|
|
Discussion and possible action regarding revisions to DBI’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007/2008. [Director Isam Hasenin] (as part of this item the Director will make a presentation on Departmental Assessment), [Deputy Director of Administration John Madden]
Director Hasenin said that he had two presentations, one on the assessment of the Department and another on budget changes in the last month. Director Hasenin stated that he would start with the assessment of the Department and stated that as part of this assessment he had been examining the nuts and bolts of the operation in order to meet the mandate given by the needs of the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors and the Commission. Director Hasenin said that while progress had been made over the past two years there is a desire for ongoing progress and stream lining to meet the needs of DBI’s customers and fulfill the Department’s role in code enforcement and life safety.
Director Hasenin moved onto his Power Point presentation to outline where the Department is now and where he thinks the Department needs to be in the next few years.
- My role as the new Director.
- Desire of Mayor, Commission, Supervisors, and citizens for change and improvements.
- Budget timeline constraints.
- Need for immediate improvements based upon a fresh assessment of process.
- With the Mayor’s leadership, and Board of Supervisors’ support, Departmental reforms began three years ago to address ‘legacy’ issues affecting transparency and ethics, technology improvements, and the need for additional professional skill-sets to keep pace with market demand.
- A new Commission was installed in 2005 to carry out this vision, and start to move the Department to the next level. This included the hiring of a new permanent director with a mandate for change and process improvements.
- With a strong leadership foundation in place, the Department is at a new threshold of customer service-driven improvements, and ripe for today’s detailed systemic and structural review.
MissionStatement
- Under the direction and management of the seven-member citizen Building Inspection Commission, DBI’s Mission is to oversee the effective, efficient, fair and safe enforcement of the City and County of San Francisco’s building, housing, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, along with the disability access regulations.
Philosophy
- DBI is charged with implementing safety codes and regulations by reviewing, inspecting and approving private and public development activities in a fair, predictable and equitable manner.
- The efficiency, cost, timeliness and quality of the permit review and inspection process have a major impact on the business environment in San Francisco and on the quality of life of its citizens.
In a Month, DBI
- Performs 11,000 inspections.
- Issues 5,100 permits.
- Performs 3,200 plan checks.
- Responds to more than 10,000 calls for information, appointments and records.
- Responds to 600 inspection division complaints.
- Completes 300 housing/code compliance cases.
- Completes 2,200 housing inspections.
Assessment Process
- Individual Building Inspection Commissioners.
- Individual staff and work groups.
- Mayor’s Office, elected officials and other City agencies.
- Professional industry, community groups and stakeholders.
- Individual customers.
- Walk-around management, floor by floor.
- Spot checking specific projects.
- Reviewing previous reports: Controller’s Office, Grand Jury, Mr. Rudolf Nothenberg.
- Initiate Business Process Reengineering for review of all operations.
- Reviewing Permit Tracking System (PTS), its capabilities and limitations.
Note assessment was limited to plan review and inspection process. The code enforcement and housing divisions were not part of this initial review, but will be reviewed in the future.
Assessment Findings
- Staff is highly professional, competent, hardworking, experienced and technically savvy – DBI’s most important resource.
- Universal support and agreement that change is necessary.
- Staff is excited about the opportunity for positive change.
Management Deficiencies:
- Minimal support for staff decisions.
- Indecisiveness in dealing with problems.
- Immobilized by perceived pressures and conflicting needs from outside forces.
- Reactive to individual problems rather than focused on systemic improvements.
- Failure to focus on customer service.
- Insufficient nurturing, mentoring, training, and development of staff.
- Atmosphere of fear and mistrust.
- Insufficient involvement in “nuts and bolts” details of daily operations.
- Inconsistent reviews/decisions.
- Inadequate focus on quality of work.
- No coherent strategic plan addressing the overall process.
- Failure to create a sustained sense of urgency to meet customers’ needs.
- Insufficient focus on efficiency and effectiveness of process.
- Inconsistent standardization of processes.
Process Weaknesses:
- Complex bureaucratic process that still relies too heavily on paper.
- Too may loop backs and unnecessary steps.
- Overlapping – sometimes conflicting – requirements from different divisions.
- Inadequate business rules, checks and balances, policies and procedures.
- Missing internal audit systems.
