City of Cornwall Building Services
Operational Review/Audit
Council Presentation Re. Final Report
& Recommendations
February 22nd 2010
Rethinking the Business of Government
Agenda for Tonight
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Operational Review Methodology
Overall Performance Commentary
Submitted Report – Findings
Submitted Report – Recommendations
Council Q&A
Operational Review
Methodology
What We Did
Activities Delivered

Numerous structured staff interviews &
working sessions








Director
CBO
Plans Examiners
Inspectors
Counter & admin staff
Planning staff (e.g. Site Plan/Zoning Officer)
Engineering staff (i.e. Grading & Circulation
issues)
Finance
Activities Delivered




Review & analysis of City reports, process
maps, customer service documents etc.
Review of information management tools &
existing performance measurement capacity
Review of financial performance; fee
structures, cost recovery, reserve fund
strategy
Process & business model benchmarking
against industry standards & practices
Activities Delivered

Performance review of a “rainbow”
sample of permit application files
selected by our team from 2007-09




Permit decision turnaround times versus
Provincial standards (evidence based)
File documentation completeness
Approximately 45 files
See report appendix re. results
Activities Delivered

Building industry consultation session




Heavily attended & professional vibe
Resulted in a genuine “Go forward” window of
opportunity to generate significant performance
improvement & dialogue
Balanced feedback noting the need for
improved system performance & accountability
by applicants & City
Design support to Chamber of
Commerce on members questionnaire
Activities Delivered

Performance review of a “targeted”
sample of larger/complex permit
application files selected by our team




Permit decision turnaround times versus
Provincial standards (evidence based)
File documentation completeness
Approximately 10 files
See report appendix re. results
Performance Assessment
Criteria
Business Process Execution
1.






Legislated turnaround times for permit decision?
Legislated turnaround times for inspections?
Turnaround times for incomplete files once they
become complete?
Application intake/screening at counter?
Development process overlap (Planning versus
Building) where it makes sense?
Ping pong avoidance re. application deficiencies?
Performance Assessment
Criteria
2.
Adequacy of Resources & Tools




IT tools delivering maximum productivity &
performance dividend?
Capacity to measure results, set targets & react
to performance data in timely fashion?
Staffing gaps that escalate performance or
compliance risk?
Organization design risks to turnaround times &
public safety Code compliance?
Performance Assessment
Criteria
Culture & Communication
3.



Clear mutually agreed upon application
requirements & technical support by City to
maximize complete application intake rate?
Code compliant culture developed in “repeat
applicant” community & subsequently rewarded
by City?
Emphasis on ongoing dialogue to foster mutually
beneficial outcomes?
Performance Assessment
Criteria
Financial Sustainability
4.





Appropriate degree of user pay cost recovery?
Industry standard fee design?
Industry standard reserve fund design?
Financial model maintained/updated to prevent
revenue leakage & unintended property tax
subsidies?
Peer appropriate re. economic development
“competitiveness” perspective?
Overall Performance
Commentary
Overall Performance Commentary:
Cornwall Building Dept.

Qualified & diligent staff team




Strong OBCA knowledge
Strong commitment to enforce Provincially
legislated public safety mandate
Well documented “traditional” organization
structure that is competently executing well
documented business processes
Largely compliant with Provincially legislated
application & inspection turnaround time
requirements
Overall Performance Commentary:
Cornwall Building Community




Wide ranging degree of understanding &
sophistication re. OBCA & Code
Members increasingly acknowledge importance of
professional 2-way dialogue & open lines of
communication with City
Have provided positive/valid ideas re. customer
service & process improvement
Seem willing to move forward to resolve issues growing recognition that the Building department is
enforcing Provincial law
City of Cornwall Building Services
Operational Review/Audit
Final Report
& Recommendations
December 14th , 2009
Rethinking the Business of Government
1. Introduction to
Building Department Review
Objectives, Methodology & Overall
Performance Assessment
Objectives of Building Department Operational
Review/Performance Audit
The 2009 operational review/performance audit of the Cornwall Building department was designed & executed by Performance
Concepts Consulting to achieve the following objectives:
Provide a current service delivery and compliance performance “snapshot” of the Building department concerning Ontario
Building Code Act (OBCA) core functions such as building permit application intake, plans examination, permit issuance
decision and construction inspections

Investigate and identify potential continuous improvement opportunities concerning Building department policies, practices
and service delivery processes

Assess both the Building department and construction community’s capacity to jointly deliver a high quality service within a
framework of rigorous legislative compliance

Assess the cost recovery health & sustainability of the City’s current Building department financial framework (i.e. Building
by-law fee schedule and reserve fund)

Identify & mitigate major sources of legislative compliance risk & process performance risk such as mandatory permit
decision turnaround times, inspection notification turnaround times, and staffing continuity

Assess the quality of the Building department’s relationships with Council (governance), other City business units & key
construction industry stakeholders


Advise on implementation approaches & timeframes concerning recommended performance improvement opportunities
Methodology to Execute Building Department
Operational Review/Performance Audit
The 2009 operational review/performance audit of the Cornwall Building department was executed according to the following
methodology:
Overall project management and priority-setting via a Steering Committee composed of the senior City staff, a member of
City Council, and two construction industry representatives

