5: LIEP should involve staff in defining organizational goals and offer ways
for staff to contribute to them. LIEP needs to find ways to include less-involved staff in decision-
making and make them more aware of planning and improvements taking place in !he o�ce and
how they can contribute. LIEP should not wait for them to approach management, as history
shows they wil! not.
i��
2000 Sain! PoN/ Clry� Ca+mcil
�ns Func[ions Pedom�enCe Audit of the C iry o f Sainl Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 15
> Of
such as KEY LEADERSHIP CONCEPTS:
LEADERSHIP � Mission, �;s;o�, �a�ue5
❑ Stakeholder Relationships
k on. t the ❑ Staff Recognition ?
� acux�,��;.v�c�W�'-�c'rar�� . ..,. .: a�r.s.�,s
Policy Compliance: - F
�ning nnd
work of
�er ways
fecision-
�ice and
story
Quality Rating: ��i 1 /a
Senior organizational leaders need to set direction, create a customer focus, establish and
ar[iculate a clear vision and communicate and make visible the values of the organization.
ReinEorcing values and expectations requires personal commitment and involvement. Leaders
need to take part in the creation of strategies, systems and methods for achieving excellence.
7ltese systems and methods need to guide all activities and decisions of the organization.
Leaders must also recognize the role of stakeholders in these processes, and maintain positive
relationships with them. Finally, staff need to be recognized for their contributions to the
organization and to its mission, vision and values.
Many of an organization's policies and practices are derived from strong leadership principles.
In this discussion, we look at three leadership areas in which LIEP has developed policies and
practices: mission and vision, intemal practices, and stakeholders. Good leadership works to
ensure that all in the organizatiott understand the organization's purpose — its mission — and
where the organization is going — its vision. Good leaders also articulate values clearly and
exemplify them on a daily basis. Strong leadership forms meaningful relationships with
stakeholders and maintain good wmmunication and cooperation between the two.
Mission and Vision
LIEP has spent a great deal of time developing and refining its vision/mission statement, which is:
"To be a unified, customer service o�ganization, which promotes a hea[thy and safe
environment througk information and enforcement of codes and ordinances."
The vision of a unified customer service organization was derived from a desire by then Mayor
Scheibel to meet the following four objectives, as mentioned in the introduction:
"1. The need for improved customer service and the creation of a`one-stop-shop' for
businesses.
2. The desire to provide customer service training for inspectors and to improve the
coordination of services.
3, The need to review and update the City's regulations.
4. A desire to reduce the overall costs of enforcement in order to save money."
The mission and vision will be discussed more fully in the Quality of Leadership discussion,
starting on page 22, but it should be noted that the leadership of LIEP has placed a high level of
importance on ensuring that the mission statement is understood and communicated, a highly
commendable practice. The Director of LIEP is also very concerned with ensuring that staff
Research .. 1000 Sainl Paid City Council Research
16
Perfortnance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
understand his expectations for them, and these expectations have been clearly aRiculated in
written form, and, according to some staff, modeled by senior leadership. Not only does the
Director have expectations for his management staff, the managers also have clearly articulated
expectations for him. One key piece missing from the expectations is a values statement for all
staff, which will be discussed in more detail in the Quality of Leadership discussion.
Internal Policies
LIEP has developed a number of internal policies to make for more efficient and understandable
operations. These policies are contained in a policy manual which has not yet been finalized,
though all staff have the policies and receive updates as changes are made. Staff also have a
LIEP information booklet which is useful for finding answers to basic questions or determining
which staff member to contact for the correct answer to complicated questions. Certainly this is
an efficient practice as the information is readily available to all staff and allows them to answer
questions immediately and correctly.
Stakeholders
Positive stakeholder relationships are essential to maintaining strong leadership. Leadership
must be able to identify its stakeholders. Stakeholders are "any person, group, or organization
that can place a claim on an organization's attention, resources, or output or is affected by that
output." Customers also fall under the definition of a stakeholder. LIEP's customers include
contractors and citizens who apply for permits and go through the plan review, permitting and
inspection processes. They aze discussed in more detail in the Customer Focus section of this
audit. Listed below are many of LIEP's stakeholders followed by a discussion of the
stakeholders with whom LIEP interacts the most:
O Fire Department
❑ Saint Paul Regional Water Seroices
(formerly the Saint Paul Water Utility)
❑ Public Works Department
❑ Planning and Economic Development
(PED)
❑ Community Organizations
❑ Design Center
❑ Police Department
❑ Citizen Service Office and Property
Code Enforcement
❑ Problem Properties Committee and
Enforcement Coordination Committee
❑ Business Review Council (BRC)
❑ City Council
❑ Other levels of govetnment
0 Mayor
Fire Department
LIEP has developed a strong relationship with the Fire Department, namely the Fire Marshal and
the Fire Prevention and Inspection unit. Cleady, this is due to the effoRS of the LIEP Director
and the Fire Mazshal to maintain open communication and mutual respect between the two
organizations. The Fire DepaRment is primarily responsible for the enforcing the fire code, and
LIEP enforces the building code, though the two codes do overlap in a few areas. For example,
the building code addresses smoke issues, but the building inspectors will defer to the Fire
Department in making determinations as to whether a building meets code on smoke issues. The
�� Bryson, John. Strategic P[anning jor Pub[ic and Non-Profit Organi=ations. Jossey-Bass, 1995 page 27.
2000 Saim Pa+J City Counci! Research
F
Perfomience Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 17
Fire Department will also defer to L[EP when a situation is more of a building code issue than a
fire safery concem. While it would seem logical that good communication between the two is
essential, it appears as though the positive relationship between the two Saint Pau! departments is
somewhat unusual."
Saint Paul Regional Water Services
Some overlap exists between the responsibilities of LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services
regarding the enforcement of the plumbing code. Traditionally, LIEP has done inspections of the
plumbing inside the building, and Regional Water has performed inspections for the plumbing
from the water main up to the building for new construction projects only. Regional Water deals
only with drinking water; LIEP handles the waste and ventilatioa However, ultimately, the
Building Off'icial has the responsibility for ensuring the plumbing code is enforced. Both
departments currently issue permits relevant to the inspections they perform. While this has not
caused any serious problems to date, the practice of both departments enforcing the same code
should be examined for potential efTiciency improvements.
Public Works
LIEP must also interact with other city departments such as Public Works. Part of the interaction
is through site plan review. The site plan reviewer in LIEP has done an excellent job of
convening a group that meets biweekly to review site plans. This review group has decreased the
time it takes to review site plans and increased coordination and communication between the
departments. All involved parties should be commended for their paRicipation in this group.
LIEP and Public Works both retain some responsibility for individual sewage treatment systems.
LIEP would like to see these treatment systems eliminated over time, though LIEP has stated
Public Works has not been as proactive in promoting sewer systems. City code does not require
that individual sewage treatment systems be eliminated, though the City's Comprehensive Sewer
Plan, written in 1980 and currently being updated, states as policy that the City should "phase out
septic tanks after sewers are made available in newly developed areas." In an interesting twist,
LIEP is proactively pursuing the objectives of this Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, unlike
the Land Use and Housing Chapters.
Department of Planning and Ewnomic Development (PED)
In addition to the site plan review group, LIEP and PED also collaborate on business
development projects, but it has been suggested further collaboration between all departments
who work with small businesses should occur. Small businesses may approach PED or PED's
Business Resource Center for funding and other development questions, while they approach
�� The reality is often poor communication and mrf battles between building and fire departments. This is
particularly apparent at the state level, which was discussed in detail in a report on the State Building Code by the
Minnesota Office of the Legislative Audiroc (Minnesota Oftice of [he Legislative Auditoc State Building Code, A
Program Evaluation Report. 7 January, 1999). The Departmen[ of Administratioq responsible for the Building
Code, and the departments of Pubiic Safety and Public Service, responsible for [he Fire Code and Energy Code
respectively, have not coordinated their efforts well. The codes were no[ adopted at the same time, and
consequently there were some conflicting requirements. Had coordination occurced, the code conFlicts could have
been resolved prior to adoption and implementation, thus reducing the confusion for builders who have to comply
with all codes.
2000 Sainf Patd Crry Council Research
18 Performance Audit of the City of Sain[ PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
LIEP for licensing and possibly permitting, plan review and inspections. Therefore, it would be
beneficial to both the departments and the small business owner if there was greater
communication and collaboration between the parties.
PED and LIEP also have a common interest in building construction and rehabilitation projects.
It is clear from many of LIEP's budget objectives they would like to be involved in these
projects, but they have not yet developed the relationship with PED or with neighborhood
organizations to be as effective as they would like. LIEP also stated they would like to know
more about development projects PED is considering. PED states that many of these projects
never progress beyond the development stage, therefore it would only create unnecessary work
for LIEP. The poor information-sharing practices between PED and LIEP are probably due, in
part, to the poorly shared information systems. The new computer systems in LIEP provide
potential for increased data sharing between PED, LIEP and other offices such as Code
Enforcement, provided they all have access to the systems. More information would allow all
involved parties to track the status of these rehabilitation projects, as well as other concems and
projects.
Community Organizations
In a similar vein, various community organizations aze stakeholders of LIEP. Community
Development Corporations (CDCs) aze stakeholders that are involved in building rehabilitations
and the identification of "improvement azeas" in which Code Enforcement, L[EP, the
neighborhood, and any other relevant departments or groups collaborate to improve the building
stock of an area. CDCs also have the option of working with LIEP to obtain a building
evaluation. According to LIEP, this is rarely done, although it could be a very valuable tool for
the CDCs. District Councils are often involved with LIEP, especially when projects have to go
through a public review process.
Saint Paul Design Center
This inter-agency group is composed of several city staff from Public Works, PED and Parks and
Recreation. They also have a number of outside partners, including Public Art Saint Paul, the
Capital City Partnership, the Riverfront Corporation, the Port Authority and Ramsey County.
The Design Center is technically overseen by the Riverfront Corporation. The Board and the
Director of the Riverfront Corporation manage the policy work. If the Mayor is in disagreement
with the Riverfront Corporation, the Design Center serves the interests of the Mayor.
Since the creation of the Design Center, there has been some confusion over its regulatory
authority. It does not exer[ regulatory authority, but rather serves as a consultant and advisor to
downtown design projects. LIEP maintains the regulatory authority for ensuring the buildings
aze safe. The Design Center makes recommendations to LIEP, at which point L[EP could choose
to make the recommendations paR of the design, or they could choose to ignore them. It is
repoRed that the Design Center and LTEP have a good working relationship, and that LIEP
recognizes the importance of the Design Center in ensuring downtown structures meet the
objectives of the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework. The Design Center is
working to be seen as part of a business-friendly environment in Saint Paul and less of a
regulatory body.
2000 Sainl Patd City Cormcil ResearcH
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building PermiG P�� Review and lnspections Func[ions �
on5
Business Review Council
�.
�
�s
�g
�r
�
The Business Review Council (BRC) is composed of representatives from City staff, labor,
neighborhood councils, residents with relevant experience, and Saint Paul business owners and
organizations. The BRC meets monthly, and has two subcommittees, the Business Issues
Committee and the General Legislation Committee, that also meet monthly. The BRC has been
most active in identifying unnecessary licensing regulations. They were recently involved in
reaching an agreement with the taxicab industry in Saint Paul to increase the number of licensed
taxis in the City and allow a rate increase. LIEP provides the staff support for the BRC, and
other departments, such as PED and Public Works, also participate and provide support as
necessary. The BRC is involved in only a limited capacity in the permitting, plan review, site
plan review and inspections processes of LIEP.
Citizen Service Office, Property Code Enforcement and the Police
Department
Citizen complaints are often funneled through the Citizen Service Office to the appropriate
departments. Therefore, some zoning complaints go through this office to reach LIEP, and the two
offices must share information. On a broader scale, LIEP and PropeRy Code Enforcement, a
section of the Citizen Service Office, interact in a number of ways. LIEP inspects vacant buildings
to determine the building code violations that must be addressed to bring the building into
compliance. L[EP will inspect later to determine ifthose issues have been addressed. Code
Enforcement inspects them for property maintenance code violations, and maintains the vacant
building list for the city. LIEP and Code Enforcement must interact to ensure that when a permit is
pulled for work on a vacant building, that the permit is not closed until the building meets the
minimum property maintenance requirements. Code Enforcement and L[EP's Mimal Control
Unit also cooperate extensively in rodent baiting efforts. Finally, LIEP and Code Enforcement
must interact on building projects which have become "problems" because of the long time it takes
for their completion, and the nuisance these projects create for neighbors. Notably, these two
offices view this issue very differently. Code Enforcement believes there aze many such projects
which are long-term problems, whi(e LIEP holds that there aze only a half a dozen such cases.
City Council
ent
�ose
LIEP leadership is also responsible for communicating with the legislative body of the City, the
City Council. The City Council is certainly a stakeholder in LIEP's activities, as many of the
policies passed by the Council directly affect LIEP, and the Council is also responsible for
approving LIEP's budget. The City Council is also [he final arbiter on many LIEP decisions
such as appeals from the Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals. Maintaining open communication is essentiai to the vitality of the department.
Overall, this relationship is handled relatively well. The BRC communicates with the Council on
a regular basis, and LIEP uses the BRC to communicate many of its concerns and issues,
particularly related to licensing, to the Council.
However, LIEP is also responsible for communicating directly with the Council, particulazly at
this time as a result of funding provisions for the new computer systems, known as ECLIPS and
earch
I
�. _
1000 Sainf Paul City Coanci! Research
�-
zp performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
AMANDA.�' LIEP has done some updates for the Council, though they do not appear to
adequately address the problems LIEP encountered in regard to the ECLIPS and AMANDA
systems." L[EP has fallen faz behi�d on its implementation dates for the systems, and has been
open about it, though not entirely clear about the reasons for the delay. Written documentation
given to the Council does not entirely explain the problems LIEP faced with its original software
developer, Online Services, Inc. Nor does the documentation explain the transition in the
software name from ECLIPS to ECLIPS II to AMANDA, which is an off-the-shelf software that
CSDC, [nc., the current contracted software developer, sells for permitting and inspections. The
original ECL[PS project was to include what AMANDA does. To differentiate it from the
original Online project it was call ECLIPS II before LIEP contracted with CSDC, Inc. While
this may seem insignificant, it is actually an impoRant piece to comprehending the current
situation in LIEP. LIEP has not updated the Council on the status of the computer systems since
April, 1999, though they have since implemented major portions of the programs.
Other Levels of Government
LIEP essentially enforces state law through enforcement of the building codes. However, the
state retains some responsibility. With few exceptions, LIEP maintains all responsibility for
inspections within the City, including inspection of most state property in Saint Paul and Saint
Paul School District propeRy. One outstanding exception is the permitting and inspections
process for tank installation and removal. 'fhe City is required to issue permits for above-ground
tank installations, but the State Fire Marshal is required to issue a letter of approval to the
contractor. The State Fire Marshal is responsible for inspecting them, but it is not clear that this
is happening, and it appears that no one is doing inspections.
The City of Saint Paul is also represented at the state level on a number of committees, including
the Minnesota Uniformity Committee, which is a group that shazes common equivalencies and
code interpretations.
The State gives primary responsibility to the City for hearing appeals to the Building Code.
Appeals are generally dealt with at the department level before they go to a Legislative Hearing
Officer. However, the City Code does not allow Saint PauPs Legislative Hearing Of'ficer to
grant waivers to the state building code. The Uniform Building Code, which the state building
code is based upon, requires all municipalities establish a local board of appeals. However, the
Minnesota Legislative Auditor reports that few municipalities have done this. Minnesota
5tatutes also state that anyone who disagrees with the final decision of a municipality may appeal
that decision to the Commissioner of Administration. Some concem exists that perhaps another
method should be used to hear appeals to the building code at the city ievel.
LIEP is also required to submit annual reports the State Historic Preservation Office on heritage
preservation activities, per our local govemment agreement. These reports are tardy by several
years. In the interview process, this was attributed to a significant staff shoRage in the heritage
preservation area. However, LIEP management indicate the reason for the lateness is that these
reports are a low priority.
� ECLIPS is an acronym for Electronic Computerizes License, Inspection and Permitting System. AMANDA is
an acronym that stands for Automated Management of Data and Applications.
13 The new computer systems are discussed in more detail in the Information and Analysis sec[ion.
2000 Sainl Paul Ciry Co�mcil Reseorch
Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions z1
LIEP also has to interact with the federal government either when the federal government is
doing a building project in Saint Paul or when a project is taking place in a floodplain. In the
first case, as with private parties, the federal government is required to pull permits for all work
as is required by law. However, LIEP reports the federal government refuses to pull permifs or
to let the City inspect its projects. The other situation where the City works with the federal
govemment is if a non-govemmental project is taking place within a flood plain. Federal
agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Administration and the Army Corp of
Engineers, will then become involved in permitting and inspections. With these projects, the
Site Plan Reviewer coordinates the involvement of the necessary parties.
Leadership Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #11: LIEP has developed a mission/vision statement.
Finding #12: LIEP has developed internal policies which are widely circulated.
Finding #13: LIEP has a wide variety of stakeholders, some of whom it works with very well,
and others with whom the relationship needs to be further developed or clarified.
Finding #14: LIEP has not kept the City Council as up-to-date as it should on the progress of
the automation or the problems LIEP has encountered in implementing the systems.
Finding #15: Some of LIEP's responsibilities overlap with those of other governmental entities.
Sometimes these are not coordinated effectively.