- Permit Coordination Division becoming another bureaucratic layer, lowing down the review/approval process.
- Inadequate workload management tools.
- Inadequate supervision of project reviews.
- Inconsistent application of technical code provisions.
- Performance measures do not reflect accurate workload or turnaround times.
- Cumbersome, slow and frustrating process for rechecks of review projects.
- Lack of standardized checklists.
- Absence of strategic automation plan.
- Staff does not use PTS to its full potential.
- Absence of a current comprehensive fee analysis.
- Insufficient controls over spending on outside services, equipment and computers.
- Absence of a financial strategic plan.
- Inconsistent fee structure / inadequate collection of past-due accounts.
- Few financial controls.
- Inadequate controls/policies for hiring or promotion of staff, and poor past hiring practices.
- Perception by staff and public of unfair promotional and hiring process.
- Inadequate human resources support.
Where We Want To Be
Transform the Department into a Transparent, Responsive, Dynamic, Effective and Efficient Organization.
Leadership Philosophy and Goals
- Provide firm, yet fair leadership and set high ethical standards for all levels of the organization – starting with the Director.
- Investigate allegations of misconduct immediately and thoroughly.
- Provide accurate, consistent and timely services.
- Focus on core business.
- Maximize use of technology.
- Create accountability at all levels for all stakeholders.
- Provide equitable access to Department information and services.
- Demystify the process and make it predictable and customer friendly.
- Identify/eliminate redundant, unnecessary reviews, approvals, and regulations.
- Provide process options for different customer needs.
- Focus on excellent in customer service.
- Maximize development and use of staff knowledge.
- Eliminate “silo” mentality.
- Develop multiple strategies to respond flexibly to changing workloads/staffing.
Restructuring the Department to flatten the organization and create more cohesive, less bureaucratic and responsive divisions focused on related functions to create better controls, more accountability and enhance customer service.
New Organization Chart
Action Steps
- Conduct internal BPR (Business Process Reengineering) to create better systems/more streamlined review/approval process. (Director Hasenin said he expected this to take 3 to 5 months)
- Implement internal audit systems throughout the organization.
- Develop clearly written business rules, policies and procedures, and standardized checklists.
- Implement “Best Practices” already in place in other building departments.
- Ensure management staff at all levels is fully accessible to the public and responsive to queries.
- Establish open-door policy throughout the Department.
- Require management participation in decision-making by staff. (Director Hasenin stated that this would involve support, direction and mentoring)
- Implement closer/better supervision (especially in dealing with technology).
- Tighten coordination – internally and with other key permit reviewing bodies (such as Planning, the Fire Department, DPW and Health).
- Combine all building plan review functions.
- Refocus Permit Coordination Section to be a key part of the “One-Stop Shop”.
- Eliminate restrictions on parallel plan reviews.
- Create new, accurate and meaningful performance standards (and involve the industry in setting those standards).
- Implement a comprehensive quality control system for all review and inspection functions.
- Conduct random quality control checks throughout the Department.
- Develop and conduct regular employee surveys to improve internal communications (and assess what staff thinks is and is not working).
- Develop and conduct annual professional benchmark customer research surveys.
- Implement internal and external communications plans reflecting ‘lessons learned’ from annual surveys.
- End DBI storage of customers’ plans.
- Obtain technology tools to support the process.
- Initiate specific and targeted International Code training for staff.
- Co-sponsor code training with industry groups for customers.
- Enforce timelines and due dates (particularly for projects reviews and inspections).
- Create/Remodel Permit Center for an improved customer experience, and create a true “One Stop Shop.” (There will be a new Permit Center at 1640 Mission Street)
- Revamp intake process and implement single permit application form.
- Review most tenant improvement projects over-the-counter.
- Create quality intake standards.
- Enhance preliminary (pre-application) review service identifying/resolving critical project issues/challenges (early on in the project).
- Pilot/Test electronic submittals/reviews.
- Implement triage for immediate review.
- Immediate assignment and distribution.
- Create “By Appointment” recheck system.
- Have a senior staff/signature authority available at Permit Center.
- Begin thorough assessment of existing Permit Tracking System (over the next few months).
- Determine automation functionality needs for all users (to include other review agencies such as Planning, the Fire Department and DPW).