Consulting team third party review of all available Building department performance reporting data, financial data,
operational process maps, organization charts, policy documents, Council reports & by-laws

A comprehensive set of facilitated staff interviews involving frontline and management staff from multiple City departments
as well as Steering Committee members

A facilitated brainstorming and improvement evening workshop with 50+ organizations/members of the Cornwall
construction industry as well as out-of-town design firms

Two distinct and detailed file audits of 40+ residential and 10 complex commercial application files to identify process
improvement & application submission improvement opportunities

Peer jurisdiction benchmarking of processes, practices and financial framework design – in order to identify industry
standards and best practices


Preparation of draft findings/recommendations that are “stress tested” with Steering Committee

Preparation & presentation of final report including recommendations & associated implementation timeframes
Overarching Assessment of Building Department
Performance
The completed comprehensive operational review of the Cornwall Building department has revealed the following overarching
performance realities:
The Chief Building Official and his staff are technically competent and knowledgeable concerning the OBCA/Code, and
dedicated to impartial and professional enforcement in order to safeguard the public interest. The CBO and staff display an
excellent understanding of the public safety liability issues – for both the City and themselves - associated with exercising the
statutory authority delegated to them as officers of the Province.

The Building department is meeting the legislated OBCA permit decision turnaround time standards for the vast majority of
permit applications. The Building department’s “same or next day” construction inspection turnaround time performance is
actually superior to the legislated OBCA standard.

Building department administrative processes, file documentation and Code compliance policies/practices are appropriately
and consistently executed. While the processes lack IT automation, files are complete and up-to-date.

Professional relationships with Council & the construction industry are strained and occasionally adversarial. This tension
has generated a sometimes defensive, inflexible approach by Building staff to applicant relationships and code compliance.
All three parties – Building staff, Council and the construction/design industry - will need to commit to a more open,
transparent and dialogue driven business model in order to improve efficiency without compromising compliance. All parties
need to realize that the broader public and future building owners, not just current permit applicants, are clients who merit a
safe/compliant building stock.

Significant performance improvement opportunities have been identified via business aspects as diverse as operational
process re-engineering, financial management and cost recovery, information management systems, stakeholder relations
and performance reporting/accountability.

2. Towards a Sustainable Building
Department Financial Framework
Improving Cost Recovery & Eliminating Local
Taxpayer Subsidies to Permit Applicants
Province-wide Financial Trends Re. Building
Departments
Since passage of Bill 124 amendments to the OBCA in 2006, a significant majority of Ontario’s mid-size and large municipalities have
systematically restructured their Building department financial model into a more sustainable “enterprise” model. The “enterprise”
model restructuring undertaken by these municipalities has been characterized by the following:
A 3rd party driven fees rationalization review culminating in the production of a computerized full-cost fees calculation
model.

OBCA fee schedule adjustments that ensure 100% recovery of direct operating costs and indirect support costs from
Council and corporate departments associated with OBCA functions. The fee schedule is typically based on square footage of
constructed structures in the various fee categories.

Creation of an OBCA compliant reserve fund. The uses/rationale for the reserve fund, its target balance, and the rate of
accumulation to achieve the target balance are clearly documented and modeled.

Communication of fee review results, and discussion re. the timing of fee schedule adjustments with the municipality’s
development/construction community.