Finding #16: The City appears not to be in compliance with state law as it has not established a
local board of appeals to hear appeals to decisions of the building code official. Appeals can be
heard by the Legislative Hearing Officer, though the Hearing Officer is denied the authority to
grant waivers to the building code by the City Code. However, in the State Auditor's report on
this subject, the State did not seem concerned with this lack of local appeal boards.
Finding #17: LIEP has been tardy on reports it is supposed to submit annually to the State of
Minnesota's Historic Preservation Office .
Leadership Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 6: At a minimum, communication betrveett LIEP and the State Fire Marshal
needs to be improved so they can insure that inspections, installations, and removal offuel storage
tanks are occurring. In order to ensure comp/iance the approval should come from the City,
rather than from the state, leaving all responsibility a1 dhe City level. I,IEP should work with the
State Fire Marshal to determine procedural and legislative changes required to bring this about.
Recommendation # 7: LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services need to clarify their roles
relating to the plumhing code. ,4s the Building O�cial has ultimale responsibility for enforcing
the plumbing code, perhaps LIEP should conduct the inspections currently performed by Regional
Water. This may lead to enhanced e�ciency for both entities.
2000 Saint Pau! C!ry Co�mcil Research
�
Zy Performance Audit ofthe Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Rev and Inspect F�nctions Pe�
Recommenda[ion # 8: LIEP should market its service ofproviding building evaluations to
communiry developnrent corporations. This valuable tool would enhance the relationship behveen
CDCs and the Ciry and ensure that rehabilitations address building code prob(ems appropriately.
Recommendation # 9: LlEP and the Design Center should darify their respective roles and
level of authoriry and clearly explain them to permit applicants.
Recommendation # l0: LIEP and the Crty Attorney's O�ce need ta clarify whether the Ciry is
in compliance with state law regarding appeals of decisions of the building code o�cial.
Recommendation # 11: LIEP and PED should take leadership in developing a quarterly
interdepartmental meeting for al! staff who work with small businesses.
Recommendation # 12: LIEP should meet with Code Enforcement and other appropriate Ciry
agencies to discuss and find solutions to the issue of long-term incomplete projects in the City's
neighborhoods.
Recommendation # l3: LIEP needs to come into, and remain in, compliance with state
reporting requirements for both its 6uilding code and herirage preservatton activities.
Recommendation # 14: LIEP should provide the City Council at regularly scheduled intervals,
a complete explanation of the current automation situation including funding, hours spent on the
project, timeline and reasons for the lengthened timeline.
See also Recommendations 4 and 5 on inclusion in planning activities.
Quality of Leadership
Vision and Mission
As mentioned previously, the vision and mission have to be clearly articulated from the top of
the organization down. This is a vitally important characteristic of a high-performing
organization. In the case of the City, the Mayor has uhimate responsibility for communicating
his vision to staff, whether this is communicated directly from him or through department and
office directors. According to the survey responses, the Mayor's vision is ineffectively
communicated to staff. However, based on a January 20, 2000 presentation at LIEP's training
for small contractors (held after the survey was conducted), it was evident the Mayor does have a
vision of enhanced customer service which portrays LIEP as an easy place to do business—a one-
stop shop. Clearly, a vision exists, but the Mayor has either failed to find a way to communicate
this to L[EP, or management has failed to articulate the Mayor's vision to staff. On the other
hand, acco�ding to the majority of survey responses, the Director and managers effectively
convey the Office's mission and vision. But, it must also be mentioned that one-quarter of L[EP
staff surveyed feel the Director and managers do not effectively convey the mission and vision.
From interviews with staff, it seems there is some confusion between the definition of vision and
mission. PaR of this may stem from LIEP management, who use the words "mission" and
"vision" interchangeably in internal documents. There£ore, most interview responses indicated
2000 Saint Paid City Counci! Research
Pedom7ence Audit of ihe City of Sxint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 23
that the mission and vision are the same for LIEP. Upon closer examination, Council Research
determined that the mission statement does not fit exclusively into either category. By
definition, "a mission outlines an organizational purpose while a vision goes on to describe how
the organization should look if it is working extremely well in relation to its environment and its
key stakeholders." A vision incorporates the mission, values, goals, strategies and perforcnance
criteria. According to staff, this vision/mission comes from the Director, though it does not seem
to be integrated into the practices of the organization. It appears the employees do not
understand how their responsibilities contribute to achieving the mission and vision, at least
partially because there are no clear objectives directly linked to the mission.
LIEP reports that as a part of the recent planning retreat it clarified its organizational vision, in
order to make it "more inspiring and challenging." LIEP also reports that it has established core
organizational values. However, in tha interview process which followed this retreat, no staff
mentioned any specific vision---distinct from the mission, or organizational values.
VaIUCS
By definition, values are a"desirable code of behavior to which the organization adheres or
aspires." Despite the lack of a cleaz values statement in LIEP, staff reported that the managers
and the Director effectively convey the values of the organization, another characteristic of high
performing organizations. Intarviewees responded that values are exemplified through the
actions ofthe Director and the values applied to policy decisiops. During the interview process
the values of good customer service and timeliness were emphasized, though rarely was anything
more specific stated. Values statements that were articulated were essentialiy the same as the
mission statement. LIEP clearly places a high value o� offering good customer service, although
it does not have a cleaz and uniformly identified set of well-articulated values. However, one-
quarter of the staff felt the managers and Director were not effective in conveying the values of
the organization.
Staff Recognition
Another essential component of effective leadership is staff recognition. Overall, it was reported
the Director and managers do a good job of recognizing staf�: This seemed to be particularly true
for plan review staff, 42% of whom felt managers and the Director do a good job recognizing
staff. LIEP clearly places a high value and emphasis on employee recognition. In interviews,
many staff inentioned they feel recognized through the respect they are shown and level of
decision-making authority they are given by their colleagues and by management. Management
also expressed they are trying to determine the best ways to recognize staff without being
patronizing. Management curtently use both informal methods to recognize staff, such as "I
Love AMANDA" buttons (AMANDA is one of the new computer systems) and polo shirts, and
more formal methods such as an employee-of-the-month program. The City also had a city-wide
employee of the month program, but it appears to have been terminated. LIEP staff expressed
frustration with the termination, particulazly since one of their own employees had been
nominated for the program. In response, LIEP staRed its own program.
14 Bryson, page I55.
15 Ibid. p. 77.
1000 Sarn1 Pard Gry Cormcil Research
�
Z4 Perfortnance Audi[ of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions P�
Leadership Quality Findings
Finding #18: The Mayor has not effectiveiy communicated his vision directly to LIBP staff.
Finding #19: LIBP Director and managers are good at communicating the organization's
mission to staff.
Finding #20: LIEP does not have clearly articulated values.
Finding #21: L[EP management do a good job of recogn�z�ng staff contributions. They
continue to seek better methods to recognize staff.
Leadership Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # I5: LIEP should evaluate its mission statement to ensure it answers the
following questions:
❑ Who are we? What distinguishes LIEP from other Ciry departments?
❑ yVhat do we do?
❑ For whom do we do it?
❑ Why do we do it?
Recommendation # 16: LIBP should adentify objectives to put the mission statement into action
and also identify specific objectives for each area of LIEP. This will enhance employee
understanding of how their particular responsibilities help meet those objectives and thus fulfill
the mission. Finaily, L(EP should identify specific organizational values under which all
employees operate and ezemplify them at all levels of the organization.
2000 SainfPatJCityCotmcilRese
r
�
ons Functions
staff.
Pcrformence Audit of lhe City of Sain[ Pau�'s Building Percni[, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Func[ions 25
TRAINING
KEY TItAINING CONCEPTS: �
❑ Education & Training Resource Allocation
❑ Employer Commitment �
:� �,��>..�.��:�_r��w,��;_. ,.���.�___� �.._�
Policy Compliance: -�-
Quality Rating: ���.`c'
The Malcolm Baldrige Quality system pairs the concepts of training and development. We have
chosen to split training and development into two subsections because our findings warrant two
separate discussions.
•s the
to action
rus fulfill
all
Employee success depends on having opportunities for personal learning and oppoRunities to
develop and practice skills. "Persona] learning can result in more satisfied and versatile
employees, greater opportunity for organizational cross-functional learning, and an improved
environment for innovation." Providing training and education is also a good way to
demonstrate commitment to employees.
Employees in successful organizations aze provided the tools they need to produce quality
services. These same employees aze given encouragement and the resources to develop a set of
skills that allows them to contribute more effectively to the organization over time. Training can
help employees better serve customers. Successful organizations also link the training and
development of their employees to the organization's goals and priorities. This linkage occurs
through the development and implementation of a long-term strategic plan tied to basic
organizational values.
Training Objectives and Policies
LIEP has clearly placed a high level of importance on training. One of the stated goats of its
1996 Strategic Plan was "to provide continuing education and training that achieves customer
service goals and ensures competency in new technologies, codes, regulations and procedures."
Objectives to achieve this goal include providing adequate funding for training, ensuring that the
training staff receive is appropriate, and completing an educational plan for every employee. The
Director also stressed the importance of providing relevant and meaningful training particularly
when it is difficult to add more staff:
LIEP provides a great deal of information to its new employees. New front-counter employees
receive a packet of information which contains LIEP policies, time cards, and other human
resource information. New inspectors are paired with more experienced inspectors during the
initial weeks of their employment with LIEP. Employees also have a comprehensive LIEP
handbook that assists them in answering customer questions.
L[EP provides a substantial amount of both financial and time resources for staff to obtain
training, and they have developed educational plans for all employees. Counter staff have
16 Z000 Criteria for Performance ExceUence, Baldrige National Quality Program.
t
rncilResearch I
1000 SqIn7 Poul City Council Research
�
Z6 Performance Audit ofthe Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
received customer service training and have also been cross-trained to handle boch permit and
license applications. Inspectors have received trade-specific training primarily through the
Minnesota Department of Administration or through their particular trade associations. Plan
examiners have also received some general training in the basics of the electrical and mechanical
codes, and are able to do structural reviews for residential projects and basic zoning reviews.
With the implementation of the new computer systems, many staff have received relevant
training in order to utilize the systems and train other staff members.
Some concerns have been raised by LIEP staff and by other City staff that too many training
resources have been focused on the trade inspectors, while other staff have more limited training
opportunities. Some of this may simply be because there aze more training opportunities
available for inspectors due in part to certification requirements.
Training Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #22: LIEP has invested significant financial and human resources in training.
Finding #23: The LIEP handbook is a very comprehensive and useful tool to which all staff
have access.
Finding #24: Each employee has an annually-updated educational plan.
Finding #25: Counter staff aze cross-trained in percnitting and licensing. Other staff have
received some limited cross-training.
Finding #26: Too many training resources may be allocated to the trades inspectors, potentially
limiting training opporhxnities for other staff.
Training Policy Recommendation
Recommendation # 17: LIEP shoudd reassess where resources are allocated for training to
determine if some staff have less access to training than others, and whether tlris is appropriate.
LIEP should also determine if, and how, the training is affecting workload allocation.
Quality of Training
LIEP employees were asked their opinion on the effectiveness of LIEP's use of education and
training opportunities. The survey results indicate that 98% of staff feel LIEP "effectively" or
"very effectively" uses education and training opportunities. This speaks very well for the
organization and demonstrates its willingness to invest in its employees. From the interviews, it
was apparent that training is widely available and encouraged. Some staff, such as the
inspectors, aze required to obtain a certain amount of training to maintain their licenses. LIEP
provides the funding and the time for this training. Commendably, this Oftice sets aside a
relatively large amount of its budget for these necessary training activities. Also mentioned
previously, there is some intemal cross training for front counter staff, but not in the other areas.
2000 Smnf Paul Ciry Councif Research
�
;tions
Ical
Perfo A of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions 27
Finally, the development of the Project Facilitator positions has assisted the organization in
having at least two staff operate as "generalists." The Project Facilitator [ works as a generalist
in the licensing area, although she is somewhat knowledgeable in plan review and inspections as
well. The yet-to-be-filled Project Facilitator II position will be a genera(ist in permitting, review
and inspections area.
Training Quality Finding
ing
Finding #27: Through the survey, we found the vast majority of LIEP staff feel the resources
provided by LIEP are "somewhat effective" or better. As mentioned above, training is widely
encouraged and available, though more so for trade inspectors than for other staff.
Training Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 18: LIEP needs to encourage all staff in all work areas to pursue relevant
training and provide the resources whenever possible,
Recommendation # 19: More cross-education of all LIEP functions would be valuable. Staff
tead to have limited krrowledge of the functions of work areas beyond their own. Having a good
working knowledge of the other functional areas will assist staff in answering customer
questions and coordinating e,f�'orts to prevent problems.
ally
ate.
s, it
:as.
search
2000 Sainl Panl Ciry Co�mcif Research
28 Pedormance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
KEY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS:
a Employee Contribution
DEVELOPMENT � WorkEnvironment
o Labor/Management Relationship
❑ Employee Evaluation
Policy Compliance: —
Quality: �`C�
An organizatiods success depends largely on the knowledge, skills, innovation, creativity and
motivation of its employees. Valuing employees means committing to their development,
satisfaction, and well-being. High performing organizations often provide opportunities within
the organization for development and g+'owth. Organizational knowledge is shared so employees
can better serve customers and contribute to achieving the organization's goals and objectives.
Development also includes building internal partnerships with employees through means such as
laborvmanagement cooperation and the creation of a supportive work environment for all
employees.
Development Policies
One of LIEP's goats from its 1996 Strategic Action Plan was to improve employee inorale in all
azeas of the Office of LIEP. This goal included the following objectives:
❑ Encourage managers to nominate employees for recognition. (As mentioned previously,
LIEP does a good job of recognizing staff.)
❑ Use the Labor Issues Focus Group to resolve job and morale concems. (This group is no
longer meeting.)
Relating to the last objective, one of LIEP's 1998 Budget Objectives was to "Monitor employee
views and ideas for improvements and develop a labor-management partnership to address areas
of mutual concern." Clearly, this labor-management partnership has not come to fruition. The
need for such a group will be more clearly articulated in the following quality discussion.
Development Policy Findings
Finding #28: L[EP addressed the need to improve employee morale in its 1996 Strategic Action
Plan, but has not followed through on some important objectives to reach this goal.
Finding #29: LIEP does not have an active labor-management group.
Development Policy Recommendations
Recommendation # 20: L/EP should follow through on its commitment to open communication
benveen staff and management and discuss together issues related to morale and ather
2000 Sainl Pa�d City Co�mcil Research
— unctions � Pedormance Audit of the City oPSaint PauPs Building Permi4 Plan Review and Inspections Functions 29
; workpface concerns. This could involve increased management attendance at work-group or
�PTS: j' feam meetings, as well as more proactive involvement ofstaffnot traditionally involved in
organization-wide discussions.
��P $ecommendation # 2/: LIEP should reconvene a labor-management group to actively pursue
issues of mutua! concern. Clear guidelines and expectations should be established so meetings
�"'°' ��""=}"' are a place for cooperation, not confrontation and complaining. Leaders should emphasize this
is a non-grievance discussion forum. The leaders of the group widl also need to engage the
problems encountered by the f:rst labor-management group, such as too many participants —
The last group had two representatives from each bargainittg unit in LIEP which may hwe made
�d the group too unwieldy and lneffective.
—ithin
�loyees
ves.
zuch as
c in all
sly,
3 110
_pioyee
:s areas
. The
c Action
rication
Quality of Development
Staff Contribution to Organizational Goals and Processes
It was cleaz through the survey results staff feel disconnected from decision-making in LIEP. When
asked about opportunities to contribute to decisions made about operations and procedures in LIEP,
58% of staff surveyed stated there were few to no opportunities. We found very similar results to
the question regarding opportunities to contribute to the organization's goals. We examined more
closely the overal) responses of the group that stated few to no opportunities exist to contribute to
decisionsregarding operations and proceduresto determine whetherthis group's responses differed
from the general population. Their responses are highlighted in the following chart.
Responses and characteristics of staff who felt there were few to no
to contribute to decisions —
When asked about opportuni[ies to contribute to decisions made about operations and procedures of LIEP,
58% of staff felt there were few to no opportunities. Common characteris[ics and responses of this group:
❑ Tenured and representative of all work areas surveyed;
O Generally less involved in professional organizations;
❑ See work emironment as slightly more negative than the general population;
❑ Significantly less aware of da[a collection prec[ices and whether the data is used effectively;
❑ More negative on the usefulness of ECLIPS, AMANDA, and o[her computer sys[ems;
O Generally see less monitoring and responsiveness of cus[omer needs and satisfacaon; and
❑ Unaware of any results measwement in LIEP, and don't know if goals are achieved.
It appears this group is less imolved in the organization. This may be due partially to
management not involving them in the decision-making process, and partially due to their own
lack of motivation to be involved. One interviewee suggested management creates the "big
picture" and staff have to decide how to fit in. This sentiment was reflected in comments from
other interviews where staff expressed that opportunities exist, but that staff have to pursue those
�cil Research j M00 Satnf Paul City Councl! Research
30 Performance Audit of the CiTy of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
opportunities. However, one of the expectations the Director has of L1EP managers is that they
"involve employees in decision making; seek input." Involvement may also vary by work unit—
different units within the Office seem to have different means to garner staff input. Some use
very formal methods, such as staff meetings, while other supervisors visit informally with their
staff on a daily basis. 5ome methods may be more effective than others and the effectiveness of
methods will vary by employee.