- Engage other review agencies (Planning Department, Fire Department, DPW, etc.).
- Establish an automation user committee.
- Consolidate and automate inspection request process.
- Consolidate all databases.
Focus on excellent in customer service by implementing a “Customer Service Initiative.”
- Create a “Customer Service Statement”.
- Create and enforce “Customer Bill of Rights”.
- Provide customer service training (this would be ongoing).
- Implement/promote “Guaranteed Second Opinion” Program.
- Create a Customer Service Committee.
- Increase online information/services/
- Expand community outreach program.
- Implement “Services by Appointment” program.
- Cross-train staff to maximize existing resources.
- Expand OTC (Over-the-Counter) program.
- Implement a centralized “Call Center”.
- Install Q-Matic customer service system.
- Consolidate all clerical functions.
Conclusion
This assessment, findings and proposed Action Plan provides DBI with a strategic road map that will help guide the Department as it embarks on its continuous improvement process. More improvements and changes will follow as a result of the BPR (Business Process Reengineering) process that will be undertaken shortly.
- The Department is fortunate to have dedicated employees who are experienced, highly trained, technically savvy, hard working and highly motivated.
- The Department is now moving forward to make systemic and structural improvements that will enable DBI to deliver high quality permit, inspection and code enforcement services.
It’s a new day at DBI, and the Department is going to earn its customers respect and trust by delivering results that meet San Franciscan’s expectations.
President Walker said that she thought that all of the Commissioners felt that it is a new day for the Department and said that this was an amazing presentation. President Walker announced that the Mayor had arrived at the meeting, welcomed him, and asked the Mayor to comment on the Director’s presentation.
Mayor Gavin Newsom said that he had a chance to review the presentation over the weekend and said that he was encouraged by the depth and breadth of the presentation and the willingness to be self critical. The Mayor stated that DBI could have all of the business process improvements, protocols and check lists, but if people are scared to make decisions and fearful of repercussions, all of that is for naught. The Mayor said that his administration wanted to relieve that stress and wanted people to know that his administration values the employees and respects them and knows that the overall majority are working hard to do the right thing. Mayor Newsom promised to support the Director and the Department in these efforts especially on the I.T. side and with funding and said that money should not be an excuse for this Commission. Mayor Newsom thanked everyone for listening to him and asked that the Commission and staff of DBI continue to be enthusiastic about the Director’s stewardship of this Department.
President Walker thanked the Mayor for attending the meeting and for his ongoing support. President Walker said that the Commission would continue meeting with Planning, the Fire Department and other City agencies to work toward efficiency and the delivery of customer service.
President Walker asked Director Hasenin to comment on some of the new positions he was asking for regarding his presentation particularly as it relates to Planning and the fire safety advisement and how the Department would be working with the Fire Marshall.
Director Hasenin said that as a follow up to the Joint Meeting between the Planning Commission and the Building Inspection Commission he had been meeting with the Director of Planning every two weeks and said that he would meet with the Fire Marshall on a regular basis to look at process issues. Director Hasenin stated that a subcommittee was put in place to look at the questions of early involvement of DBI and Fire to ensure that technical issues related to Building and Fire Codes are addressed early in the process.
Vice-President Lee asked what percentage of applications actually need Planning review. Director Hasenin said that he did not know, but would look historically at Planning’s involvement. Director Hasenin stated that sometimes Planning gets involved because of neighborhood issues. Commissioner Murphy said that he thought that if Director Hasenin’s plan is implemented the Planning Department should turn over a new leaf. Commissioner Murphy said that he was happy to hear that employees would not have someone looking over their shoulders and said that it would be incredible for the morale of the Department.
President Walker asked the Director to speak about the organizational chart in the context of the requirements under the City Charter. Director Hasenin said that under the Charter there is a requirement that the Director of DBI can only have three assistants, but stated that his plan is part of a business process effort with a time defined period of three years. Director Hasenin said that he was going to restructure the Department with a new organization and needed project based managers to look at this new structure to see if it is working. Director Hasenin stated that it might be necessary to come back to the voters to ask for an amendment to that Charter section should those positions become permanent.
Commissioner Grubb said that he wanted to underscore his support for the Director’s direction from the Department and said that he appreciated the Mayor’s support. Commissioner Grubb said that the Director had done an incredible assessment in only forty-nine days.