Cornwall has not yet implemented the municipal “industry standard” enterprise model for Building services now in place in a significant
majority of Ontario municipalities with a population > 40,000 residents.
In many municipalities, Planning application fees have been included with Building fees in an overall rationalization of development
approval fees.
Building Cornwall’s Sustainable “Cost Recovery”
Financial Framework
Observations & Findings
Cornwall currently displays a relatively weak level of user pay cost
recovery versus the evolving industry standard of “full cost”
OBCA fees now in place across the Province.
Annual financial reporting by the Chief Building Official (CBO)
between 2007-09 reveals the existence of an ongoing annual
property tax subsidy of approximately $150,000-$200,000 paid
by existing residents & businesses to new development
applicants. This property tax subsidy is not available to provide
services to City taxpayers. It could potentially be re-directed to
other Council priorities.
Most Ontario municipalities with populations > 40,000 residents
have executed a full cost OBCA fees study to eliminate property
tax subsidies & migrate to a full cost recovery “enterprise”
financial model.
Recommendation
Recommendation 1
Council should endorse the objective of a timely
migration to a “full cost” OBCA fee schedule no later than
2011. The full cost fee schedule will recover 100% of the
City’s indirect & direct operating costs and eliminates the
existing $150,000-$200,00 historic property tax subsidy
delivered to building permit recipients – both residential
and commercial/industrial. The new fee schedule will also
fund a 5 year accumulation strategy to achieve an
empirically modeled OBCA reserve fund target balance.
Council should also endorse the objective of a timely,
phased migration to “full cost” Planning Act application
fees commencing in 2011.
Building Cornwall’s Sustainable “Cost Recovery”
Financial Framework
Observations & Findings
Recommendation
Cornwall’s current Building by-law fee structure features a
denominator based on the estimated “construction value”
associated with a building permit application. The Cornwall
“construction value” approach suffers from technical problems
common to other municipalities (most have since moved to a
square footage based fee) – for small projects the construction
values that drive the fee calculation are actually reported by each
individual applicant. This results in inconsistency of approach
and is vulnerable to “gaming” the fee to minimal levels. For larger
projects the fee schedule of construction value calculations are
aging (2005) and require updating.
Recommendation 2
A significant majority of Ontario municipalities with populations >
40,000 residents have opted for a fee structure denominator
based on square footage of proposed new structures – thereby
avoiding the technical problems associated with Cornwall’s
current fee structure.
The comprehensive fee review exercise should be
conducted by an impartial 3rd party or firm with
demonstrated expertise - and should feature extensive
construction industry consultation concerning its design
& implementation.
The Treasurer & CBO should be directed to execute a
comprehensive OBCA fees review during 2010 to achieve
a full cost fee schedule as noted in Recommendation 1.
The comprehensive fee review exercise should result in
the creation of a “full cost” fee calculation computer
model, and an OBCA compliant fee schedule based on the
permit structure’s square footage.
The review should be funded from the City’s OBCA
reserve fund.
Building Cornwall’s Sustainable “Cost Recovery”
Financial Framework
Observations & Findings
The accumulated balance in Cornwall’s OBCA reserve fund is
forecast to reach $500,000+ by the end of 2009.
The 2009 operational review’s development industry consultation
process generated questions about the City’s plans for the
reserve fund and its eventual target balance.
Evolving industry practice across the Province (Cities > 40,000
residents) includes reserve fund modeling as part of a full cost
OBCA fee review project. A policy rationale for the reserve fund,
an empirically derived target balance, and a multi-year target
balance accumulation strategy are all typically included in an
OBCA reserve fund framework.
Cornwall currently lacks an OBCA reserve fund framework that
conforms with evolving industry practices across the Province.
Recommendation
Recommendation 3
The Treasurer & CBO should develop a modeled OBCA
reserve fund framework that includes the following:
i) a policy rationale (i.e. eligible expenditure categories
for future reserve funding)
ii) an empirically derived reserve fund target balance
based on a multiple of annual direct costs to be covered
during an economic downturn,
iii) a multi-year target balance accumulation strategy.
Modeling of the OBCA reserve fund should be integrated
into the full cost fees review and computerized model
referenced in Recommendation 2.
Building a Sustainable “Cost Recovery” Financial
Framework
Observations & Findings
Both the Cornwall development community & City staff have
emphasized the inter-connectedness of Planning Act and OBCA
approvals processes as components of an overall high
performance City development approvals process.
Across the Province, municipal “full cost” development fee
reviews often encompass both Planning Act & OBCA applications
and fee schedules. Prior to a full cost development fees review
initiative, Planning fees (without fail) consistently demonstrate
under-recovery of costs and significant property tax subsidies
benefiting development applicants.
As is the case with OBCA fees, the evolving industry practice in
municipalities with populations >40,000 residents is significantly
reducing/eliminating these Planning application property tax
funded subsidies.
Recommendation
Recommendation 4
Council should endorse the objective of a timely
migration to a “full cost” Planning Act fee schedule in
2011 that recovers 100% of City indirect & direct
operating costs, and eliminates the existing property tax
subsidy to planning approvals recipients.
The existing schedule of Planning Act fees should be
integrated into the comprehensive “full cost” fees review
referenced in Recommendation 2.
3. Technology Driven Performance
Improvement
Modernize IT Toolkit to Improve Customer
Service & Accountability
Modernize IT Toolkit to Improve Customer
Service & Accountability
In order to meet the performance challenges associated with Bill 124 amendments (e.g. performance measurement reporting, turnaround time compliance, workflow improvement) many Ontario municipalities with populations >40,000 have been re-investing in
technology toolkits to leverage efforts at continuous improvement.