Work Environment
Nearly two-thirds of the LIEP staff surveyed feel the emironment is "conducive" or `bery
conductive" to the well-being of all staff. However, 36% of staff stated they feel the
environment is "not conducive" to the well-being of ail staff. While it is alarming that one-third
of the staff feel this way, it is also important to note this negativity could impact the rest of the
staf£ This group's responses are explored in the following table. ,
Responses of staff who felt the work environment was not conducive to well-
being and growth of all staff— � __ ^_ ;
36% of LIEP staff surveyed feit the work environment was not conducive to the well-being and gfowth of
all staff. This group typically gave more negative responses to nearly every question. General responses
of this group:
❑ See less planning in their work area and staff involvement in planning;
❑ Feel the Mayor, Director, and managers do not effectively convey a clear vision,
mission, or values;
❑ Do not feel encouraged to participate in professional organizations;
❑ Less positive about labor-management relationship;
❑ Less involved in decisions made about operations, procedures, and goals of LIEP;
❑ See less monitoring and responsiveness to customer needs and satisfaction; and
❑ Less aware of the resuks measurement ac[ivities of L[EP, less knowledgeable as to whether LIEP
compazes its cesults with othec organizations, and less knowledgeable as to whether or not LIEP meets
its goals.
- :�:.. -- -- —
Possible explanations for the less conducive work environment include stress due to increased
workloads and computerization, staff shortages, and the high volume of construction over the
past couple of yeazs. It was also repoRed by a number of people that there is a division between
those in the Office willing to make changes and those who prefer the old methods of operation.
An uneven workload distribution between sections may exist in LIEP. Some sections, such as
plan review, seem to have more work than staff. The lack of planning by LIEP may also be
contributing to the stress level. LIEP has not done an adequate job of anticipating and planning
for the changing workloads resulting from increased construction, the health of the economy, and
the automation of the office. Another possible explanation for the lower rating of the work
environment may be the lack of empowerment some staff feel, which makes the environment
more stressful. Some staff expressed a sense that their needs and input are largely ignored by
decision-making staff, notably those involved in developing and implementing the ECLIPS and
AMANDA systems. Other extemal factors beyond LIEP's control may also affect morale such
2000 SaintPa�JCityCouncilResearc6
:tions Perfortnence Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Func[ions 3I
;y as potential privatization/competition of city services and drawn-out labor negotiations. LIEP
it— management report the reason some staff feel the work environment is not conducive to their
well-being is the changeover to a new computer system, although Council Research believes the
9� dynamics are significandy more complex.
of
Finally, with respect to work environment, another survey question asked how the Director and
managers aze at creating a work environment that is equally supportive of all employees
regardless of race, color, class, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation or physical ability.
Fully ninety percent of the staff surveyed stated they are "fairly good" to "very good" at creating
a supportive work environment.
Labor-Management Relationship
The lack of a formal labor-management partnership was mentioned in the policy wmpliance
section of Development. This lack of partnership may have an impact on the staff's view of the
relationship. Overall, most staff feel the labor-management relationship is mediocre or fair,
although one-fourth of staff say labor and management "work together poorly: ' This group's
responses are examined in more detail in the following table. There is a general sense from other
City staff who frequently interact with LIEP that within LIEP, particularly within the trades
inspection area, loyalty is to the union first and then to the City. This attitude may influence the
way staff perform their duties, as discussed further in the Customer Focus section. It should be
mentioned that LIEP management is not exclusively responsible for the bargaining uniYs
relationship to the City. Contract negotiation is not conducted by L[EP, but rather by the Office
of Labor Relations. However, LIEP management is directly involved in the grievance resolution
process for LIEP staff. Notably, an examination of the number and type of grievances filed by
LIEP employees shows they aze similar to those of other departments, taking into account
department size. So this reportedly poor relationship does not manifest itself in grievances filed.
from staff who believe labor & management work
One-fourth of s[aff feel that labor and management "work together poorly.° This group's responses aze
consistentty more negative than LIEP staff is, in general, in all ca[egories. Lis[ed below are some key
£ndings of the responses of this group:
❑ Not aware of the Mayor's vision for L[EP, do not believe the director canveys the vision effectively,
do not see [he director or managers as conveying the mission or values of the organization effectively;
O View the work environment as not conducive [o [he well-being of staff;
❑ State the overall work environment for persons of pro[ected classes is not good to fairly good;
�
❑ See few to no opportmi[ies to con[ribute to decisions;
❑ Not aware of what data is coliected for permitting, ptan review, or inspections;
❑ Do not know if the computer sys[ems meet the needs of LIEP;
O Not aware of any systema[ic intemal evaluation in LIEP;
❑ Not aware of any monitoring of changes in customer needs or satisfaction performed by LIEP, and fee!
that at best L[EP is "partially responsive" to changes in customer needs and satisfaction; and
❑ Unaware of any results measuremen[ and goal achievement in LIEP.
earch i 1000 Saini Po�d Ciry Counci! Research
�..
3z Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Pl Review and lnspecliuns Functions
Laboc representatives within LIEP may view themselves as having less of a role in decision-
making. At the same time, some management staff also expressed a sense of hopelessness about
their ability to work with the unions. Unions are seen as an obstacle rather than as a partner.
Unions may also perpetuate this feeling by being adversarial and uncooperative. These attitudes
may permeate throughout the organization, hampering the relationship. An example of this
situation is the creation and implementation of the Project Facilitator positions, recommended in
the 1994 Functional Redesign Plan. In 1998, the Process Redesign Change Management
Committee was reorganized into a formal labor-management committee to address union
concerns regarding the creation of these positions. The proposal was held up in this committee
as the unions could not agree on who would represent the Project Facilitator positions.
Emptoyee Evaluation
The majority of surveyed employees responded their perforcnance is reviewed annually. LIEP
continues to make a concerted effort to review employee evaluation methods for their usefulness.
Sixty percent of respondents feel the evaluations aze somewhat useful or better, the other 40%
feel they are not useful.
Development Quality Findings
Finding #30: Over half of the surveyed LIEP staff say there are "few" to "no opportunities" to
contribute to the organization's decisions about operations and procedures. The same statistic
exists for opportunities for staff to contribute to the goals of the organization.
Finding #31: Two-thirds of staff feel the work environment is "somewhat conducive" to "very
conducive" to the well-being of all staff: The other one-third of staff who feel the work
environment is "not conducive" have a more negative view of the organization in general.
' j j; ', ' Finding #32: Ninety percent of staff surveyed feel the Director and managers have created a
i! i! ' supportive work environment for people of protected classes.
�i�:i,
Finding #33: The labor-management relationship is mediocre to fair. One-quarter of LIEP staff
surveyed feel the two groups work together poorly. This group gave consistendy more negative
responses to survey questions than LIEP staff as a whole.
��
Development Quality Recommendation
I' Recommendation # 22: LIEP shoutd address work environment issues. The proposed Labor-
,, Management Committee should discuss both the factors negatively impacting the environment
and what specific steps can be taken to decrease the stress level experrenced by many stafJ'
° Additionally, Jhis group could examine what specifically could be do»e to make LIEF a more
supportive work environment for those who feel it is not currently supportive.
2000 Sain� Paul Ciry Coxneil Research
4
unctions � p�'p�gpCe Audit of lhe Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
3bOUI
=udes
ea �n
ttee
; INFORMATION
AND ANALYSIS
Policy Compliance: —
Quality Rating: �
33
KEY INFORMATION & ANALYS[S
CONCEPT5:
❑ Data Collection
o Analysis of Data
o Effec[ive Use of Automation Systems
Information and analysis is the foundation of a perfortnance management system. Relevant
EP information relates to customers, services, employees, and costs. Analysis of this data should be
Iness. used for evaluation, decision-making and operational improvement within the organization. Data
'% are used to determine trends, projections, and cause and effect. They also support planning,
performance reviews, comparisons and benchmarks.
Automation Policies
'to
iery
staf�
dive
Given L[EP's activities related to permitting, plan review and inspections, one might expect a
great deal of data to be collected on functions such as permit fees collected, inspections
completed and change orders written — among numerous other functions. In the past, LIEP has
collected data on the number of inspections conducted, permit values, permit revenues and other
budgetary data. However, LIEP is currently collecting very little data beyond the budgetary
information to support its operations. Some of this is due to the changing information systems in
LiEP from a dBase system that was not Y2K compliant to ECLIPS and AMANDA. The dBase
system did not allow communication between functions such as licensing and permitting.
7'herefore, LIEP began, back in 1995, to look for a new information system that would be useful
across activities. To this end, they contracted with Online Business Systems, Inc. in late 1995 to
design a system that would integrate the licensing, permitting, plan review, zoning and
inspections processes, known as ECLIPS, The goal was "to install a custom designed computer
system that will allow a single point of contact for the customer, a single request (application) for
information, and a 48-hour maximum response time to customer requests."��
Unfortunately, Online failed to deliver a product in a reasonable, specified amount of time and
the contract was terminated. In early 1999, LIEP contracted with CSDC Systems, Inc. to design
ECLIPS 2, which is now known as AMANDA. The system is in the early stages of operation.
A great deal of information remains to be loaded into the system and other functions to be
completed before AMANDA is entirely operational. LIEP is over one year behind schedule on
implementation of the systam, though they remain within budget. The following table outlines
each system's budget to date.
Paid Balance
ECL[PS (Online Business Systems) $697,228 $0
AMANDA (CSDC) $319,712 $211,099
�� LIEP report ro the City Comcil, April 1, 1997.
rsearch � 1000 Sa1nl Patd C!ry Councfl Research
34 Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
The problems with office automation have also pushed back the implementation dates for the
hand-held computers for the inspectors. LIEP is hopeful that some inspectors will be able to
begin using them this year, with the remainder in use in 200L The hand-held computers will
allow inspectors to retrieve inspections records and issue and log written citations in the field.
Other City departments have also expressed interest in implementing AMANDA. LIEP is
cunently assisting the Fire Department with developing the system for fire inspections, and PED
and Citizens Service Office have also expressed interest in utilizing the system. A unified
system would allow all departments access to the same property information through the shared
address files. This would create efficiencies for City operations and improve communication
between the various departments. A City-wide GIS team is also working to identify software
that would interface between AMANDA and GIS. The current software, Arcview, is cost
prohibitive to install City-wide (about $1000 -$1500 per copy), thus only a limited number of
people have access to it. Other, far less expensive programs exist, and the GIS group is
developing specifications for these products. Such a program would allow all departments that
currently use or will be using AMANDA to access the same information from the GIS system.
Information and Analysis Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #34: In the past, LIEP collected some information on the number of inspections
conducted and some budgetary data such as permit values and permit revenues. Currently, no
data is collected or analyzed beyond required budgetary data.
Finding #35: LIEP staff should be given a great deal of credit for taking on the task of automating
the Office's information systems. It has involved many staff hours to monitor the contracts as well
as develop and leam new systems. It has also required that staff not directly involved in
developing the systems take on responsibilities formerly assigned to the staff now working on
developing the new computer systems. Staffhave shown a strong commitment to the project.
Finding #36: The anticipated implementation dates of 2000 and 2001 for hand-held computers
for inspectors seems lengthy given the potential usefulness and efficiency of hand-held
computers. It does not appear that specific plans aze in place to begin the implementation of the
hand-heids or train inspectors to effectively use them.
Finding #37: Other departments are interested in implementing AMANDA. L[EP is providing
them with staff assistance.
Finding #38: A City-wide GIS team is working to identify economically feasible software that
would interface between AMANDA and GIS.
Information and Analysis Policy Compliance
Recommendations
Recommendation # 23: The City of Saint Paul shou[d provide the financial resources to allow
for the purchase of an economical software package that would interface between the G/S system
and AMANDA. This would allow broad access to GIS for all departments utilizing the
2000 Sainl Paid Ciry Councrl Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 35
AMANDA system and enhance the ability to coordinate activities and information behveen
various departments.
Recommendation # 24: Not only must LIEP work to implement hand-held computers as soon as
possible due to lheir usefu[ness, LIEP must also train its inspectors to integrate the hand-held
computers into their work practices. Inspectors must make it a practtce to load all inspections
comments into the database so other inspectors have the same information. Inspectors should
also begin the practice of looking up information to ensure they are providing permittees with
accurate information.
Quality of Information and Analysis
Data Collection and Analysis
From the interviews, it was clear LIEP did have data on paper and in the old computer systems,
though it was rarely wmpiled for analysis. When data was collected, it was primarily basic
performance statistics, such as the number of inspections done, and used for balancing workload.
LIEP is also collecting data on revenue received from permits and the value of the permitted
projects. This data is used for budget prepazation. LIEP is not currently doing any fuMher data
compilation. One-third to one-half of LIEP staff surveyed stated they do not know what data is
collected on the customer service/permitting, plan review, and inspections processes. One-third
of staff do not know if data is used effectively. Of those who answered the question, they believe
data is used "somewhat effectively." Therefore, the data that is collected is not widely shared or
used by many staff:
Staff Awareness of Automation
We found staff to be generally unaware of the effectiveness of LIEP's automation efforts. When
asked if needs were met through ECLIPS:
❑ One-half of staff surveyed do not know if LIEP's needs aze met.
❑ Of those who do know if LIEP's needs are met, the average answer was "few needs are met "
❑ Over one-third of staff indicated "needs are not met "
We received somewhat similar responses to the same questions regarding AMANDA:
❑ One-third of L[EP staff surveyed don't know if needs are met through AMANDA.
❑ Of those who do, the majority stated that "few of the needs are met "
❑ 37% indicated "needs are not met."
We also asked about the other information systems in the o�ce (word processing, e-mail,
Internet access). In this case, we found one-quarter of LIEP staff do not know if needs are met,
and, of those who do, the most common response was "few of the needs are met "
We anticipated finding that needs may not yet be met with AMANDA, but were somewhat
surprised with the responses regarding ECL[PS and the other computer systems. There may be a
number of reasons for these findings:
2000 Saint Pa+d Ciry Council Research
36 Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Funct �
❑ They could be a result of the problems with the company originally hired to design ECL(PS, !
and that once AMANDA, the second phase ofthe ECL[PS projecy is fully operational, more �
needs will be met. �
❑ Most staff surveyed do not work directly with ECLIPS, and may have heard only complaints
of some staff.
❑ We heard in interviews that it sometimes takes longer to perform routine tasks now with
ECLIPS and AMANDA. Interviewees suggested that it will take time to learn the new
systems, and once staff are comfortable with the systems, efficiency will be improved.
❑ Some staff are resistant to change and rather unwilling to learn the new systems.
❑ Planning for LIEP's information systems may not have been sufficiendy inclusive of all
users such as inspectors and counter staff. Some staff stated their input was not considered
in the development of ECL[PS. Additionally, they report that when problems have arisen
with ECLIPS, they were not addressed because information systems staff were working on
AMANDA.
The move toward increased automation is a highly commendable task. The development of the
address files and their integration with the GIS system will be very beneficial to the City.
However, the City needs to be more proactive in pursuing GIS City-wide. Other departments
will also be utilizing AMANDA: Fire, Citizens Services Office, Public Works and PED. LIEP
also has staff members in each area who aze on-site experts in the computer systems and can
answer questions. This is a very good practice and likely helps to alleviate some frustration on
the part of end-users.
Information and Analysis Quality Findings
The Future of LIEP's Information and Analysis -�`s�r�
We felt it necessary to not only rate LIEP on their current infortnation and analysis
activities, but also speculate on a future rating if they aze able to successfully implement
systems and follow through on statements made in the interviews. Therefore, if we were to
audit LIEP one year from now, we anticipate they have the potential to receive three stazs.
However, if they do not effectively use their computer systems to collect and analyze data,
we do not believe their assessment would improve. The automation should:
❑ assist with fee justification based on data and workload analysis;
❑ provide inspectors with an inspections results database allowing them to provide
consistent information to property owners and wntractors; and
❑ give other departments such as PED, Public Works, and the Fire Department
comprehensive data that will allow them to coordinate activities.
Finding #39: LIEP currently does very little data collection or analysis.
Finding #40: Staff are generally unaware of what data is collected and how it is used.
1000 Saint Pau! City Councr! Reseprch
Performance Audit of lhe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 3 �
Finding #41: Staff do not feel the ECLIPS or AMANDA system currently meets their needs.
Finding #42: Great potential exists for LIEP to perform meaningful data collection and analysis
and improve its performance by utilizing new automated system. LIEP should be given credit
for taking on such a task.
Information and Analysis Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 25: LIEP should clearly ident� the information gathering potential of the
new computer systems and the usefulness of the data. (See previous box for suggestion). Data
collected and analyzed should be related to the mission and objectives of the organization.
Recommendation # 26: LIEP should analyze the effectiveness of the computer systems. One
method to analyze the effectiveness would be to follow-up with staff based on survey responses
indicating the systems are not useful. LIEP should encourage and gather input on the systems
and respond to the input, even if it is not possible to immediately address all concerns or
suggestions.
See aJso Recommendation #41 in Results and the Performance Measures Chapter.
2000 Sain! Pau! Ciry Council Research
38 Perfortnance Audi� ofthe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functiops
IMPROVEMENT
KEY PROCESSES FOR
IMPROVEMENT PRACTICES:
PRACTICES
Policy Compliance: °�
Quality Rating: �
Identification of Potential Improvements
[mplementation of Improvements
Evaluation of Improvement Efforts
Improvement practices occur when an organization considers the design, management and
improvement of internal organizational processes. Similarly, improvement processes such as
internal evaluation should be part of daily work within the organization, and should seek to
eliminate problems at the source and be driven by opportunities to improve. Improvements may
enhance value through new and better services, increased responsiveness, and a higher level of
efficiency. Notably, the development of new services may or may not be an improvement practice,
depending on whether it meaningfully improves services already provided by the organization.
