The primary audit objectives were to review DDES’s permit approval process for residential building permits, the timeliness of permit processing, and the significance of any issuance delays and permits backlogs. DDES’s responsiveness to formal public disclosure requests was also evaluated.

The general audit conclusion was that DDES’s average processing timeframes for residential permits frequently exceeded the code-established timelines in 1998 and 1999 due to high workload volumes, staffing practices, and budgetary constraints on staffing to peak workload. In addition, DDES’s lengthy waiting times for permit appointments increased its permit processing times and effectively restricted the volume of new permit applications accepted. However, the audit found that DDES was highly responsive to formal public disclosure requests as well as informal information requests.

Finding 2-2.  DDES’s Lengthy Waiting Times for Permit Appointments Increased Its Permit Processing Times and Effectively Restricted the Volume of New Permit Applications.

Permit applicants, a primary DDES customer group, are concerned with service efficiency, which is generally associated with the timeliness of permit processing. Environmentalists, other property owners, and community representatives are concerned with service quality or effectiveness, which is generally associated with the thoroughness of environmental and building plan reviews. However, service efficiency decreases as more complex land use and building construction policies are adopted to protect environmental and property owners’ interests. New policies also impact development expenses as additional revenues are required to staff and coordinate extensive permit reviews.

An important objective of this audit was to identify the DDES permit backlog. DDES’s definition of a backlog is permit work "in-shop" for which DDES does not have sufficient staffing resources to process within the code-mandated timeframes. DDES management recognizes that backlogs and logjams (delayed reviews at specific permit routing stations) occurred during 1998 and 1999, due, in part, to the DDES’s staffing models, which are based on the total volume of work projected for the entire year. The annual staffing forecasts do not account for the peak volumes that occurred during the spring and summer months.

While DDES increased the total FTEs required to process permits in the 1999 budget and again later in 1999, sufficient resources were not available to process the total backlogged or log-jammed permits. This was important given that customer service and public perception improvements were one of the DDES Director’s primary goal in 1999, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to improve customer service and public perception without addressing the both service efficiency and effectiveness issues.

County Financial Policies Rather Than Customer Service Goals Were the Driver of DDES’s Operations
The most influential factor in determining the efficiency and quality of DDES’s permit function in 1999 was the available fee-generated revenues rather than customer service goals or applicant demand. The county’s financial policies, which focus on retiring the long-term DDES debt and stabilizing the DDES fund, were not adequate to fund sufficient staff to process the 1998 and 1999 workload volumes. Unfortunately, precise information was not available on the staffing shortfall. The seriousness of the staffing shortfall, however, was reflected in the increased volume of work in-shop at the end of 1998 and 1999, data documenting consistent and lengthy delays at some routing stations, and the lengthy waiting times for permit application appointments throughout 1999. DDES’s applicant’s frustration with processing delays was confirmed by focus groups during a 1998 DDES Building Services Division reengineering process, and a total of 18 process improvements, 17 organizational efficiency improvements, and 20 customer service improvements were developed by DDES to address significant issues.

However, the newly implemented improvements will not address the systemic issues associated with insufficient resources, including staffing resources, to operate DDES services at a level that is consistent with applicant demand. A concerted effort will be required to balance DDES financial and customer service policies to identify the level of sustainable service that can be achieved within DDES’s fee-generated resources.

The audit recommended that DDES management continue to clarify for county officials, staff and applicants the level of customer service that can be sustained with DDES fees and revenues so that service expectations are consistent with its operations. If the level of service is not acceptable to county decision makers, more DDES resources should be allocated to direct customer services and less to indirect activities.

Finding 2-4.  DDES Provided Timely Responses to 92 Percent of Formal Public Disclosure Requests; However, Only 54 Percent of Survey Respondents Were Generally Satisfied With DDES’s Response. Some Survey Respondents Were Highly Complimentary of DDES’s Record Section Performance.

An audit survey was conducted on formal public disclosure requests to determine the public’s perception of the timeliness and completeness of DDES’s responses to requests. Ninety-two (92) percent of the survey respondents indicated that DDES responded to their requests within five business days, or sent a letter acknowledging their request and the date that the information would be provided. Fifty-four (54) percent of the survey respondents were also generally satisfied with DDES’s responsiveness to their public disclosure request, but 38 percent of the respondents indicated that the information provided was incomplete and that they were dissatisfied by DDES’s response.

Formal public disclosure requests represent a small percentage of DDES’s information requests. The DDES Records Sections in the Building and Land Use Services Divisions receive numerous informal information and records requests from the public, such as requests for as-built drawings, plat maps, and drainage system plans. Although survey input was not solicited on informal requests, three survey respondents were highly complimentary of DDES’s timely response and the courteous assistance provided by the Building and Land Use Record Sections’ personnel.

The audit recommended that DDES ensure that information provided in response to formal disclosure requests is complete, or inform individuals that more information will be forthcoming if some relevant information is not immediately available.