These leveraging and re-investment efforts typically involve upgrades to established industry workflow software programs such as
AMANDA and City View. Workflow software can eliminate redundant paper filing and data recording on forms. Software can be
adapted to fit re-engineered post-Bill 124 processes. Performance measurement reporting capacity can be greatly improved and
customized to support business planning and target setting. Strong staff commitment to a rational results based approach to workflow
is required – putting aside the current file to deal with “aging” files recommended for attention by the software.
Productivity improvement in the field is also highly desirable. Mobile technology is an effective approach to generating access to
information without returning to base or carting around files. Mobile technology also functions as a “one touch” opportunity to capture
information in the workflow software without laborious written records. Experience in other jurisdictions is clear that mobile
productivity can yield significant improvement dividends. Staff will spend more time in the field and less time entering data in a nonproductive HQ location.
These technologies are no longer cutting edge. They are widely in practice and becoming a standard industry approach.
Modernize IT Toolkit to Improve Customer
Service & Accountability
Observations & Findings
The Cornwall Building Division employs a permit/inspection workflow
management software package called City View. Workflow software
packages like City View function as an essential tool for mid-size &
large Ontario municipalities overseeing complex processes involving i)
application intake, ii) plans examination, iii) inspection processes
involving numerous simultaneously active files.
Cornwall currently uses an older version of City View that pre-dates
significant Bill 124 amendments to the OBCA that took effect in 2006.
Bill 124 amendments created rigorous, mandatory permit decision &
inspection notification timeframes for specific application categories.
Various business processes are “double documented” in City View and
paper file records – clearly a sub-optimal situation in terms of staff
productivity and records management.
The newer post-Bill 124 version - City View 9 - features valuable new
functionality around turnaround time reporting & file logistics
management. Evolving industry practice is to utilize newer post-Bill
124 workflow management software to drive productivity
improvement, support work load priority setting and enable easy
results based accountability reporting. Cornwall has just committed
to a City View 9 upgrade.
Recommendation
Recommendation 5
Having executed the necessary “due diligence” costeffectiveness review concerning a City View 9 upgrade,
the 2009 Building department review/audit endorses
the City’s decision to immediately proceed with
purchase and implementation of the software in tandem
with new improved workflow management practices.
The implementation should commence in Q1 2010 and
be completed by year-end. Dedicated full-time IT
resources (in-sourced or out-sourced) should be
deployed to the upgrade and charged against a City
View upgrade capital project budget. The City View 9
software purchase & implementation resources should
be funded in its entirety from a 2010 OBCA reserve fund
draw applied to the capital project.
Development industry stakeholders should be consulted
on matters involving major process change &
turnaround time accountability report design.
Modernize IT Toolkit to Improve Customer
Service & Accountability
Observations & Findings
Cornwall Building Division inspection staff currently deploy in the field
with cell phones but no access to productivity enhancing IT tools. On a
daily basis, background information on potential inspection sites must be
gathered in advance from various sources before staff deploy into the
field. Inspection information is recorded in the field on paper, and then
subsequently entered into both City View and paper files back at the
office – a process requiring early departure from the field by inspectors
on a daily basis. The opportunity for more efficient “one touch” data
entry exclusively into City View 9 while in the field is not available. The
opportunity to access critical data already present in City View 9 (while
in the field) is not available.
Evolving industry practice across Ontario’s mid-size & large
municipalities is for inspectors to use laptop, Blackberry or other
handheld devices to achieve on-line mobile access to/entry of inspection
& enforcement data in the field. Performance Concepts operational
review experience in other Ontario jurisdictions suggests a 20%
productivity dividend (i.e. more field hours versus fewer office data
entry hours) associated with investing in internet enabled mobile
computing tools deployed in the field. While only recently considered a
cutting-edge productivity “experiment”, the benefits of remote data
entry/access are now widely understood across the Building and By-law
enforcement communities & are being been widely implemented across
the Province.
Recommendation
Recommendation 6
As part of the 2010 rollout of the recommended City
View 9 upgrade, a mobile data access/entry solution
should be addressed.
Mobile “Tough Book” laptops are a proven front-end
data management tool that should be deployed in the
field.
Building and By-law field staff should be required to
maximize in-field productivity by entering data
directly on site following inspections (same day). As
per the rest of the City View 9 upgrade, the mobile
field technology (including purchase &
implementation) should be funded by a 2010 OBCA
reserve fund draw applied to the capital project.
4. Re-engineering Service Delivery
Processes & Practices
Generating Productivity, Compliance &
Customer Service via Improved Execution
Re-engineering Processes to Generate
Productivity & Compliance Improvement
Bill 124 amendments to the OBCA require Building departments to execute due diligence on application files within specified
timeframes. Meeting mandated turnaround times for permit decisions requires efficient processes and productive staff. Building
departments need to properly balance applicant access to staff and customer service support against the need to review complete
applications in a timely and rigorous fashion.
Municipalities must also consider the need for consistency between legislated customer service standards and their own historical
service standards that often reflect existing community expectations. Legislated standards need not compromise local standards
based on community expectations – the two perspectives can be reconciled. A common example of the OBCA creating tension with