[mprovement processes must contain cycles of planning, implementation and evaluation which
require information and methods for assessing progress. All practices of an organization should be
continually evaluated to identify problems and successes, and should be incorporaCed into an
organizatiods daily practices. These practices are charted in the following diagram.
The Improvement Process
Identify Identify Maihods to
Dafic�encies � Addrass Deficioncios;
in the Select the Most
urrent Process Appropriate
Evaluate the
Effectivenass and
EfFiciency of the
New/Revised Method
�-
Plan Implamontation
of Now/Revisad
Method(s)
♦
Implesnenl the Now/
Revised Method(s)
Quick Fixes and Past Improvement Efforts
The very development of LIEP was an improvement practice. The City saw the need to combine
functions to increase efficiency and better meet citizens' needs. Historically, LIEP itself has
been very active in engaging in improvement practices. Since its inception in 1992, LIEP has
developed plans and action steps to address both major and minor problems and processes.
20q0 Sainl Panl City Council Research
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions . 39
Many of these were developed in the mid-1990's along with the Office's Strategic Action Plan
and its Functional Redesign Report. LIEP's past improvement effoRs include the repoR titled
! 19 Targets for Redesign, which was paR of the Business Process Redesign Project. This report
also identified a number of "Quick Fixes," many of which were implemented. CeRainly, it was
not possible to implement all of them either because it simply was not feasible or perhaps even
necessary. LIEP should be aclmowledged not only for such a proactive effoR to improve its
operations, but also for involving many levels of staff in these improvement efforts. Indeed, all
of the quick fixes were identified by employee work teams.
Improved Automation
The most visible of LIEP's improvement practices is its current automation efforts. The new
computer systems will have a number of valuable features including: access to the City's address
files; the ability to track plans currently in the review process; and checkoff lists for plan
reviewers and inspectors allowing them to quickly note deficiencies or compliance. While these
are good practices which will likely have a positive impact on its functions, LIEP did very little
planning to handle activities and problems created by automation, such as increased workloads,
stress and the inability to effectively collect data during the transition period. It also remains to
be seen how much evaluation LIEP will do of the systems once they have been implemented,
particularly given LIEP's historical lack of internal evaluation, discussed later in this section.
Project Facilitators and Experts-on-Duty
The Project Facilitator positions were originally identified as part of LIEP's Functional Redesign
Plan, and have taken a long time to implement. The Project Facilitator positions were originally
designed to encompass a wide range of functional knowledge in zoning, environmental health,
licensing, construction and heritage preservation and to track lazger projects and serve as a
resource for customer questions. Since then, LIEP determined that some of the functions should
be sepazated to allow for specialization. Currently, a Project Facilitator I assists businesses in
obtaining the necessary licenses, and will also help them through the permitting, plan review and
inspections process if necessary. The position is primarily focused on the licensing aspect and
reports to the Customer Services Manager. The Project Facilitator II, soon to be hired, will be
the primary contact person for customers for permitting, plan review and inspections. This
position will report to the supervisor for Plan Review and Historic Preservation. Currently plan
reviewers track their own projects, so it is unclear how responsibilities will be shared between the
Project Facilitator II and the plan review staff,
LIEP also has a policy designating a daily expert-on-duty who is available to handle customer calls
and walk-in customers. The expert-on-duty answers questions when the person who usually handles
those questions is unavailable or when technical issues ue encountered that front wunter staff are
unable to handle. The expert-on-duty is a commendable practice and valuable to the organization.
Recent Improvement Practices
LIEP has not—actively—identified new improvement practices since the mid-] 990's. Perhaps
more importantly, LIEP has not reviewed the effectiveness of its past efforts. Improvements
have to be evaluated in order to determine their worth and to learn from past efforts. While L[EP
2000 Saint Pau! Ciry Council Research
40 P erfo r man c e Audit of t City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Pl Revie a n d In F�nctions
typically does not evaluate the effectiveness of its improvement effor[s, L[EP has taken one
particular experience to heart: the problems encountered with Online Services, Inc. during the
development of the ECL[PS systeih. LIEP used the experience with Online to formulate a more
effective contract with CSDC Sys{ems, Inc. With the new contract, LIEP decided to use an off-
the-shelf system which could be customized internally as necessary primarity utilizing their own
staff. They also wrote the new contract to better protect the inierests of LIEP.
LIEP has incorporated a number of their improvement practices into their annual budget
objectives, and LIEP should be given credit here for their efforts. One such example is their
2000 Budget Ongoing Performance Indicator which lists their complaint response time (for
zoning complaints) in days as four, down from nine in 1997. Clearly, LIEP focused efforts on
this as part of their goal of increased customer service. Other performance indicators, though,
have not been monitored and do not have supporting information to show the indicator has been
met. Without supporting data, the indicators are meaningless.
LIEP staff have also been very active in reducing plan review and site plan review times. As
mentioned previously in the Leadership chapter, the site plan reviewer coordinates the
interdepartmental site plan review group, which has effectively reduced review time and
increased communication. The plan reviewers also make it their goal to turn plan reviews around
quickly and return them to the applicant as soon as possible. And certainly, front-counter staff
have also pursued methods to decrease the time it takes to issue permits, and are able to issue
"express" permits for simple projects such as basic re-roofing projects.
Heritage Preservation staff in LIEP should also be commended for their efforts in developing
some Heritage Preservation brochures which will be sent this spring to every resident of the
City's Heritage Preservation districts. The brochures explain the benefits and responsibilities of
living in such districts. These same staff inembers aze currently working to have Heritage
Preseroation information included on the Truth-in-Housing forms, though this has taken longer
than anticipated due to lack of staff resources.
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance Findings
Finding #43: In the past, LIEP has actively engaged in developing improvement practices.
Finding #44: Most current improvement initiatives are manifestations of past improvement
efforts. Examples are the office automation efforts and the project facilitator positions.
Finding #45: While LIEP has committed to improvement, it has not evaluated the results of its
efforts, and, therefore, cannot say with any certainty that changes in practices have led to actual
improvements. They did, however, learn from the experience with Online Services, Inc., and
used that experience to create a contract that better serves the interests LIEP.
Finding #46: Select sections and staffmembers in LIEP are working on improvement practices
such as plan review with its interdepartmental review team and heritage preservation with its
informational brochures.
1000 Sainl Paid Cify Council Reseorclt
Perfortnance Audit oCthe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review a�d Inspec[ions Func[ions 41
Improvement Practices Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendulion # 27: LIEP shauld involve itself in a complete improvement practices process
that includes planning, implementation and evaluation of its improvements.
Recommendation # 28: LIEP needs to use data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of its
improvement practices. So far, they have little documentation to substantiate claims of
improvement other than anecdotal evidence.
Quality of Improvement Practices
Internal Evaluation
As mentioned above, an important component of improvement practices is evaluation of cunent
practices. It was clear from interviews and surveys that there is very little systematic evaluation
taking place in LIEP. Alarmingly, 72% of survey respondents stated they "don't know" if L[EP
systematically evaluates its activities. Of those who did know, they stated it was once a year.
Most evaluation in LIEP seems to be very informal — essentially reacting to a problem when it
arises and devisittg a method to address the problem, but not really seazching for the source of
the problem. It is entirely possible staff who stated evaluation is done annually were considering
their annual reviews as the systematic evaluation of LIEP. It is also possible that the high
number of "don't know" responses may be a result of respondents not understanding the
meaning of systematic evaluation. We consider systematic evaluation to be periodic
measurement and examination of organizational results. An example is a caz owner calculating
miles per gallon under different circumstances. The responses in this category aze similar to
those in Planning, with a lazge percentage of staff saying they don't know how often eval aation
occurs or what the results aze.
Improvement Practices Quality Findings
Finding #4'7: LIEP staff aze largely unawue of any intemal evaluation taking place in LIEP.
Finding #48: LIEP has not prepared concrete plans to implement its lazger improvement
practices, such as the automation efforts.
Improvement Practices Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 29: It is apparent that LIEP has few formalized and widely understood
goals. Therefore, LIEP staff should be involved in defining improvement practices, setting goals
and evaluating activities. (Goal setting is discussed in the planning, leadership and results
quality sections). Improvement practices should link activities to goals and objectives. They
should a(so help organizations achieve theii�, goals and objectives.
See also Recommendation #41 in Results and the Performance Measures Chapter.
2000 Sainf Paul City Counci! Research
.
42
Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
CUSTOMER
FOCUS
Policy Compliance: —
Quality Rating: ��.`C
KEY CUSTOMER FOCUS
CONCEPTS:
❑ Customer ldentification & Knowledge
❑ Managing Customer Relationships
❑ Customer Service Practices
❑ Customer Service Standards
Attention to customer needs is critical for achieving organizational excellence. Through the
creation and management of relationships with their customers, organizations which excel in
customer satisfaction obtain information on customer service requirements, expectations and
satisfaction. Knowing the requirements of its customers enables an organization to develop
standards which are designad to enhance customer satisfaction. For these standards to be
effective, they must be understood and followed by everyone in the organization.
In recent years, LIEP has placed a great deal of emphasis on providing good customer service,
although there are still some areas in whicli LIEP could improve. It deserves mention that
developing a culture of providing good customer service requires a cultural shift from a rigid
code and "rule" enforcement emphasis to a more customer focused approach. Recently published
research indicates that the burden associated with regulation is not inspection per se, but the
manner in which enforcement is carried out. "Bringing about the right kind of building code
enforcement is more difficult than taking a meat axe to regulations and enforcement staffs, which
has been the rallying cry of those who wail against regulatory burdens."
Improvement in this area also requires that staff understand the importance of customer service
training and that good customer service skills can be leamed or enhanced. Some members of
LIEP's staff do not believe good customer service can be learned, so management has felt the
only option in these cases is simply to model good customer service in the hope that staff will
mimic that behavior.
LIEP's Customers
LIEP considers its primary customers to be those who apply for building permits and go through
the plan review and inspections processes. They have improved a number of their services and
practices to better meet these customers' needs. Unfortunately, few people outside LIEP know of
these improved services. Marketing these services may improve code compliance and assist
LIEP in enhancing its one-stop-shop image. For example, LIEP offers an express site plan
review if the customer is anxious to begin the project. LIEP also provides preliminary plan
reviews, issues express permits for such things as roofs, and offers one-hour free parking while
visiting LIEP. Marketing these valuable services to the general population could be beneficial in
assisting property owners and contractors in understanding that the process of obtaining a
�$ Raymond J. Burby, Peter J. May, Emil E. Malizia, and Joyce Levine, Building Code Enjorcemen/ Burdens and
Central Ciry Dec(ine. Journal of the American Plannine Associatioq Vol. 66, No.2, Spring 2000. page I55.
2000 Saint Poul City Conncil Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 43
building permit is not nearly as cumbersome as they might expect. Certainly word-of-mouth is
also an impoRant method for sharing this information as many contractors work with each other
on various projects and are likely to share experiences.
A very useful marketing tool, largely neglected by LIEP, is the Intemet. Not only could LIEP's
website be used for marketing, but also for providing services directly to customers, such as
building permits, zoning and code information, plan review and inspections results. LIEP has as
one of its objectives, identified in its 1996 Strategic Action Plan, to "Develop a Home Page on
the Internet to provide information to our customers and a means to accommodate remote
transactions 24 hours per day" by the end of 1996. Online Business Systems, Inc. was to
develop this resource, but their contract was terminated prior to completion. The fact their web
site is essentially useless to customers demonstrates a gap in LIEP's efforts to become a
customer-focused organization.
Customer Service Practices
Permitting/Customer Service Section
In general, LIEP's first point of customer contact is the &ont-counter stafE Property owners and
contractors will most likely call LIEP to ask questions or come to the front counter to apply for a
permit. LIEP has a number of informational sheets avaiiable answering basic questions about
requirements for certain types of projects, and sample plans indicating the minimum building
requirements for common projects such as stairways and garages. It was repoded by other LIEP
staff that the front-counter employees are very good at providing customer service and aze always
willing to make cfianges that improve customer satisfaction. LIEP has also designed a system to
issue express permits for simple and straight-forward projects such as roofing and fences. LIEP
will also issue "early start" permits which allow a project to begin before all permits have been
issued. An example would be issuing a foundation permit for a building bafore the mechanical
plans have been approved. In some cases, LIEP also maintains accounts for contractors or
businesses that frequently pull permits, and simply deducts the permit fees from that account.
Plan Review and Zoning Site Plan Review Section
While the plan reviewers and site plan reviewers have few formal customer service guidelines,
they all attampt to review plans as quickly and accurately as possible. Another very positive
customer-oriented practice is the aforementioned preliminary plan review process, during which
LIEP staff ineet with developers, contractors, or property owners to go over plans informally to
look for any potential problem areas. This allows the plan submitter to make changes to the
plans prior to formal review, at which point changes become more expensive to make and the
process takes longer. The hardest step for many people is initially gathering the right
information for plan review. The preliminary plan review provides them the opportunity to find
out what they still need before they pay any fees or spend a lot of time changing plans and
adding information. If necessary, staff will also perform a preliminary site plan inspection.
Plan Review staff ineet with plan submitters to discuss the necessary changes upon formal review
of the plans, and will follow up the meeting with a]etter explaining the required changes. Plan
reviewers will also call the applicant if they do not meet with them. Staff should be commended
for this customer-focused practice.
�
2000 Sainl Paul City Counci! Research
44 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Sain[ PauPs Building Pemiit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Inspections Section
Council Research found several areas where inspections policies could be clarified across trades
groups. We also found several situations in which a policy would be helpful in creating clearer
expectations for both the inspectors and the customers. Customer service standards would also
assist in alleviating some of this confusion.
LIEP does not have a policy pertaining to providing customers with appeals information. Some
inspectors provide verbal information when they give the correction orders; others provide
written information when they send out change orders. The lack of clarity may be causing
confusion for the customer. Without a cleaz policy and a uniform practice, customers will not
receive the same information in a consistent manner.
Council Research found through the interview process that some inspectors do not suggest
equivalencies when they require changes. They simply say "you can't do that." Inspectors have
a great deal of latitude, as they aze given the authority to grant equivalences provided the intent
of the code has been met. Interviews with LIEP staff indicated some inspectors will grant
equivalences themselves, others will defer to their supervisor or to the building official, and
others simply avoid granting them if to hide at all possible. However, it is important to also
mention that although consistency is in use of equivalencies is necessary, a"business-friendly"
approach demands that inspectors maintain a fair amount decision-making authority in the field.
Linked to the lack of equivalencies granted may be an attitude of a few inspectors that contractors
and property owners are attempting code violations from them. In many cases, it could simply be
an oversight or the property owners or contractor's lack of knowledge. If the inspector took time
to explain why the code infraction is a life/safety issue, contractors or property owners may
willingly comply. It is possible that the less flexible inspectors may lack a sense of accountability
for their actions. Some inspectors do not appear to feel accountable to anyone except themselves
and operate seemingly in a vacuum. They know many contractors fear retaliation if they complain
about an inspector. A couple of business owners mentioned to Council Research they have felt
sufficiently intimidated by particular inspectors that they did not complain about an inspection,
when they otherwise would have. These problems may be linked to comments from other City
staff who interact with LIEP's inspectors and customers that some inspectors serve the interests of
their own trade associations before the interests of LIEP or the City. Some inspectors forego more
customer-friendly actions because they view safety as their main objective and use enforcement as
their primary method of obtaining compliance. [t must also be mentioned that many of L[EP's
inspectors are interested in working with contractors and property owners. The few who are not
damage relationships between the City, its residents and businesses.
Another problematic practice in inspections is the final inspection. Most inspectors will sign the
back of the permit indicating the work meets code standards. Some inspectors will leave either a
yellow card, if they are unable to sign-off on the permit because changes still need to be made, or
a green cazd if they aze unable to get in to inspect a project because no one is home. Most
communication appears to be with the contractor. While this is certainly important, it would be
beneficial to the owner if they were given the same information as the contractor, particularly
when a permit cannot be closed out due to remaining required changes.
19 "Business-friendly supervisory practices emphasize the attainment of enforcement goals while giving inspectors
a considerable degree of freedom in how they interact with contractors and developers." Burby, et al, Ibid. p. 155.
2000 5ain! Paid City Ca�ncil Research
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 45
One final problem discovered with the inspections process is that not alt inspectors readily identify
themselves by either showing or wearing a badge stating they are an inspector for the City of Saint
Paul. This has caused some wariness and concem by property owners who find an unfamiliar
person on their property. Notably, it is LIEP policy that all inspectors verbally make known their
presence and purpose as soon as is practical at the work site. Certainly wearing a badge to a site
that an inspector visits on a regular basis may seem unnecessazy, but it would aid all workers on
site in identifying the inspector. However, we found during our field visits with inspectors that the
inspectors immediately identified themselves to the contractors or property owners.
The Housing Initiative
Another customer-focused improvement practice is the Housing [nitiative, which is an effor[ to
increase the number of housing units in Saint Paul. Part of the Initiative is to speed housing
projects through the site plan review process and lower the permit and plan review fees.
Reportedly, the Initiative has been mazketed through newsletters, seminars, newspaper reporters,
the BRC, and relevant organizations.
Initially, the community received misleading information regarding the purpose of the Housing
Initiative. The original resolution establishing the Housing Initiative, presented by LIEP and
approved by the City Council and Mayor, stated the amount of fees for all housing units
approved from September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000 would be cut in hal£ Two problems
existed with the resolution. First, LIEP cut the fees for new housing projects only, not for
rehabilitation projects, which caused some confusion. Second, the permit and plan review fee
cuts were instituted through a resolution, not through an ordinance as is required, as Council
Research discovered. The problems were corrected in late 1999 through passage of an ordinance
cutting the fees in half during this time period for new construction only.
Customer Service Poficy Compliance Findings
Finding #49: LIEP has improved a number of practices which benefit customers, but they have
not mazketed them effectively. We found a number of good customer-focused practices such as:
❑ express permits;
❑ handouts with basic information particulazly beneficial to first-time applicants;
❑ pre-paid permit fee accounts;
❑ express site plan reviews;
a preliminary plan reviews and inspections; and
❑ euly start authorization.
Finding #50: LIEP has not effectively developed its website to allow for online permit
applications, zoning and building code infortnation, plan review, inspections results notification
and Housing Initiative information.
Finding #SL• LIEP encountered a number of problems with the Housing Initiative, such as the
deFnition of applicable projects and the legislative authority required to implement the program.
Finding #52: Only a few trade inspectors weaz badges visually identifying themselves on-site
during inspections. While it is policy that all inspectors identify themselves and carry
1000 Salnt Paul City Counci! Research
46 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
identifrcation, a policy requiring them to wear a badge may assist contractors and building
owners in more readily identifying the inspector.
Finding #53: No uniform procedure exists for giving customers appeals process information.
Finding #54: No uniform process exists for granting equivalencies, and some trade inspectors
are resistant to granting them.
Finding #55: Some inspectors seem to hold the attitude that contractors and property owners are
trying to hide violations from them. This attitude sometimes results in antagonistic behavior
toward the contractor or property owner.
Finding #56: No uniform process exists for leaving final inspection information with a
contractor or property owner.
Customer Service Policy Compliance Recommendations
Recommendation # 30: Develop marketing strategies for promoting the express permits, the
preliminary plan review process, pre paid permit accounts, parking reimbursement and any
other customer focused practices.
Recommendation # 31: LIEP is one of the City agencies which has the most direct contact with
residents and businesses seeking information, and stands to 6enefit greatly from having as much
information as possible on its web page. Completion of the web site should be a high priority
for LIEP, particularly in light of the goal to have it completed by the end of 1996. Information
that should be available Jo customers on-line includes:
0 permit apptications and permit status information;
❑ inspeetions results;
❑ general building code and zoning information, similar to the paper handouts available;
❑ information on special programs and projects, such as the Housing lnitiative;
❑ a Frequently-Asked-Questions (FAQ) page; and
G] an "ask-the-inspector" page in which visitors could post general questions to trade
inspectors.
Recommendation # 32: LIEP should develop a policy requiring trade inspectors to wear an
identification badge at all times while performing inspections.
Recommendation # 33: LIEP should develop a policy for granting equiva(encies which is known
and used by all inspectors in an effort to make the practice fair, consistent and usefu(. The City
Attorney should be involved in developing this policy to ensure it is legally sound. The
development of these policies will enhance LIEP's image in !he City.
Recommendation # 34: LIEP should work to change the attitude of its inspectors who believe
that contractors and property owners are trying to hide something from them. They should
immediately cease threatening properry owners with retaliation, which is cantrary to LIBP
policy, but is reported to happen from time to tdme.
2000 Sain! Pa�d Ciry Conncil Researcl�
Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permi4 P�en Review and Inspections Functions 47
Recommendation # 35: LIEP should deve[op a process for leaving information with both
property owners and contractors upon ftnal inspections, particularly when changes are still
required before the permit can be closed.
Recommendation # 36: LIEP should [ook at the practices of building inspections departments in
other cities for possible customers service improvements. One suggestion wou(d be maintaining
evening hours one or trvo nights a week to make it easier for homeowners who work during the
day to apply for permits, such as is the practice in San Diego.
Quality of Customer Focus
Customer ldentification
It is vital that employees in an organization identify a uniform group of customers in order to
best serve the interests of their customers. Within LIEP, both survey and interview respondents
identified very similar customers: property owners, citizens and contractors. LIEP staff indicated
that sometimes these different customers have competing interests, which aze difficult to balance.
What a contractor wants may not be in the best interest of the citizens, and LIEP staff are
required to make determinations based on life-safety criteria, rather than on what the "customer
at the desk" may want.
Customer Knowledge
Customer knowledge consists of understanding the customers needs and desires, and having
mechanisms in place to monitor those needs and desires. The survey indicated that many staff
feel customer needs and satisfaction aze monitored occasionally, though approximately one-third
of staff are not awaze of how often this is done. Interviews and documents indicate LIEP has
done customer service surveys in past yeazs and is preparing to do another one in 2000. The last
survey, done in 1998, was not useful due to a low response rate. LIEP also tracks complaints
and gets information on customer needs through professional associations, word-of-mouth,
correspondence and elected officials. Most information gathering on customer needs and
satisfaction is informal. LIEP does little to anticipate the future needs of customers.
Customer Relations
Staff indicated through the survey that LIEP is "mostly responsive" to changes in customer needs
and satisfaction, though again, one-half to one-third of staff do not know how responsive LIEP is.
One staff inember in an interview described very well what good customer service is for LIEP:
❑ being as responsive and timely as possible;
❑ being as proactive as possible by going to housing fairs and having a LIEP booth at fairs and
at home improvement stores to answer questions;
20 Evaluation of this experience could help LIEP in making fuWre improvements ro[he survey process.
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research
48 Performance Audit of th City of Saint Paul's Buildi P Pl an R e v iew an lnspections Function
❑ meeting with contractor groups to get information and feedback;
❑ hotding classes on code compliance;
❑ meeting with engineers to go over plans before work begins; and
❑ answering questions.
The lack of planning affects LIEP's ability to respond to customer needs and satisfaction
thoroughly. Planning takes into account potential changes in needs that result from changing
economic, technological and social factors and other influences. Associated with this lack of
planning is the slow development of the Intemet site for LIEP. The ability to look up permits,
apply for permits, and receive zoning and other information over the Intemet would be invaluable
to many of L[EP's customers. However, LIEP has focused very little energy on developing this
resource.
Some staff also mentioned the struggle between enforcement and customer service. They seem
to be unsure of how to provide good customer service while also enforcing codes effectively.
Many staff stated good customer service is defined in the LIEP employee performance evaluation
form, although they could provide no universally understood definition. The lack of a useful,
well-known definition of good customer service indicates a gap between the vision of senior
leaders and the implementation of that vision.
Customer Service Standards
Formal customer service standards help all staff understand what is expected of them by the
organization and by their customers. About half the staff indicated there are customer service
guidelines for LIEP, but about one-third do not know of their existence. Staff surveyed indicated
"some" customer service standards are written, though one-half of staff didn't know of their
existence. Staff also felt customer service guidelines aze "somewhat widely circulated," again
with one-half of staff not knowing of their existence.
The customer service guidelines LIEP has in place aze "mostly understood" and followed
frequently. The survey question relating to how often customer service guidelines are followed
received one of the highest average scores of all the survey questions, indicating staff felt very
strongly that the guidelines aze followed. Interviews also indicated that staff are very good at
providing customer service, and take great pride in this aspect of their work.
Customer Focus Quality Findings
Finding #57: LIEP staff consistently identified property owners, citizens and contractors as their
primary customers.
Finding #58: Staff are either unaware of customer needs and satisfaction monitoring or feel it is
done only occasionally.
2000 Sainf Pard Ciry Cormcil Researcb
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 49
Finding #59: A useful customer service survey has not been done in three years, though LIEP is
preparing to conduct one in 2000.
Finding #60: The lack of planning may affect L[EP's ability to effectively respond to changes
in customer needs and satisfaction.
Finding #61: LIEP has few formal written customer service standards.
Customer Focus Quality Recommendations
Recommendation # 37: LIEP should consider other options besides an annual or biennial
survey for monitoring customer needs and satisfaction. Some suggestions include survey cards
issued with the Certificate of Occupancy or when a permit is closed. Another option is to focus
on evaluating one activiry per month. For example, give surveys to everyone who applies for a
permit in February, in March give surveys to everyone who has a site plan review, and in August
to everyone who receives an ittspection. This way, not all sections are burdened with conducting
a survey at the same time. If another, organization-wide survey is desired, LIEP should consider
consulting with organizations which have been successful in reaching a high response rate from
their customers.
Recommendation #.?8: LIEP should formalize customer service standards, such as pZan
review's three day turn-arouttd for basic plan reviews. This would help all staff understand the
customer service standards and how their work contributes to the goals set by the organization.
Recommendation # 39: LIEP should provide more customer service training for inspectors to
help them understand how they can provide good customer service and good code enforcement.
Recommendation # 40: Develop an idea/complaint/compliment line and/or e-mail address that
would allow customers to directly communicate with LIEP at their own convenience and at any
time, rather than just through the annual customer survey.
See also the Performance Measures Chapter.
1000 Saint PaW City Councif Research
50
PerFormance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
RESULTS
Policy Compliance: --
Quality Rating: �.`C
KEY RESULTS CONCEPTS:
❑ OrganizationalOutcomes
❑ FinancialOutcomes
❑ Customer Satisfaction
❑ Use of Performance Indicators
Results is the section of the Malcolm Baldrige system which deals with an organization's ability
to determine if and how well it is accomplishing its mission. Results should focus on creating
and balancing value for all stakeholders, whether they be customers, employees, suppliers, the
general public or individual neighborhoods. The use of performance indicators, also known as
performance measures, offers an effective means to communicate both short- and long-term
priorities and provide a focus for improving results. Results measurement should be the last
phase in an ongoing cycle involving goal setting, planning, the execution of plans and
improvement practices. Using results information in this way, can help staff provide the best
service in the most efficient way possible. Decision and policy makers can also use results
information to monitar the provision of services on the public's behalf, ensuring government
accountability.
LIEP received its lowest rating in this performance audit in the Resuits area. This is particularly
problematic in that the Malcolm Saldrige system weights Results the most heavily of its seven
categories. In recent years, the Results category in the Malcolm Baldrige awazd program has
been given between 40% and 60% of the total points available. The reasons for LIEP's low
rating are discussed in detail below. However, Council Research also believes there is potential
for improvement in this area in the near future due to computer system improvements. Those
possibilities aze discussed on page 36. Finally, the essence of Results is a system of performance
indicators. Although the presence and use of performance indicators is covered in this chapter,
the following chapter, beginning on page 53, is dedicated exclusively to performance indicators
for LIEP.
We did not include a separate discussion of policies in the Results azea, only a quality assessment
discussion. Results policies aze embedded in the City's annual budget process, as well as other
places, and aze discussed in detaii in the Performance Indicators chapter.
Results Measurement in LIEP
Results measurement requires adequate information sys;ems, a carefully thought-out system of
indicators and consistent, periodic measuring. As discussed at iength in earlier sections of this
report, LIEP has nearly completed its transition to using the ECLIPS and AMANDA systems.
These systems have the potential to provide a variety of data for the organization to analyze. The
challenge will be determining what is good and useful information for the day-to-day
management of operations, and what are good indicators of how the organization is performing.
Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that measures of results can and often do involve
assessments which are not quantitative in nature. Not all useful things can be "counted," but they
do need to be taken into account, documented and reported over time.
1000 Soin( Pard Ciry Coancrl Research
�dormance Audil of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and lnspections Func[ions 51
LIEP has historically gathered and analyzed some information on its performance. This is
exemplified in past years' budgets and in the annual reports prepared by the former Building
Inspection and Design Division. However, in recent years, these activities have ceased almost
completely. L[EP continues to only estimate all vitat organizational statistics, except for the
revenue derived from licenses and permits. For 1998 and 1999, there are no firm numbers in
the budget indicating the annual number and type of permits, the number and type of plan
reviews conducted or inspections performed. However, it must be noted that in the budget
process, the Mayor's Budget Office did not review LIEP's performance indicators with staff to
determine their usefulness in poMraying LIEP's workload. This is perplexing given the
reportedly high volume of construction and rehabilitation in Saint Paul in recent years. However,
this lack of ineasurement is symptomatic of inadequate performance measurement and
accountability standards on a Citywide basis.
Given this lack of information and analysis, it is not surprising that over half the staff surveyed
do not know how often LIEP measures its results. In fact, this survey question elicited the
highest proportion of "don't knows" of all 46 of the surveys questions. Of those who did answer,
the most common response was `bccasionally." Not surprisingly, most staff are unaware of
comparisons between LIEP and other, similar organizations. The interviews conducted also
indicated that when comparisons are made, they tend to be anecdotal.
Despite the lack of specific performance measures, the most common response to the survey
question on how often LIEP meets its goals was "frequently" for those who answered the
question. This question received one of the highest average responses of al] survey questions. In
a follow-up survey question, Council Research asked how staff knew they were meeting their
goals. The majority of the written answers indicated staff knew they were meeting the
organization's goals because of 1) positive customer feedback received in customer surveys and
in person; and 2) the quality of the City's building stock. Notably, these aze two areas where
some specific performance measures can and have been done.
It also became apparent in the performance audit process that staff had valid concems about the
use of performance indicators. Some were concerned that activities which could not be easily
"measured" would lose value. Others thought it would be near impossible to measure the final
"results" oFLIEP's activities---such as a quality building stock and urban landscape which is
likely to have a useful life well into the future. Therefore, they believed the organization would
then begin to shift its focus to work "outputs," such as the number of inspections conducted or
plans reviewed, which can be easily tabulated, but may not speak to the quality of work
performed. The Performance Indicators chapter will provide guidelines and suggestions for
alleviating these concems and creating useful performance measures.
Z � From permit revenue information, LIEP can determine the approximate value of all projects undertaken.
22 There are several indicators of the quality of [he City's building stock. These include, among others: 1) the class
ratings for the City's commerciat office space; 2) the Housing Survey conducted by PED in the 1980s; 3) results of
the Certificate of Occupancy Program which provides minimum standards for buildings; and 4) pos[ major storm
assessments done both by the public and private sectors.
2000 Sainf Pa�J Ciry Coimcil Research
52 Perfortnance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Pertnit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Results Quality Findings
Finding #62 There has been a significantly reduced focus on examining the results of
organizational activities recently. This ►ack of emphasis may seem justified because past
performance measures had little meaning and held little value for their users. However,
meaningful measures can be developed. This seems to be true not only for L[EP, but also more
broadly throughoutthe City.
Finding #63 In spite of the lack of performance indicators, staff use the ones they have available
(customer surveys and building data) to determine if they are meeting the L[EP's goals.
Finding #64 LIEP's emphasis on customer service is clearly internalized by many staff:
Finding #65 Despite the poor rating given in this azea, Council Research believes LIEP is
poised to develop a meaningful performance measurement system. Many of the "building
blocks" are in place to make a useful perfonnance measurement system in LIEP. The new
information management systems will have the capability to provide many types of information
to staff. These information management systems will also act as a catalyst for changing and
rethinking some work processes. For example, the use of handheld computers by inspectors wili
significantly change the flow of information from the field to the central office, and from one
inspector to another. LIEP is also in the process of initiating another cycle of planning, albeit a
much less formal undeRaking than used in the past. These events combine to make this an ideal
time for the organization to develop new performance measures which will meet its needs. If
LIEP fully takes advantage of these circumstances and pursues an inclusive process for
developing perFormance measures, the rating would improve substantially.
Results Quality Recommendation
Recommendation # 41: LIEP needs to develop a meaningful performance indicators system for
determining how well they are meeting the organization's goals. This process needs to overtly
take into account issues which may not be "measurable, " but which also need to be documented
and reported over time. The development process should also be inclusive and incorporaJe staff
ideas. A performance measurement system should function not only to give feedback to
managers and policy makers, but also to staff who rely on it to provide them regular feedback on
individual activities. Al! of the organization's stakeholders have an interest in knowing how well
the organization is meeting its goals. Examples ofspecific measures are outlined in the nex�
chapter. Additionally, the Mayor's O�ce should much more actively monitor performance
indicators used in the budget and assist the City's departments in developing more meaningful
indicators.
2000 Saint PaiJ Ciry Cotmci! Research
I
Performance Audit of the City oFSaint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and [nspections Functions 53
Performance Measures
Performance indicators are a means by which an organization determines the degree to which it is
achieving its mission. Not evetything an organization does and seeks to accomplish can be
quantified, but rather thare are some measures that are good indicators of its success. LIEP's
mission is clear, and it bears restating here. It is "to be a unified customer service organization,
which promotes a healthy and safe environment through information and enforcement of codes
and ordinances." In this chapter we will explore how LIEP seaks to inform itself, its customers
and its stakeholders about how well it achiaves its mission. This chapter is intended to provide a
basis for discussion and assist LIEP in refining the measures cunently in use. LIEP is just now
completing implementation of AMANDA, the information system which will track much of the
needed data for performance measurement. Therefore, it is a critical juncture for LIEP in the
consideration of these issues.