local expectations involves the mandatory timeframes for a permit issuance decision. In cases where applications are deemed
deficient/incomplete within the specified OBCA timeframes, the “clock” in the legislation is turned off on the date of applicant
notification. It never turns back on again even after the file becomes complete. While Cornwall staff make every effort to try and
process these “clock stopped” files in a timely fashion, there is no City service standard preventing these files from progressing slowly
in the face of other competing files coming in the door after them.
Process improvement investigation should also consider the relationship between applicable law approvals required before a building
permit can be issued, and the timing of a building permit application - before or after an applicable law process is completed. This
question of appropriate/inappropriate applicable law overlap with building permit processes should be carefully considered. For
instance this review has determined that the Site Plan process delegated to staff is extremely efficient. From the time of Site Plan
approval, the development agreement is produced so quickly that no value-added overlap with Building permit process is possible.
Staff productivity should be commended in this regard. Overlap productivity improvements are possible in other applicable law
situations.
Finally it needs to be understood that successful process re-engineering is a product of a partnership between applicants and City
staff. The quality of application inputs in large part determines the timeliness of Building department outputs. In this regard,
continuous improvement must address both element – inputs and outputs – to generate quality, productivity and turnaround time
performance results.
Client-focused Process Re-engineering: Create
Application Intake Permit Technologist Position
Observations & Findings
Building permit application work flow in the Department (i.e. dealing
with complete applications) is routinely compromised by the
requirement for Plans Examiners to frequently approach the counter
to service public enquiries, assess application completeness, execute
“intake” of technical drawings, and process simple applications. Staff
have tracked counter time over fixed periods of time in detail (during
2008-09) and have determined a 40% erosion of productive
application processing time. This level of erosion in file review time is
not sustainable in the face of forecast permit volume increases.
Other jurisdictions across the Province have encountered the same
productivity problem posed by disruption at the counter. The
industry “best practice” response has been the creation of a Permit
Technician position to deal with the above noted sources of work flow
disruption. Permit Technicians assess application completeness for all
submitted files, update files with revised technical drawings, react to
public enquiries, and process very simple applications at the counter.
Permit Technician positions can also provide vacation and sick time
coverage – a critical value-added function in a small department.
Most critically, Permit Technicians protect the time of the Plans
Examiners to provide timely, high quality review of complete
applications already “on the clock” in terms of legislated turn around
times.
Recommendation
Recommendation 7
As part of the 2010 City budget process, Council
should approve a fulltime Permit Technologist
position with duties as described in this report. The
position should initially be funded from a 2010 draw
on the City’s OBCA reserve fund until “full cost” fees
have been installed as an ongoing source of funding
as per Recommendation 1. No property tax impact
should occur as a result of creating this position. The
position should be advertised, recruited and filled on a
priority basis during Q1-3 2010.
Business Process Execution: Provide Access to
Plans Examiners Via Appointments/Open Hours
Observations & Findings
Permit application work flow in the Department (i.e. dealing with complete
applications) is routinely compromised by the requirement for Plans
Examiners to frequently leave their files and spend time at the counter to
service a diverse set of public enquiries, assess application completeness,
execute “intake” of technical drawings on incomplete files already under
their review, and process simple applications. The result is a “stop and
start” approach to complex complete files that already pose a significant
challenge due to legislated timeframes. Plans Examiners have docketed
counter time over fixed periods of the day in detail (during 2008-09) and
have determined a peak 40% erosion of daily productive application
processing time.
In order to optimize necessary “protected” time from the counter in order
to properly serve applicants submitting complete applications, a number of
Ontario municipalities have implemented i) Plans Examiner appointment
scheduling and ii) Plans Examiner “open” customer hours. The two
“protection” concepts are consistent with the private sector’s approach to
managing public demand for immediate access to professional services
(e.g. doctors, dentists, lawyers). The “protection” approach is mutually
beneficial – it results in no line-ups and prompt service for the applicant
and uninterrupted, focused plans examination time for Plans Examiners. It
improves the probability of legislative turnaround time compliance and
“made in Cornwall” turnaround time compliance.
Recommendation
Recommendation 8
During Q3-Q4 in 2010, the City should conduct a pilot
implementation of mandatory Plans Examiner
scheduled appointments for discussion of existing
“new” residential and ICI permit application files.
The pilot should also test the concept of “open counter
hours” for each Plans Examiner. The open hours for
“by request” counter service should rotate between
mornings and afternoons – with Examiner A available
for mornings and Examiner B available for afternoons.
The results of the pilot should be evaluated at the end
of 2010 for potential permanent implementation.
Business Process Execution: Reset Turnaround
Times When Deficient File Becomes Complete
Observations & Findings
Recommendation
The current version of the City View work flow management software does
not create performance reports concerning compliance with legislated OBCA
turnaround times. Therefore the consulting team executed a comprehensive
file audit of almost 50 mostly residential permit applications to measure
legislated turnaround time compliance. This file audit was followed up by a
more intense review of larger complex commercial and institutional
applications.
Recommendation 9
The residential file audit demonstrated a high degree of City compliance re.