Council Research has approached this examination of performance indicators with several
assumptions in mind. First, we believe the City Council has a vasted interest in examining
performance indicators as a part of the budget raview process. The use of performance indicators
gives the Council a ciear picture of what has been accomplished in past years, and expectations
for future years. They meaningfully connect dollazs spent and the services expected of City
govemment. Indeed, as the Council deliberated upon "managed competition proposals," the
need to translate City activities into meaningful performance indicators became very apparent.
The development of such indicators is necessary to make clear to anyone— employees or private
vendors just what performance is required. Second, we believe performance indicators can be
useful management tools for communicating with staff about expectations. However, we also
put forward the notion that staff must be a part of the creation of perforrttance indicators and see
their usefizlness in their daily work lives. The people who will, in practice, provide information
for performance indicators are also pmfoundly affected by what the indicators may reveai.
Finally, although we recognize there aze timitations in what performance indicators can
communicate about the success of an organization, there is little else available to provide "a
gauge" on progress. The logical altemative, comprehensive program evaluations, are time
consuming and expensive when compared to tracking performance indicators. Also, such
evaluations do not necessarily provide for incremental improvement.
Two problematic performance indicator issues came to light in the audit process. First, the
Director indicated that 1997 was the last yeaz they used actual figures for the budget process—
after which time LIEP has been using conservative estimates. It should be taken into account that
the Office was undergoing a significant transition from a mix of computer and paper information
management systems, to its new automated systems, ECLIPS and AMANDA. In this
environment it may well have been difficult to piece together and tabulate the required
information. However, it was not cleaz in tha budget that estimates were being used, which is
particularly apparent in reviewing 1998 data in the 2000 proposed budget, where no such
notation was provided. Council Reseazch views this situation as particularly problematic because
the Council was informed that we have recently been experiencing record construction years in
Saint Paul. At the same time, the impact of this increase was not reflected in data, projections or
estimates provided by LIEP, although the workload had clearly increased. The second
problematic issue is that the Budget Office does not, as a practice, review the performance
indicator information provided in tYte budget. Yet, it is likely most staff and the Council assume
2000 Sain1 Pad Ciry Council Research
54 Pert'ormance Audit ofihe City of Saint PauPs Building Per P R an in Functions
this a standard practice, and, therefore, believe the Budget Office knows, understands and
monitors these indicators.
LIEP has, of course, some performance indicators in its budget. They are organized by activity
area, and we have followed this organization in our discussion: customer service and permitting,
plan review, zoning and inspections. Notably, sometimes the objectives and indicators in one
area of L[EP's budget will overlap with those of another. In those cases, we cover the topic in
the area to which the objective relates most clearly. For each area, we have looked for
performance indicator coverage of the following:
❑ customer service, which includes timeliness, helpfulness and accuracy;
❑ efficiency, which includes timeliness, costs and staff time; and
❑ effectiveness, which includes quality and results from activities.
Permitting/Customer Service
LIEP has made improving its customer service in all parts of the organization a priority. This
emphasis on providing excellent customer service can be measured, as is demonstrated in the
excerpted poRion of the Customer Service activity budget in the following box. [n that budget
activity we see a performance indicator stating that customer service surveys should show that
95% of customers will be satisfied. The data for this performance indicator have been garnered
from some informal surveys conducted by staff. PED also conducts a biennial business survey,
with specific questions pertaining to LIEP services. With respect to the other customer service
indicator, number of complaints registered in the area of customer service, it was not clear to the
audit team how, and if, such complaints were compiled and tracked. Given that reported
complaints have been zero for several yeazs, perhaps a more meaningful indicator should be
developed, such as tracking "counter" errors in the processing of permits and licenses.
There aze several indicators in this budget activity which speak to efficiency. Among these are
the number of permits and licenses issued, and files maintained. While these are no doubt useful
in some regards, given that the Office has been using estimates, these numbers have little value
when examined over time. They also give little indication of the effort involved to generate
permits. Therefore, another area which may be useful to pursue is to examine the average
amount of time it takes to process permits and licenses. For example, it would be useful for
stakeholders and customers to know that for a simple project, such as a roof or fence, 75% or
90% of customers will need only %z hour to obtain a permit. Such a measure need not be done on
a daily basis, but surveyed periodically. Similar measares could be developed for projects
requiring plan review or zoning staff involvement. Initiation of such measures would make
meaningful the following objective from LIEP's 1998 budget: "Since the initiation of the Process
Redesign effoR in 1994, LIEP has realized a reduction in processing time for permits and
licenses, a reduction in the number of delinquent license renewals, an increase in collection for
these renewals, and a decrease in the time required to obtain permit and license services from the
City." The problem was well-articulated by one tenured manager interviewed who said "I know
it's true, but [ don't know how to prove it."
2000 Sainl Pn�J Ctty Co��ncil ResearcA
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Pian Review and Inspections Functions 55
Customer Service 2000
Ongoing Program Objectives
(omits non audit area activities) —
❑ Continue to provide accurate information
and excellen[ cus[omer to bo[h intemal and
external customers. �
0 Continue implementation of process redesign
to simplify in[ernal procedures as well as
ex[ernal process (ordinance changes).
❑ Develop a written poiicy and procedure
manual for all customer service functions.
2000 Projects
❑ Design, distribute and report on Customer
Service Survey for LIEP customers.
❑ Continue and comple[e the ECLIPS project
by the implementation of AMANDA and
performance enhancemen[s.
Performance Indicators:
❑ Customer service survey sa[isfaction results
❑ Complaints registered in the areas of
customer service
❑ Ordinance changes enacted
❑ Procedures revised
Customer Service Statistics:
❑ Permits Issued
❑ Compe[ency Certificates issued
❑ Number of trade licenses issued
❑ Licenses issued (all types)
❑ Number of property files maintained
❑ Purchase orders and vouchers processed
Finally, the Customer Service Activity Perfortnance Plan has a performance indicator which
states that 50 procedures will be revised in 1999 and 30 in 2000. The audit team was perplexed
as to the value of counting the number of procedures changed. Change is expected to be
ongoing, usually leading to improvements in other performance indicators. Although we
compliment LIEP on trying to improve its procedures, we believe other performance indicators
would better capture this concept.
Zoning and Site Plan Review
Although the budget activity discussed in the above paragraphs bore the title "customer service,"
other areas in L[EP also have customer service concepts embedded in their work activities,
including Zoning and Site Plan Review. There is only one specific customer service
performance indicator in the budget for Zoning and Site Plan Review. It states the average
response time for zoning complaints will be 4 days. This is an excellent indicator that L[EP may
wish to enhance. The indicator could also speak to average complaint resolution times, or
indicate that some percentage of zoning violation complaints are responded to in 4 days. Also in
the azea of customer service, LIEP has been striving to streamline and shoden the site plan
review process. There were no performance indicators addressing these effofts in the 2000
budget. However, it seems evident that LIEP could be clear about the average length of time for
site plan reviews, once LIEP has all the required materials. It also seems reasonable that other
customer service indicators should be developed for zoning activities, such as looking at average
or expected turn-around times on projects and also customer survey results. Finally, an excellent
customer service practice is that all applicants who go through the site plan review process
receive both a call and a letter explaining the results.
As was the case in customer service and permitting, some statistics are maintained on the staff's
workload. These include counts of site plans reviewed, zoning variances processed, appeals
processed, and zoning histories researched to determine legality of use. And again, while these
2000 Saim PatJ City Council Research
56
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Punctions
indicators have some value, actual figures have not been gathered in recent years. Also, there is
little indication of the staff effort involved in performing these activities. Such an indicator could
be used for monitoring workload, as well as developing minimum or maximum time
expectations for customers.
Perhaps the most logical measure of the effectiveness of zoning and site plan review is
wmpliance with the City's Zoning Code and adherence to the specifications of approved site
plans. Compliance with the City's Zoning Code can be gauged best by using zoning complaints
and zoning histories researched to determine compliance. Relatedly, monitoring the types of
variances and appeals can give indications of the effectiveness of the Zoning Code in addressing
current circumstance in the community. ff a particular type of appeal is received repeatedly, it
may indicate procedures could be streamlined or revised to better handle the problems. It could
also mean the Code is unnecessarily restrictive in a given azea. For example, the Zoning Code
provides for "planned development districts." All staff interviewed indicated this section of the
code was so difficult to use they avoided it, if at all possible, and tried to use other portions of
the code to achieve similar ends.
LIEP
Zoning/Site Plan Review 2000
Ongoing Program Objectives:
0
0
n
To provide prompt, thorough zoning information
to the public; to assist those businesses and
property owners applying for permits or licenses,
explaining the processes necessaty to meet zoning
code requirements.
To investiga[e and enforce zoning regula[ions. 1)
Responding to complaints, 2) Assuring
compliance with conditions placed on approved
site plans, variances, special and nonconforming
use permits and business licenses, and 3) using
the Housing Court and District Court when
appropriate to achieve compliance.
To review site plans, both preliminary and
formal, and coordinate the interdepartmentai si[e
plan review process.
Plan Review
C
To staff the Board of Zoning Appeals, preparing
staff reports, and providing information to Board
members, applicants and neighbors.
To certify zoning compliance for new
construction and alterations, licenses, and
certificates of occupancy, for which fees aze
collected through permits, licenses and
certificates of occupancy fees.
0
Performartee Indicators:
�
■
■
site plans reviewed
zoning variances and appeals processed
zoning histories researched to determine legality
of use
complain[ response time in days
�]
Plan Review, like Customer Service and Permitting, has contact at the counter with customers
every day, in addition to the more in-depth reviews of plans. It is a very customer-oriented work
group and is perceived by peer groups to be effective in both applying appropriate codes and
helping customers. Strangely, it has no customer service performance indicators of its own in the
budget, although some used by Customer Service and Permitting have relevance to this activity
as well. Through the audit process it became clear that Plan Review had several concrete
performance indicators it relied upon on a daily basis, although these do not appear in the budget,
and we were not clear if they were ever overtly measured. First, there has been an emphasis on
shortening approval time for permit applications. Second, there is an expectation that plan
reviews for new single- and two-family houses will be completed within 72 hours of receiving
2000 5ain� Po�d Crty Ca+mci! Research
Performance Audit of the City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni[, Plan Review and [nspec[ions Functions 57
complete plans. No doubt, the use of checklists in the AMANDA system will both facilitate
faster plan review times, and make their measurement possible. Third, LIEP does offer a service
of providing "partial project permits," where a customer can get part of a project reviewed and
permitted while plans for other parts of the project are still in development. This is an especially
helpful practice for large, complicated projects. LIEP may be able to develop performance
measures to better gauge how often this is used.
Plan review has several performance indicators in the budget related to effwiency. These
indicators include: the numbers of permits issued, plans examined, historical permits received,
inspections made, and the annual construction value for Saint Paul. These indicators suffer from
the same problems discussed earlier; namely, they have not actually been counted for several
years and they have no context in terms of effoR necessary to accomplish them. Benchmarks and
standards should be developed to make these indicators more meaningful. Plan Review may also
wish to examine the code to develop ideas for potential performance indicators. For example, the
audit team was informed that plan check time specified in the L,egislative Code, Chapter
33.04(c�the City has 180 days to do a plan check—never expires without a permit being
issued. Clearly, such indicators have the added benefit of demonstrating compliance with
applicable laws. Finally, there are occasionally performance measures in this area which have no
meaning, and therefore no useful value. For example, the resolution establishing the Housing
Initiative (CF#99-815) states that one performance indicator of the Initiative is "number of new
housing units approved within 72 hours of receipt of complete plans: 500-700." This indicator
has no context, and as we discovered, there is no way to measure such an improvement, because
the Office has no data for recent years.
The effectiveness of Plan Review activities is ultimately determined in wmbination with the
effectiveness of Inspections. Literally, effectiveness needs to be measured in terms of the
improved safety and habitability of structures in the City because of the application of building
and other codes. As mentioned in the Results section, there are some ways the quality of the
City's building stock can be measured over time. Taking into account the other influences on the
quality of building stock, such as aging, we know at least a portion of the quality is attributable
to the use of building codes.
Although the quality of the City's building stock is ultimately the best measure to determine the
effectiveness of Plan Review, there are other measures that could be made inside the Office
which would also be appropriate for examining individual plan review activities. For example,
staff mentioned an informal indicator of the quality of their work is the number of plan review
200Q Saint Patd Ciry Cotmci( Research
58
Performance Audit of the Ciry of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions
LIEP Operations: Plan Review 2000 Budget —
Ongoing Program Objectives
O To assure safety of citizens [hrough construction
standards compliance.
❑ To educate customers to achieve code compliance
without controversy or mnecessary expense.
❑ To maintain adequa[e records to demonstrate
efficiencies in administration and compliance to
constmcfion standards.
O To maintain professional standards of technical
ability while being accessible by and accountable
to our customers and [he public.
O To maintain telationships with organiza[ions and
agencies to assure Saint Paul remains a respected
leader in code and design professions.
2000 Budget Objective-
n
�
1
Continue [o work on the design and
implementation of the new computer system for
pennits and inspections.
The Office has participated in and will continue
to be active in public forums such as the Home
Tour, District Council Home Fairs, e[c., where
citizens have a chance to work wi[h [he inspectors
and plan reviewers in a more neutral
environmen[.
Our present computer system and the new system
under development will enable us to ensure that
our level of service will con[inue to improve.
❑ Our challenge is ro balance the requirement for
continuing education against the needs of our
customers. Our goal will be to allow sufticient
opportunities for this education while
maintaining adequate staffing levels to ensura
quick response to our cus[omers.
❑ We have several inspecrors who are involved
with National Code organizations. These groups
develop ffie codes that are adopted by Minnesota,
and directly affect the construction in Saint Paul.
In order ro ensure fair codes both now and in the
future, our inspec[ors will strive to maintain their
participation level for the future.
O There are several inspectors on the task group
whose responsibility is the analysis of various
software packages for the office-wide computer
system. These participants will be fully involved
until the end of the project.
Performance Indicators:
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we (LIEP) can verify that all
construction projec[s are inspected to protectthe
citizens of Sainl Paul.
0 The number of permits issued, cons[ruction valu
in millions, plans examined, historical permits
received;and
❑ Total inspections made.
mistakes discovered in the field. Tracking such an indicator would be a useful management
undertaking to determine the circumstances under which mistakes are made, as well as the types
of mistakes. Also, as is the case with the suggestion that Zoning monitor the types of appeals it
processed, it would also be useful in the same way for both Plan Review and [nspections to
monitor information on the granting of equivalencies. Finally, staff indicated that when
customers come in for preliminary plan reviews, they have a better understanding of
expectations. Customers aza then able to "get it right the first time" which decreases the time,
effort and money in the spend in plan review process. It also likely decreases total staff time
expended on the project. Clearly, preliminary plan reviews make the plan review process more
effective, and their use could be measured.Z
Z3 The Customer Focus Chapter discusses [he importance of promoting [he Preliminary Plan Review process on
page 43.
2000 Sainf Pa�d Crty Council Research
Performance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building PermiG Plan Review and Inspections Func[ions 59
Inspections
Inspectors differ from the other LIEP staff in that they tend to see the customer out in the field,
and not at the front counter or in a meeting. However, the customer focus considerations they
have are very like those of the rest of the Office. Inspections has only one goal in the budget
specifically addressing customer service; "to maintain professional standards of technical ability
while being accessible by and accountable to our customers and the public." The value of this
budget objective lies not with its ability to describe performance expectations, but rather in that it
articulates a problem in the inspections area that stafTclearly fee[ conflicted about "enforcing the
code" or "providing customer service." It would be very useful for the Inspections azea to begin
addressing this asing specific customer service performance indicators. In order to develop these
indicators, they would benefit from reviewing customer service surveys done by LIEP and PED.
These would help to identify areas of concern to customers.
In the area of timeliness, it is dearly an informal goal of staff to complete reports and arrive for
appointments in a timely fashion. Both ofthese activities will be much easier to document with
the advent of the AMANDA computer system. In terms of the reports of inspection findings, the
use of handheld computers in the field will help significantly with the timely "processing" of
inspection findings. This will help both from a management perspective, in that information will
be immediately available to other trades inspectors, and it will also be more quickly available to
the customer, in the event they aze not on site to hear the inspection repoR verbally.
Providing customers with information on the appeals process and sharing information and ideas
on appropriate "equivalencies" is central to good customer service. Council Research heard
consistently that information on appeals process is provided to the customer when change work
orders or stop work orders are given. However, there was inconsistency in that some inspectors
and trades would provide this information verbally and in letter form, while others would provide
it only in a letter. This inconsistency between staff work processes should be eliminated, with a
focus on providing the customer with appeal information in both settings. The use of the
AMANDA system and hand held computers in the field could provide a reminder in the form of
an item on one of the check-off lists. Council Research also became aware that some staff and
trades are much more likely to discuss equivalencies with contractors and property owners than
are others. The Office's approach to discussing and granting equivalencies should be consistent
across trade groups and among staff inembers. The AMANDA system has the potentiai to
monitor this and help the Office in developing a measurable standard.
As with the other work areas we examined, Inspections does little to measure the efficiency of its
operations. There was one objective in the year 2000 LIEP budget which spoke to efficiency,
which was "to maintain adequate records to demonstrate efficiencies in administration and
compliance to construction standards." Although such information is likely maintained, we saw
no use of the information which acted to demonstrate e�ciencies. The only performance
indicator in the budget related to efficiency is the number of inspections conducted, and this has
been an estimate in recent yeazs. It would be very useful to know the number of inspections by
type and trade, and time invested in them. At the very least, the average number of inspections
2a Equivalencies are altemative me[hods for accomplishing a[ask or project that mee[ [he in[ent of the Code,
althoagh they may not be specifically described in the Code. An example is the use of a piece of sheet metal
screwed [o the back of a standard wood door in order to make it a`bne-hour fire door." This accomplishes the end
of fire safety and saves the building owner money in the purchase of a new one-hour fire door.