OBCA permit decision turnaround times. This is a substantial achievement for
the City and staff’s performance should be positively recognized in this
regard. However, it also needs to be recognized that legislative compliance
on timeframes can be achieved in many cases by simply identifying all
application deficiencies and informing the applicant. Doing so effectively
“turns off the OBCA clock”. Once the identified deficiencies are addressed by
the applicant, the OBCA legislative compliance “clock” does not turn itself
back on. The positive pressures in the legislation for timely application
processing simply disappear with the initial documentation of deficiencies.
For purposes of the “made in Cornwall” standard, a
permit application will be deemed complete when it
contains no identified deficiencies at the point of
intake by staff – a definition already present in the
OBCA. A permit application will also be deemed
complete when any previously identified/notified
deficiencies (i.e. that turned off the OBCA clock)
have been remedied by the applicant to the
satisfaction of City Building staff. In this case, the
City staff will adhere to its own customer service
“clock” and re-commit to the OBCA turnaround
times. The City “made in Cornwall” customer service
clock will be activated at “Day 1” on the business day
following a staff documented decision that all
previously notified deficiencies on the file have been
remedied, and the file has been deemed complete.
From a customer service perspective, we believe it is reasonable that the City
voluntarily re-start the clock once deficiencies have been addressed by
applicants, and the application is deemed complete by staff. This approach
constitutes a commitment to genuine customer service beyond the
perfunctory version contained in the OBCA.
The City should adopt it’s own building permit
application processing turnaround time standards for
all complete applications. The duration of these
“made in Cornwall” turnaround time standards
should be identical to those contained in the OBCA.
Business Process Execution: Reduce Technical
Drawing Revisions “Ping-Pong”
Observations & Findings
Development & construction industry representatives have noted
a tendency for required technical revisions in submitted plans to
“ping pong” back and forth between City staff and the applicant –
the result being a slower, cumbersome effort intensive
compliance process. In order to minimize technical “ping pong”
construction industry representatives have requested specific
“best practice” examples of technical drawings that have received
timely approval from the City and can be emulated by other
applicants.
The consulting review team feels this request has merit. City
staff are in agreement as well. The need for a quality control
toolkit was confirmed by our performance audit of a sample of
commercial and institutional applications. The performance audit
documented a significant erosion of turnaround time performance
attributable to technical deficiencies ping pong.
Recommendation
Recommendation 10
The proposed Building Industry Liaison & Advisory
Committee will develop a catalogue of “best practice”
technical drawings that can be utilized by the
construction industry as a quality control tool. The
catalogue should reduce submission deficiency rates, red
line corrections and lost processing days.
The catalogue should be developed, reviewed and
circulated by the end of Q3 2010.
Business Process Execution: Allocation of Permit
Applications Between Plans Examiners
Observations & Findings
Currently residential permit applications are handled exclusively by one
of the City’s Plans Examiner positions while commercial/industrial permit
applications are handled by the other Plans Examiner. The application
processing roles flip annually.
Since the relative volume of residential and commercial permit
applications (and resulting processing work load) fluctuate over time,
one position may be required to function above its processing hours
capacity while the other position may be required to function below its
processing hours capacity limit. The result can be a sub-optimal staff
utilization pattern that does not take advantage of the total available
processing hours.
An alternate approach of allocating a mix of both residential and
industrial/commercial applications to each Plans Examiner can
potentially yield improved productivity and utilization. Any gaps in
permit volumes in either the residential or industrial commercial streams
will be off-set by both staff re-focusing effort “real time” on the actual
files coming through the door.
Recommendation
Recommendation 11
Plans Examiners will be required to process an
ongoing and equitable mix of both residential and
commercial/industrial applications, rather than
specializing in one application stream or the other.
This file allocation approach should be implemented
immediately and its potential productivity
improvement results objectively evaluated at the
end of 2010. In order to do so, application file
specific processing hour docketing should be
considered as a productivity tracking tool.
Business Process Execution: Allocation of Permit
Applications Between Plans Examiners
Observations & Findings
The Cornwall construction industry supports a fast
track process to deliver a superior level of service for
experienced applicants submitting high quality “clean”
applications. In order for a fast track process to
function optimally, it needs to be structured in such a
way to avoid consuming processing effort from the
“normal” stream of application processing. An after
hours fast track process modeled on the City of
Burlington version is appropriate. In the Burlington
model staff are paid overtime to process applications
and a premium fee is charged to applicants.
Turnaround time standards are somewhat faster than
the normal application stream. Clear applicant
eligibility criteria are also required to properly
administer a fast track process. Finally, the CBO has
discretionary authority to accept or reject fast track
requests based on staff/contracted resource
availability. In addition to reviewing the Burlington
model, staff are advised to consider fast-track model
design advice from OBOA during their implementation
efforts.
Recommendation
Recommendation 12
The City should develop a fast-track building permit process with a
premium permit fee structure and objective criteria to determine fasttrack eligibility. The fast-track eligibility criteria must be designed so
that the fast-track is accessible to Cornwall’s core clients, based on:
Professional qualification of applicant (BCIN, P.Eng., or OAA)
 Construction value (res/ind/com)
 Sq. footage of proposed development (res/ind/com).

The City is encouraged to establish a performance objective, e.g. “X%
of all complete and OBC-compliant building permit applications should
be approved within X staff working days from the date of submission.”
The number of staff working days should relate to the timeline in
Recommendation #9.
The CBO should retain discretionary authority to decide if an
application may not be allowed in (or taken out of) the fast-track.
The fast-track system should be developed, reviewed and implemented
by the end of Q2 2010.
Business Process Execution: Overlap with Minor
Variance Process to Reduce Turnaround Times
Observations & Findings
As is the case with many Ontario municipalities, Cornwall’s CBO currently requires
applicable law to be in place before an application for a Building Permit is accepted
at the counter by staff - and the OBCA turnaround time “clock” turns on. This
sequential approach to applicable law increases the probability that legislated
turnaround times will not be compromised by prematurely turning on the clock
prior to applicable law Planning Act processes being completed. Planning Act site
plan and/or minor variance processes are a case in point. In neither case do
Planning Act approvals and OBCA approvals currently overlap on purpose – overlap
now only occurs when Building staff do not detect the need for a prior Planning
Act approval when reviewing an application at the counter.
However, during the 20 day appeal period at the end of a successful minor
variance approval process, there is an opportunity for the City to reduce the
timeframes required for issuing a Building permit. If the CBO agreed to accept a
Building permit application during the final 10 days of the 20 day minor variance
appeal period (when the technical land use matters have been resolved to the
City’s satisfaction), then a residential building permit could potentially be issued
immediately following the end of the minor variance appeal period. The result
would be a “just in time” permit issuance system and very high levels of customer
service. In contrast, the current strictly sequential approach to minor variances as
applicable law only allows an application for a building permit to be made after the
end of the minor variance 20 day appeal period. The permit itself could take an
additional 10 business days. If an appeal on the minor variance is received during
the final 10 days, the building permit application would be deemed deficient (i.e.
not meeting applicable law requirements) and the OBCA clock would turnoff and
no building permit would be forthcoming.
Recommendation
Recommendation 13
The CBO should be encouraged to exercise his
statutory discretionary authority to accept building
permit applications associated with approved minor
variances that have entered the final 10 days of their
public appeal period. The CBO should make use of an
OBCA waiver process as required to manage any
perceive turnaround time compliance risk associated
with an accelerated review of minor variance related
building permit applications.
The CBO should track saved permit processing days
associated with minor variance accelerated permits,
and report these saved days as part of the
recommended annual OBCA report card.
5. Managing Risk & Promoting
Accountability
Protecting Service Delivery Continuity,
Partnering with the Industry & Setting
Measurement Derived Targets
Managing Risk & Promoting Accountability
From a risk management perspective Cornwall faces a number of significant challenges. The City is relatively isolated as an employee
market for the relatively scarce, provincially certified Building staff it requires to discharge its legislated OBCA responsibilities. As a
relatively low wage employer verses markets like Ottawa or the GTA, Cornwall faces staff retention and staff recruitment obstacles.
Recent recruitment efforts are instructive in this regard. Multiple recruitment attempts resulted in less-than qualified staff being hired
and extensive training being required. The relatively lean City staffing model – combined with the isolated employment market will
result in significantly reduced permit application or inspection capacity for an extended length of time. Thie risk to service delivery
continuity is further exacerbated by the legislative requirement (no excuses) to deliver permit decisions and inspection according to
rigorous timelines.
From an accountability perspective, performance measurement and results reporting is required by the OBCA as well as results based
management principles. Ideally, Building departments measure turnaround times to both report on timely service delivery, but more
importantly, to generate timely service delivery. Performance measurement scorecards are most helpful in this regard. Scorecards are
being implemented by municipalities across Ontario – in many service areas including Building departments.
Accountability is also promoted via transparent construction industry dialogue and partnership – not to dilute compliance but rather to
support innovative approaches to achieving compliance. Mechanisms to promote dialogue are required in Cornwall, given the historic
difficulties between the industry and Building department senior staff. Partnership will strengthen compliance, not circumvent it.
Customer service – to both applicants and the broader community – should not be inaccurately understood to signal compromise on
enforcement nor should it be understood as a rationale for accepting poor quality applicant submissions. Customer service requires a
mutual level of respect, technical understanding of the Building Code environment, and a willingness to be innovative and flexible
within the context of compliance. Both the City and the applicant community need to work hard to improve these requirements.
Reduce Risk & Safeguard Service Levels:
Execute a Service Continuity Staffing Strategy
Observations & Findings
Recommendation
The Cornwall Building department is a relatively lean operation in terms of plans
examination and construction inspection staffing. There is very little staffing
redundancy/back-up in terms of the mandatory credentials/qualifications required
to process the various categories of complex applications. In addition Cornwall’s
geography creates a small, somewhat isolated employment market for accredited
building staff. Recent drawn-out job searches have confirmed the difficulty in
attracting appropriately qualified out-of-town individuals. Municipal peer
benchmarking analysis confirms Cornwall to currently be a below-the-mean cost
employer in the province-wide building officials market. Job evaluation/equity may
be a preferred route to address this systemic employee retention risk.
Recommendation 14
Finally, this review has encountered a widespread perception among staff that
persons outside the department may not have a complete understanding of their
mandated role, and therefore may not be fully supportive of when strong public
enforcement action comes into conflict with some citizen’s perceptions of
“customer service”. Morale may suffer accordingly.