2000 Saint Pau! Ciry Counci! Research
60 P e rf ortnance Audi[ of the Cityof Saint PauPs Building Pertni[, Plan R eview and lnspections Functions
and average times involved could be used for planning. Also, the advent of AMANDA makes
possible the tracking of activities in a way that takes into account the complexity of the task.
L[EP did this type of analysis in 1998 in preparing a proposal for the addition of a plumbing
inspector position. Clearly, they understand the importance of such information in describing
staff's workload.
LIEP
1
u
r•n
2000
❑ Our present computer system and the new one under
development will enable us to ensure that our level
of service witl continue to improve.
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construc[ion
projec[s are inspected to protect the citizens of St.
Paul.
0 To maintain adequate records to demonstrate
efficiencies in adminisUation and compliance to
construction standazds.
❑ To maintain professional s[andazds of technical
ability while being accessible by and accountable to
our cus[omers and the public.
❑ Through monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construction
projects aze inspected to protect citizens of St. Paul.
Ongoing Program Objectives:
2000 Budget L[EP Strategic Plan Statement:
Maintain quality services in light of the ever
increasing constmction levels (Tlvee record
consVUCtion yeazs in a row) with a minimum
increase in staff.
Implement the use of project facilitators to navigate
customers through the license, permit, and/or wning
processes and continue Process Redesign Initiative
to continualiy streamline procedures and eliminate
unnecessary regulations.
Integrate new ECLIPS sys[em with oiher
depar[mental systems through a single address file,
to achieve a fully seamless provision of service for
the City's customers.
Performance Indicators:
❑ 17uough monitoring of the permit volume and
valuation, we can verify that all construction
projects are inspected to pro[ect the citizens of St.
Paul,
❑ Construction value in millions
❑ Total inspections made
ZS RobeR Kessler Memo to Joe Reid, January 26, 1998.
Ongoing Pragram Objectives tor NHS/Vacant
Buildings:
❑ To maintain housing stock by returning vacant
buildings to sound structures.
❑ Inspec[ Vacant, Boarded and A6andoned
buildings for code violations, issuing permits,
and reinspecting for compliance.
❑ Maintain and improve neighborhoods by
inspecting one and two-family homes for
improvement areas and aiding owners in
prioritizing repairs within the limited funds
available.
❑ Iden[ify and work toward preserving desirable
buildings and significant s[ructures within
neighborhoods.
❑ Perform inspections and building' evaluations
for PED, East Side Neighborhood Developmen
Corpora[ioq Wes[ 7th Street Federation,
Neighborhood Housing Serv- ices Programs,
Non-Profit Corporations, or any other
organiza[ion needing these services.
Performance lodicators:
❑ Inspection to[als for original and repeat
inspec[ions
2000 Budget LIEP Operations pertormance
indicator:
❑"we have several staff involved with Na[ional
Code organiza[ions"
2000 Budget LIEP Operations Objective:
❑ Iden[ify and work toward preserving buildings
and significan[ structures within
neighbothoods.
2000 Sainl PaiJ Ciry Cmmcil Research
Perfortnance Audit of Ihe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions 6 �
The effectiveness of inspection services can be measured in a fashion similar to the eff'ectiveness
of the other services we have discussed. There are two instances in the budget where the issue of
effectiveness is engaged. First, as an ongoing objective, the LIEP budget states "through
monitoring of the permit volume and valuation, we can verify that all construction projects are
inspected to protect citizens of Saint Paul:' While inspecting ail construction projects surely
does act to protect the citizens of Saint Paul, this can not be monitored using permit volume and
valuation data. These data, together with the actuai number of permits, do give an indication of
the complexity of the work undertaken. However, it is the number of permits which most
accurately estimates the number of projects requiring ittspection. LIEP should modify its
objective accordingly.
Second, the 2000 Budget LIEP Strategic Plan Statement states as a goal to "maintain quality
services in light of the ever increasing construction levels (three record construction years in a
row) with a minimum increase in staf£" This is an excellent goal, which takes into account a
changing environment—dramatic increases in construction. However, there are no performance
indicators connected to it which demonstrate the quality of LIEP's work. Such goals can be
consUucted at several levels. At one level, they could speak to the quality of the building stock,
as we discussed earlier. 1'hey could also measure the consistent quality of inspections in spite of
increased work volume. These indicators could include the average length of inspections, and
the types of inspections findings.
On a more pedestrian level, LIEP may wish to add effectiveness performance indicators in the
following areas:
❑ Number of correction notices which need to be re-issued;
❑ Number of mistakes in the various inspection activities, which would be collected by
supervisors;
❑ The number of stop work orders and number of times work is required to be redone;
❑ The average length of time buildings are on the vacant buildings list before Certificate of
Compliance issuance or demolition; and
❑ The effectiveness of the Housing Initiative at increasing housing construction, as discussed in
the Information and Malysis chapter on pages 33 though 37. Notably, a recent article
suggests the following: "...a central city thaY had adopted a business-friendly philosophy of
enforcement could have increased both the amount and the value of single-family detached
housing by about 9% over the period 1985-1995. Commercial rehabilitation could have
increased about 4% in the number of buildings and about 5% in the value of construction,"
This research could help the Housing Initiative establish useful benchmarks to measure their
progress at meeting their program goals. However, it does indicate that progress is slow, and
research attributes improvements to enforcement philosophy, rather than fee levels.
Z6 Burby, et al, Ibid., page 152.
2000 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research
62 P erfort nanc e A of lhe Ciry of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
CONCLUSION
Overall Council Research found the quality criteria present and practiced in some parts of the
organization. LIEP is also generally in compliance with the policies that govem its activities.
Where deficiencies were found, we believe staff have the skills and interest to address them.
Notabty, staff were very helpfut in the performance audit process both in the interview process in
sharing their time and ideas, and later in responding to questions. What follows is a summary of
our findings.
Planning
LIEP did a great deal of planning during the mid-1990s to accomplish the merger of previously
separate operations that formed the Office. This planning took several forms. It addrassed the
actual co-location of these operations, necessary cross-training of counter staff, the raHonalization
of administrative procedures between the previously distinct units, and the improvement of
information support systems. Virtually no planning has taken place in recent years and L[EP
views itself to be in a"plan implementation" mode, rather than a"planning" mode. The
enormous amount of stafftime spent on implementing first ECLIPS, and then AMANDA have
also left staff with the impression there is little time for planning. It is also apparent that few
staffhave been involved in planning activities. Broader participation in plan development will
help staff become more aware of the existence of plans and give them a sense of ownership in the
plans' success. LIEP has also not been involved with the development of Comprehensive Plan
chapters affecting its work, and has not taken these plans into account in their decision-making
on individual building projects. Council Research found that planning activities in LIEP would
act to better allocate the resources of this office and prepare it for changing circumshances, such
as the record construction years recently experienced.
Leadership
Our examination found several aspects of LIEP's leadership policies and practices to be very
good. Namely, the commitment of senior leaders to provide a cleaz mission and vision for the
organization was quite apparent. This is in spite of survey results indicating a lack of vision
provided by the Mayor. Council Research noted that staff repeatedly commented on the
concerted efforts of leaders to recognize individual and team contributions. Finally, LIEP
leadership in recent years has acted to cultivate key stakeholder relationships, such as with the
advent of t6e Business Review Council. However, there is still more effort required in this area,
especially in terms of communication and inclusiveness in planning activities which should be
taking place. L[EP and the City are out of compliance with two state reporting requirements and
the requirements for a local board of appeals.
2000 Sainl Pa�d Ciry Counci! Research
Performance Audit o£the City of Saint PauPs Building Permi4 P�an Review and Inspections Functions 63
Training
Stafftraining in L[EP received the highest quality rating. LIEP clearly emphasizes training and
education for its staff, and sees its importance in the context of diminishing staff numbers. LIEP
should be lauded for its training and education efforts and co�tinue them. [n terms of improving
this area, LIEP should consider doing more cross-education of all its staff, so they may develop a
better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of their peers within the Office. LIEP
should also examine the allocation of training resources.
Development
Staff development was an area in LIEP in which Council Reseazch had a mix of good and
problematic findings. The survey indicated somewhere between one-fourth and one-fifth of staff
believe the work environment is not conducive to their well-being, that the labor management
relationship is poor, and there are few or no opportunities for them to contribute to the
organizations goals and work procedures. While it is good that three-fourths to four-fifths do not
shaze these perceptions, it is problematic that there is a fairly large core of people who rate these
azeas poorly. LIEP leadership must find a way to engage these staff and their concems. Council
Research suggests LIEP proactively involve them in planning activities, rather than waiting for
volunteers. Also, re-instituting a labor-management group of some type to identify specific
changes which would address problem areas would likely be helpful.
Information and Analysis
LIEP has been undergoing significant changes in the area of information management in recent
years. Council Research is ambivalent in many ways in its findings. While undertaking the
formidable task of automating the management of its infortnation is commendable, several
aspects of implementing ECLIPS and AMANDA could have been better handled, such as
communication with the Council on progress. There ue several types of problems we found in
this azea, some of which are attributable to LIEP directly, and other which aze more Citywide in
nature. However, these new information systems do give LIEP the ability to perform meaningfyl
analysis of its undertakings in the future. Therefore, we havc taken the unusual step of indicating
that it has the potential of significantly increasing its rating in this azea if improvements aze
made.
Improvement Practices
LIEP did not fare well in Council Research's examination of its improvement practices. These
mediocre findings are lazgely attributable to LIEP's lack of planning and evaluation activities,
and cunently poor information and analysis capabilities, which are integral components in the
improvement process. History shows the Office has an adequate basic understanding of
improvement processes, as this is demonstrated in the "quick fixes" undertaken in the mid-1990s.
2000 Sain� Paul Crty Council Research
64 Perfortn Audi[ of [tie City of Saint Paul's Building P Plan Review and In Functions
Customer Focus
The merger of separate operations into L[EP was the result of an increasing awareness—both in
City government and in the community—of the need for a more customer focused approach, The
merger also provided a means to "refocus" LIEP activities with customers in mind. Much credit
should be given to all involved for their efforts in this area. As with most organizational
initiatives, however, customer focus efforts need tending and continued refinement. There is still
a problem in the organization with the perceived conflict of providing "code enforcemenY'
service, as opposed to "customer service." These concepts need not be conflicting and LIEP
must strive to clarify their vision in this azea. Also, some new customer services are called for,
such as a dramatically improved web page.
Results
Given the recently poor quality of information used in LIEP, it is not surprising it received a poor
Results rating. LIEP needs to take time to figure out what are good performance indicators of
their work. This is a critical juncture for the Oftice to undertake this project, as ECLIPS and
AMANDA are just now capable of providing meaningful data for these measures.
Performance Indicators
The performance indicators and objectives used in the budget process in recent years have been
neglected both by LIEP and the Budget O�ce. Using performance indicators in an ongoing
cycle of planning, evaluation and improvement could significantly assist L[EP in years to come.
It will help for purposes of internal management, where there is almost no information on
workloads, activities or outcomes. Meaningful performance measures aze also key for a
government agency to remain accountable to its customers and stakeholders.
2000 Sarnf Paul City Co�mcil Research
Perfomiance Audi[ of the City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspec[ions Functions 65
APPENDIX A: RESOURCES
Council Resolutions:
❑ Council File 94-293 / acceptance of grant funds for LIEP Process Redesign
❑ Council File 94-I550 / establishment of Business Review Council
❑ Council File 97- 1214 / establishment of funding for the Design Section
❑ Council File 97-1314 / acceptance of repod on Design Section aad release of contingency funds
❑ Council File 98-588 / establishing pay rate for "City Building Official°
❑ Council File 98-609 / establishing pay rate for "Plan Review Coordinator"
❑ Council File 98-1076 / establishing pay rate for "City Building OfficiaP'
❑ Council File 98-1077 / establishing pay rate for "L[EP Help Desk Coordinator"
❑ Council File 99-287 / authorizing contract and copyright agreement with U of M Press and the HPC
❑ Council File 99-357 / no developer fee associated with any multi-unit housing project shall exceed
certain guidelines
❑ Council File 99-553 / changing portion of salary plan and rates of compensation for the Building
Inspector
❑ Council File 99-587 / directing the HPC to develop a Heritage Preservation Site and Building
Designation Workplan
❑ Council File 99-815 / approval of special one year pilot program to reduce costs and speed
approvals for new housing construction
Saint Paul City Charter and the Legislative and Administrative Code:
Chapter 5 Permit Fees
Chapter 18 Legislative Hearing Officer
Chapter 19 Power of Inspectors to Enforce Provisions of Code
Chapter 33 Building Code and Inspection
Chapter 34 Minimum Property Maintenance Standards for All Structures and Premises
Chapter 37 Installation or Connection of Gas Equipment
Chapter 38 Elevators, Hoists, Lifts and Moving Stairways
Chapter 43 Vacant Buildings
Chapter 48 Condominium and Conversion Condominium Notice Filing Requirements
Chapter 50 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems
Chapter 60 Zoning Code-Adoption; Purpose; Definition; Districts Uses and Requirements
Chapter 61 Zoning Ordinance-Schedule of Regulations Limiting Heights, Bulk, Density, and
Area by Zoning Districts
Chapter 62 Zoning Code - General Provisions
Chapter 64 Zoning Code - Administration and Enforcement; Amendments; Miscellaneous
Provisions
Chapter 65 Zoning Code - River Corridor
Chapter 66 Zoning Code - Signs
Chapter 67 Zoning - Subdivision Regulations
Chapter 68 Zoning Code - Wetland Conservation
Chapter 72 Floodplain Management Regulations
Chapter 73 Heritage Preservation Commission
Chapter 74 Heritage Preservation Districts and Programs
Chapter 76 Sewers and Drains
Chapter 92 Water Code-Plumbing
2000 Sainf Paul City Cormci! Research
66 Perfortnance Audit of [he City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Plan Review and InspeCtions Func[ions
Chapter 95 Water Code-General Provisions
Chapter 310 Uniform License Procedures
Chapter 326 Building Contractors
Chapter 368 Wrecking of Buildings
Chapter 369 Building Trades Business Licenses
Chapter 370 Building Trades CeRificates of Competency
Chapter A-6 Service Availability Charges
Budget Documents
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 2000 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1999 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1999 Adopted Budget
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection 1998 Adopted Budget
Books / Miscellaneous Documents
The Urban Institute (1980). Performance Measures: A Guide for Local Elected O�cials,
Washington D.C., The Urban Institute.
Raymond J. Burby, Peter J. May, Emil E. Malizia, and Joyce Levine, Building Code
Enforcement Burdens and Centra! Ciry Decline. Joumal of the American Plannine
Association, Vol. 66, No.2, Spring 2000.
Bryson, John (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organization. Jossey-Bass.
2000 Criteria for Performance Excellence, Baldrige National Quality Program.
City of Saint PauPs Comprehensive Plan / Land Use and Housing Chapters
2000 Sainf Po�d Ciry Counci( Research
Pert'orcnsnce Audit oPthe City of Saint Paul's Building Pertni4 P�� Review and [nspections Functions 67
APPENDIX B: LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Recommendations
Recommendation # l: PED shoutd perform, in conjunction with LIEP, a thorough analysis of the
current Zoning Code. In order to be in compliance with current City Code, this should be done every
five years. The analysis should consider the Code's compatibilities with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and other development priorities, and the Code should be modifted accordingly.
Recommendation # 2: Both PED and LIEP need to take more responsibiliJy for including LIEP in the
development processes for the City's Comprehensive Plan. By taking responsibility for development,
LIEP will feel more responsible for the objectives of the Plan, and will incorporate the Comprehensive
Plan into its own internal plans and practices.
LIEP's involvement in the planning and implementation processes of the Cidy's comprehensive plans will
enable it to make more recommended changes to the zoning code, so that the code and the p[ans are
compatible and mutually enforceable. In cases where the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan are
not compatible, LIEP should consider granting variances, equivalencies, or bringing the problem the to
Business Review Council for further review and recommendations.
Recommendatinn # 3: LIEP should incorporate objectives of the Comprehensive Plans into its plans for
its own operations. By doing so, LIEP will ensure it considers future changes and remains flexible and
uses opportunities to ensure the building stock of the City is solid, safe and contributes to the vitality of
the Ciry.
Recommendaiion # 4: LIEP shauld resume proactive planning, including assessing the current
landscape and future economic, social, human resources, political, and technical impacts on LLEP's
work.
a LIEP must understand the co»»ection between ptanning and resource allocation to prevent
situations such as the one curre»t!y occurring with staff being overworked, resulting in a highly
stressful work environment because technological, economic, and human resource changes were
not comprehensively planned. Closer monitoring of outside influences will assist in projecting
changes in workload and resources, such as those resultingfrom increased construction in
recentyears.
❑ Outcome measurement must be incorporated into future planning. LIEP must look at the results
of past planning efforts for lessons learned and areas to continue to work on. They must also
Jook at results ofpast quickfrxes to determine effectiveness and remaining issues to be reso[ved
resulting from the changes.