The City will develop a proactive service continuity
staffing strategy including the following elements:
A Council endorsed Mission Statement
endorsing the importance of Code compliance and
a safe building stock – executed in an efficient,
practical and respectful fashion by staff

Implement appropriate HR and compensation
policies/measures required to improve the
likelihood of retaining key plans examination and
inspection staff.
Aggressive advance recruitment of missioncritical Building staff in anticipation of predictable
retirement dates.

Taken together, these staffing and morale factors constitute a significant service
continuity risk for the City in the event any key staff depart from their current
positions. The result would be widespread non-compliance with legislated
turnaround times, potential cash flow damage to the local construction economy,
and reputation damage to the municipal “brand” in the eyes of local stakeholders.
In order to mitigate this service continuity risk, a number of staff retention and
proactive human resource planning issues require immediate attention.
Strong scheduling and budgetary support for
advanced credential achievement by staff indicating a desire by the employer to commit to a
deeper departmental pool of credentialed talent
and cross-trained competencies.

Reduce Risk & Safeguard Service Levels:
Solution Package for Open Permits
Observations & Findings
As is the case with numerous Ontario municipalities, Cornwall is
currently challenged by high numbers of “open” residential
building permits – a situation where a successful occupancy
inspection has taken place but a final inspection has not. This
may not present a problem for the initial homeowner. However,
in the event that the residential property in question is sold, the
sale transaction can be disrupted up by the open permit (title
insurance is increasingly excluding OBCA problems from
coverage). The City then faces significant pressure to
immediately close the permit in order to allow the transaction to
proceed. However, a final inspection may or may not permit staff
to close the permit, depending on the state of the property and
the ease of dealing with documented final deficiencies. Clearly,
avoidance of prolonged open permits is desirable from both a
public safety risk management perspective and a post-sale
customer service perspective.
Recommendation
Recommendation 15
On a go forward basis commencing in Q1 2011, the City
will implement a $500 final inspection refundable deposit
(per new residential unit). The final inspection deposit
will apply to new residential structures. It will not apply
to additions and renovations. The deposit will be
collected at the point of building permit fee payment.
The deposit will be returned at the point of a successful
final inspection. An administration fee of $100 will be
deducted annually from any open permit deposit that is
being refunded later than 1 year after the date of the
successful occupancy inspection.
Upgraded Dialogue & Accountability: Create
Building Industry Liaison & Advisory Committee
Observations & Findings
An overarching and problematic observation made during our
review has been the lack of ongoing dialogue and trust between
the City Building department and the local
construction/development industry. The existing relationship
between the two “sides” is negatively impacted by counterproductive performance perceptions. Whatever the historical
basis for these perceptions, the absence of an ongoing, positive,
problem solving dialogue between the CBO and the industry
needs to be addressed on an urgent basis. Dialogue need not
imply a diluted commitment to regulatory enforcement. Nor does
dialogue imply an expectation that “corners can be cut” when
submitting applications that clearly must meet expected levels of
technical competency. Customer service need not, and cannot,
be understood to represent a diluted commitment to public safety
and rigorous enforcement.
This being said, the successful construction industry “open
house” conducted as part of this review suggests a new
beginning is possible. Both City staff and industry leaders have
seized upon this review exercise as an opportunity to work in
partnership to improve both the quality of application inputs and
the City’s performance in conducting its legislated “due diligence”
regulatory role.
Recommendation
Recommendation 16
Council should create a Building Industry Liaison &
Advisory Committee. The Committee should consist of
five permanent members. Two of the appointed members
should be development industry nominees approved by
Council. Two City staff members – the Director of
Planning/Building and be the CBO – should also be
permanent members. The final member should be a
nominated member of Council. The Mayor should be
considered a permanent ex-officio member. The Chair of
the Committee can rotate among members.
The mandate of the Committee is to provide a forum for
dialogue, promotion of best practices among applicants
and the City, educate the stakeholder community on Code
compliance, review of the annual accountability report
card, and consider other overall process performance
improvement issues as they arise. The Committee will
function by consensus and will be a non-voting entity.
The Committee should meet quarterly and report to
Council annually.
Upgraded Dialogue & Accountability: City OBCA
Performance Report Card
Observations & Findings
The recommended new version of City View will equip the City
Building department with the capability to track and report permit
application and inspection notification turnaround times with
relative ease. Automated performance reporting will, in turn,
support staff in setting forward-looking performance targets on
an annual basis. These targets can be organized into a business
plan that integrates budget information and performance data in
an annual business plan.
The need for accountability based reporting applies to both City
performance in regulating building safety in a timely fashion – it
also applies to the quality of application inputs supplied by the
development/construction industry and the general public. In
this respect, a measurement supported Report Card can be used
to measure the overall performance of the entire Building permit
process from both customer and regulator perspectives.
Recommendation
Recommendation 17
The City will prepare an annual OBCA performance Report
Card. The report card will include results trends over
multiple years re. the following elements of performance:
OBCA legislated permit decision turnaround times
(average & % meeting standard)
 “Made in Cornwall” complete application turnaround
times (average & % meeting completion)
 OBCA legislated inspection notification turnaround
times
 % cost recovery of operating costs by fees versus cost
recovery 100% target
 Application submission error rates by category (average
# of material submission errors or submission gaps per
application)

Report Card results from 2010-2011 will be used to set
2012 business plan performance targets that will be
integrated with the 2012 budget submission to create a
2012 results based business plan.
Upgraded Dialogue & Accountability: Conduct
One-Year “Progress Review” Workshop
Observations & Findings
The portfolio of Recommendations emerging from this review
represent a fundamental and ambitious “change management”
blueprint for the City. The implementation of this change
management blueprint should result in significant objective (i.e.
measurable) and subjective (i.e. customer feel, open dialogue)
service delivery improvement.
As with any change management project there is a risk that
flawed execution (or failure to execute) can dilute the expected
performance improvement results. A brief but focused 3rd party
interim evaluation of the implementation process and results is a
proven approach to avoiding disappointing results and remaining
on-track.
Recommendation
Recommendation 18
Acting in concert with the Building Industry Liaison &
Advisory Committee, the City should commission a 3rd
party interim evaluation of the progress made in
implementing the findings of this review. The interim
evaluation will focus on objective measurable service
delivery results, subjective changes in the City/industry
relationship and implementation work plan execution.
This interim evaluation should occur during Q1-Q2 in
2011 and be funded from the City OBCA reserve fund.
Technical Appendix
Results of Detailed File Sample
Reviews