❑ LIEP should involve other stakeholders, such as the City Attorney's O�ce, Planning and
Economic Development and Public Works in planning process to incorporate the requirements
of other departments and devetop an understanding as to how the work of LIEP affects other
departments.
Recomme»dation # 5: LIEP should involve staff in defining organizational goals and offer ways for staff
to contribute to them. LIEP needs to find ways to include less-involved staff in decision-making and
make them more aware of planning and improvements taking place in the o�ce and how they can
contribute. LIEP shoutd not wait for them to approach management, as history shows <hey will not.
2000 Sa(nf Pa�d Ciry Co�mcil Research
68 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Pertni�, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Leadership Recommendations
Recommendation # 6: At a minimum, communication between LIEP and the State Fire Marsha! needs to
be improved so they can insure that inspections, installations, and removal of fuel storage tanks are
occurring. !n order to ensure compliance the approval should come from the Ciry, rather than from the
state, leaving all responsibiliry at the Ciry level. LIEP should work with the State Fire Marshal to
determine procedural and legislative changes required to bring this about.
Recommendation # 7: LIEP and Saint Paul Regional Water Services need to clarify their roles relating
to the plumbing code. �4s the Building O�cial has ultimate responsibility for enforcing Jhe plumbing
code, perhaps LIEP should conduct the inspectiotts currently performed by Regional Water. This may
lead to enhanced e�ciency for both entities.
Recommendation # 8: LIEP should market its service ofproviding building evaluations to communiry
deve[opment corparations. This valuable tool would enhance the relationship behveen CDCs and the
City and ensure that rehabilitations address building code problems appropriately.
Recommendation # 9: LIEP attd the Design Cettter should clar� their respective roles and level of
authoriry and clear[y explain them to permit applicants.
Recommendation # l0: LIEP and the City Attorney's O�ce need to clarify whether the City is in
compliance with state law regarding appeals of decisions of the building code o�cial.
Recommendation # 11: LIEP and PED should take leadership in developing a quarterly
interdepartmental meeting for all staff who work with small businesses.
Recommendation # 12: LIEP should meet with Code Enforcement and other appropriate Ciry agencies
to discuss and f:nd solutions to the issue of long-term incomplete projects in the Ciry's neighborhoods.
Recommendation # 13: LIEP needs to come into, and remain in, compliance with state reporting
requirements for both its building code and heritage preservation activities.
Recommendation # 14: LIEP should provide the City Council at regularly scheduled intervals, a
complete explanation of the current automation situation including funding, hours spent on the project,
timeline and reasons for the lengthened timeline.
Recommendation # IS: LIEP should evaluate its mission statement to ensure it answers the following
questions:
❑ Who are we? What distinguishes LIEP from oJher Ciry departments?
❑ What do we do?
❑ For whom do we do it?
❑ Why do we do it?
Recommendation # 16: LIEP should identify objectives to put the mission statement into action and also
ident� specific objectives for each area of LIEP. This will enhance employee understanding of how
their particular respansibilities help meet those objectives and thus fulfill the mission. Frnally, LIEP
should ident� specific organiaational values under which all employees operate and exemplify them at
all levels of the arganization.
2000 Sainl Paul C!ty Connci! Research
PerPurmance Audit of lhe City of Saint Paul's Building Permit, Pian Review and Inspections Functions 69
Training Recommendations
Recommendation # 17: LIEP should reassess where resources are allocated for training to determine if
some staff have less access to training Chan others, and whether this is appropriate. LIEP should also
determine if, and how, the training is affecting work[oad allocation.
Recommendation # 18: LIEP needs to encourage all staff in a!! work areas to pursue relevant training
and provide the resources whenever possib[e.
Recnmmendation # 19: More cross-education of all LIEP functions would be valuable. Staff tettd to
have limited know(edge of the functions of work areas beyond their own. Having a good working
knowledge of the other functional areas will assist sta,ff in answering customer questions and
coordinating efforts !o prevent problems.
Development Recommendations
Recommendati�n # 20: LIEP should follow through on its commitment to open communication behveen
staff and management axd discuss together issues related to morale and other workplace concerns. This
could involve increased management attendance at work-group or team meetings, as well as more
proactive involvement of staff not traditionally involved in organization-wide discussions.
Recommendation # 21: LIEP should reconvene a labor-management group to actively pursue issues of
mutual concern. Clear guidelines and e.rpectarions should be established so meetings are a place for
cooperation, not confronJation and complaining. Leaders should emphasize this is a non-grievance
discussion forum. The leaders of the group will also need to engage the problems encountered by the
first labor-management group, such as too many partieipants — The last group had two representatives
from each bargaining unit in LIEP which may have made the group too aenwieldy and ineffective.
Recommendation # 22: LIEP should address work environment iseues. The proposed Labor-
Management Committee should discuss both the factors negatively impacting the environment and whar
specific steps can be taken to decrease the stress level experienced by many staff.' Additionally, this
group could e.ramine what specifically could be done to make LIEP a more supportive work environment
for those who feel it is not currently supportive.
Information and Analysis Recommendations
Recommendation # 23: The City of Saint Paul should provide the financial resources to allow for the
purchase of an economical software package that would interface between the GIS system and
AMANDA. This would allow broad access to GIS for all departments uti[izing the AMANDA system and
enhance the abiliry to coordinate activities and information behveen various departments.
Recommenda[ion # 24: Not only must LIE'P wark to implemerrt hand-held computers as soon as
possible due to their usefulness, LIEP must also train its inspectors to integrate the hand-held computers
inio their work practices. Inspectors must make it a practice to load all inspections comments into the
database so other inspectors have the same information. Inspectors should also begin the practice of
looking up information to ensure they are providing permittees with aeea�rate information.
2000 Sain! PoeJ City Council Research
70 Perfortnance Audit of the City of Saint PauPs Building Permit, Plan Review and Inspections Functions
Recommendation # 25: LIEP should clearly identify the information gathering potentia( of fhe new
computer systems and the usefulness of the data. (See previous box for suggestion). Data collected and
analyzed should be related to the mission and objectives of the organization.
Recommendation # 26: LIEP should analyze the effectiveness of the computer systems. One method to
analyze the effectiveness would be to follow-up with staff based on survey responses indicating the
systems are not useful. LIEP should encourage and gather input on the systems and respond to the
input, even if it is not possible to immediately address all concerns or suggestions.
Improvement Practices Recommendations
Recommendation # 27: LIEP should involve itself in a complete improvement practices process that
includes planning, implementation and evaluation of its improvements.
Recommendation # 28: LIEP needs to use data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of its improvement
practices. So far, they have little documentation to substantiate claims of improvement other than
anecdotal evidence.
Recommendation # 29: It is apparent that LIEP has few formalized and widely understood goals.
Therefore, LIEP staff should be involved in defining improvement practices, setting goals and evaluating
activities. (Goal setting is discussed in the planning, leadership and results qualiry sections).
Improvement practices should link activities to goals and objectives. They should also help
organizations achieve their goals and objectives.
Customer Focus Recommendations
Recommendation # 30: Develop marketing strategies for promoting the express permits, the
preliminary plan review process, pre paid permit accounts, parking reimbursement and any other
customer focused practices.
Recommendation # 31: LIEP is one of the City agencies which has the most direct contact with
residents and businesses seeking ittformation, and stands to benefit greatly from having as much
information as possible on its web page. Completion of the web site should be a high priority for LIEP,
particularly in light of the goal to have it completed by the end of 1996. Information that should be
available to customers on-line includes:
❑ permit applications and permit status information;
❑ inspections results;
❑ general building code and zoning information, similar to the paper handouts available;
❑ information on special programs and projects, such as the Housing Initiative;
❑ a Frequently-Asked-Questions (FAQ� page; and
❑ an "ask-the-inspector" page in which visitors could post general questions to trade inspectors.
Recommendation # 32: LIEP should develop a policy requiring trade inspectors to wear an
identif:cation badge at all times while performing inspections.
Recommendation # 33: LIEP should develop a policy for granting equivalencies which is known and
used by alJ inspectors in an e, fJ"ort to make the practice fair, consistent and usefu[. The Ciry Attorney
1000 Saint Paul City Ca�mci! Research
Performance Audit of [he City of Sain[ Paul's Build�ng Permit, Plan Re�iew and Inspections Functiuns
il
should be involved in developing this policy to ensure it is legally sound. The development of these
policies will enhance LIEP's image in the City.
Recommendation # 34: LlEP should work to change the attitude of its inspectors wha be(ieve that
contractors and properry owners are hying to hide something from them. They should immediately
cease threatening property owners with retaliation, which is contrary to LIEP poiicy, but is reported to
happen from time to Jime.
Recommendation # 35: LIEP should develop a process for leaving information with both property
owners and contracJors upon final inspections, particularly when changes are sdill required before the
permit can be closed.
Recommendation # 36: LIEP should look at the practices of building inspections departments in other
cities for possible customers service improvements. One suggestion would be maintaining evening hours
one or two nights a week to make it easier for homeawners who work during the day to apply for
permits, such as is the practice in San Diego.
Recommendation # 37: LIEP should consider otNer options besides an annual or biennial survey for
monitoring customer needs and satisfaction. Some suggestions inctude survey cards issued with the
Certificate of Occupancy or when a permit is closed. Another option is to focus on evaluating one
activity per month. For e.rample, give surveys to everyone who applies for a permit in February, in
March give surveys to everyone who has a site plan review, and in August to everyone who receives an
inspection. This way, not all sections are burdened with conducting a survey at the same time. If
another, organization-wide survey is desired, LIBP should consider consulting with organizations which
have been successful in reaching a high response rate from their customers.
Recommendation # 38: LISP should formalize customer service standards, such as plan review's three
day turn-around for basic plan reviews. This would help all staff understand the customer service
standards and how their work contribufes to the goals set by the organization.
Recommendation # 39: LIEP should provide more customer service trainingfor inspectors to help them
understand how they can provide good customer service and good code enforcement.
Recommendation # 40: Develop an idea/complaint/compliment line and/or e-maiJ address that would
allow customers to directly communicate with LIEP at their own convenience and at any time, rather
than just through the annual customer survey.
Results Recommendation
Recommendation # 41: LIEP needs to develop a meaningful performance indicators system for
determining how weli they are meeting the organizatio»'s goals. This process needs to overtly take into
account issues which may not be "measurable, " but which also need to be documented and reported
over time. The deveJopment process should also be inclusive and incorporate staff ideas. A performance
measurement system should function not only to give feedback to managers and policy makers, but also
to stafJ`'who rely on it to provide them regular feedback on individual activities. All of the organization's
stakeholders have an interest in knowing how well the organization is meeting its goals. Examples of
specific measures are outlined in the nert chapter. Additionally, the Mayor's O�ce should much more
pctively monitor performance indicators used in the budget and assist the Ciry's departments in
developing more meaning/ul indicators.
1000 Sain! Po�J Ciry Coimcil Res¢arch
__.. -
_ _
��-ya�
Performance Audit of
The City of Saint Paul's
Building Permit,
Plan Review &
Inspections Functions
Council Research Report
May 2000
Research Methods
• 67 Surveys Analyzed
• 92% return rate
• 35 Interviews Conducted
� Majority were LIEP Staff
• Some key stakeholders
Ratings
• Policy Compliance
+ substantially in compliance with policies
— not in compliance with poGcies
• Quality Assessment
s� criteria sometimes present, occasionaily
stst criteria present and practiced to some e�
sKcst criteria well-developed and practiced
ttstsf�c criteria fuliy developed and practiced
Key Concepts
• City Plan Policy Consistency
• Plan Quality Concepts
• Internal Plans
■ Plan Development
• Plan Dissemination and Implementation
Planning
Findings
• LIEP's Intemal Planning in Mid-1990's
was Very Good
• Business Redesign Project
� 1996 Strategic Plan
Planning
Findings
• Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan
■ LIEP was not involved in development
• Not LIEP's practice to consult Comp Plan
when reviewing building plans
• Little / No Planning Recently
Oe - �l`l�
Planning
Recommendations
• Revisit Past Organizational Plans with
Broad Staff Participation and
Dissemination
• Play a Stronger Role in Comp Plan
Development
• Incorporate Comp Plan into Decision-
Leadership
Key Concepts
Compliance with Leadership-Related
Policies
Leadership Quality Concepts
• Mission, �sion, Values
■ Stakeholder Relationships
• Staff Recognition
Leadership
Findings
• Good Stakeholder Relationships
• Clarification needed in some stakeholder
reiationships
• Some policy misalignment
. Saint Paul Re9ional WaterServices
. State Fire Marshal
� Design Center
. PED QuarteAy Small Business Mee6ng
� Cotle Enforcement
Leadership
Findings
• Clear Mission and vsion
• No Clear Objectives Linked to Mission
• Good Staff Recognition
Leadership
Recommendations
Link Organizational Objectives to Mission
and �sion
• Establish Useful Performance Measures
Leadership
Recommendations
• Clarify Stakeholder Relationships and
Mutual Responsibilities
• Link Organizational Objectives to Mission
and �sion
■ See Results and Pertormance Measures
Training
Key Concepts
• Training and Education Resource
AUocation
Employer Commitment
po _ `�`t�
Training
Findngs
Significant Resources Invested
LIEP Handbook is a Good Tool
Yearly Updated Employee Educationai
Plan
Counter Staff Cross - Trained
Training
Recommendations
• Review Allocation of Training Resources
Across Staff Groups
Emphasize More Cross-Education
Devetopment
Key Concepts
• Staff Development Policy Compliance
• Staff Development Quality Concepts
■ Empioyee Contribuiion
. Work Environment
• 4abor-Management Relationship
• Employee Eva{uation
Development
Findings
Unfulfilled 1996 Sfrategic Plan Objective
to Address Employee Morale
Labor-Management Group Inactive
Work Environment Good Overall, But...
• Up to 1!3 of staff say work environmenf is F
■ Similar proportioa (1/4) feel labor-managen
Development
Findings
■ Over Y: of staff feel "fevl' to "no opportunities"
to contribute to organizational decisions or
goals
■ Negativity evenly spread across all work units
and tenure levels
Development
Recommenda6ons
Engage Disaffected Staff and Discuss
Their Concems
Reinstitute Labor-Management
Committee Incorporating Lessons of Past
• 90% of Staff Feel Work Environment is
Supportive of Staff in Protected Classes
� z� - `lQ�
Information 8� Analysis
Key Concepts
• Data Gathering & Analysis Policy
Comptiance
Info & Analysis Quality Concepts
• Data Colleetion
• Analysis of Data
■ Effective Use of Information Systems
Information & Analysis
Findings
ECLIPS & AMANDA Systems Operational
as of Aprii 2000
� Software provider contract changes poorly
communicated
• Hand-hetd field computers criticaf for trades
inspectors
• Little data available during transition periods
■ Petforma�ce Measures need to be developed
Information & Analysis
Recommendations
Relate Data Collection & Analysis to
& Objectives
LIEP Has Potential to Dramatically
Improve Info & Analysis Assessment if
Recommendations Pursued
Make Handheld Field Computers Top
Priority for Trade Inspectors
improvement Practices
Key Concepis
Improvement Practices Policy
Improvement Practices Quality Concepts
� Identification of Potential Improvements
� Implementation of Improvements
• Evaluation of Improvement Efforts
Improvement Practices
Ratings
• Policy Compliance +
Quality t�'/=
Improvment Practices
Findings
LIEP Strives to Incorporate Improvements
Regularly
• '119 Targets for Redesign
� Project Facilitator
� ECLIPS &AMANDA
LIEP Doesn't Gather Info On or Evaluate
Improvement Efforts
tmprovement Practices
Recommendations
LIEP Should Gather Info On and Eval�
Improvement Efforts
• Continue, change, or cease improvement
efforts based on these evaluations
• Improvement Practices Should Link
Activities to Goals and Objectives
t) a - `�`��a
Customer Focus
Key Concepts
• Customer Service Policy Compliance
� Customer Focus Quality Concepts
• Customer ident�cation and knowledge
• Managing customer relationships
■ Customer service practices
• Customer service standards
Customer Focus
Findings
LIEP Understands Who its Customers Are
LIEP hasn't surveyed customers recently
Number of Practices Benefit Customers
Ineffective Marketing of Practices
Poor Web Site Development and Use
Customer Focus
Findings
• Housing Initiative Pooriy Communicated
Initially
• Appeals Process Inconsistently
Communicated
Customer Focus
Recommendations
Clarify Customer Service Philosophy
• Clarify policies relating to granting
equivalencies
• Develop Web Site and Market Services
• Express permits
• Preliminary plan review
• Parking reimbursement
Results
Key Concepts
Results Policy Compliance
• Results Qua�ity Concepts
• Organizational Outcomes
■ Financial Outcomes
• Customer Satisfaction
• Use of Performance Indicatore
Results
Findings
Throughout City, Reduced Emphasis on
Organizational Outcomes in Recent Ye�
• LIEP Has Few Pertormance Indicators
• Use the few availabie to determine whether
goals are met
LIEP is Poised to Develop a Meaningful
Pertormance Measurement System
oa -`�`��
Resuits
Recommendations
• LIEP Needs to Develop a Meaningful
Performance Indicators System to
Determine How Weil They are Meeting
Organizational Goals
Performance Measures
• Customer Service
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
Performance Measures
• Necessary for Accountability to Elected
Officials and the General Public
• Used to Gauge Progress on Achieving
Organizational Goals
Performance Measures
• Timeliness
• Helpfuiness
• Accuracy
• Cost: Staff and Capital
• Qualitv