Commissioner Romero said that he was encouraged to hear that it would be more comfortable for the employees to work in the Department because when there is an environment where people are afraid to make decisions the Department stagnates. Commissioner Romero stated that hopefully these changes will allow people to develop their professional careers.
President Walker asked the Director to talk more about using 1640 Mission Street. Director Hasenin said that the building layout of the first floor at 1660 Mission Street does not allow for a good customer flow and with Planning moving out of the fourth and fifth floors there is an opportunity for change. President Walker asked if 1640 was a City building. Director Hasenin said that it is in the process of being bought by the City. Director Hasenin said that 1640 would work better as a Customer Service Center than the first floor of 1660.
President Walker asked about Director Hasenin’s statement of not storing customer’s plans and asked if that meant that the Department would have electronic copies of the plans so the public could access plans if needed. Director Hasenin said that he was referring to the copies of plans that DBI keeps as the project is processed, not the final ones that are approved and kept as the official record. Director Hasenin stated that there is no need to keep different reviews of the plan as the Department does not need them and they are all over the place.
Commissioner Murphy asked if 1640 Mission Street would need substantial renovation. Director Hasenin said that it is a pretty open floor plan and said that he wanted to get in with minimum expenditures to save money and to get in as soon as possible. Commissioner Murphy said that there are tremendous people within the Department who are not in Management and asked if this new plan would put the proper people in the right positions. Director Hasenin said that he would be looking at the different sections in the Department and once those are organized employee changes would come in time as DBI moves forward.
Vice-President Lee asked how the Housing Inspection Division was doing. Director Hasenin said that he had not yet assessed Housing and Code Enforcement, but said that he would be looking at both divisions once this current component is up and running.
President Walker asked for public comment on this issue and thanked the many people who came to the meeting.
Mr. Francisco DeCosta said that he heard a pretty good presentation, but said that he could not get mesmerized by it because he sees various facets. Mr. DeCosta stated that there is a Director who in a few weeks has done some sort of an evaluation about the situation in this Department and the Mayor and the Commissioners have made many comments, but all of them should be educated to the fact that this City has a population of 780,000. Mr. DeCosta said that there are about 50,000 units in the pipeline that are going to affect the quality of life issues in this City. Mr. DeCosta said that the Director has come up with a plan, but said that it is difficult to get rid of habits and what is most important is that DBI employees get trained. Mr. DeCosta said that there was a statement in a general manner stating that DBI employees are professional, but on the other side the evaluation points to poor customer service. Mr. DeCosta stated that he would be watching this new system and would be waiting for an evaluation in six months. Mr. DeCosta asked the Secretary to distribute literature on Hunter’s Point.
Mr. John Schlesinger of the AIA said that the AIA had the opportunity to meet with Director Hasenin about these issues and said that a report issued by the AIA three years ago laid out some of the same tenets. Mr. Schlesinger said he thought that the improvement to the One-Stop system is critical in terms of project delivery and improving the I.T. is equally critical. Mr. Schlesinger said that he was enthusiastic about the changes and was looking forward to working with DBI staff.
Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that Director Hasenin was very qualified and said he was not alone in appreciating such a talented Director and looking forward to the proposed changes. Mr. Karnilowicz stated that he works with many Building Departments in many jurisdictions and said that the one thing he likes about DBI is the atmosphere and camaraderie and said that he hoped that would not change.
Mr. Ken Cochrane said that the Director was assessing the Department with brutal facts and said that this is sometimes uncomfortable, but said that his company does this periodically and then moves on. Mr. Cochrane said that he was elated to see support for the staff making decisions. Mr. Cochrane stated that many of the staff’s offices are pretty cramped and said he would hope that moving things around would get staff some room to breathe.
Mr. Sean Keighran, President of the Residential Builders Association (RBA) said that it had been a few years since members of the RBA attended these meetings. Mr. Keighran said that the RBA watched as the BIC scrutinized candidates for the position of Director and were not present when the big announcement was made. Mr. Keighran stated that the day a permanent Director was chosen marked the end of spiraling employee morale and hopefully that day will mark the end of the productivity levels that have diminished for some time. Mr. Keighran urged the employees and the Commission to give the Director’s ideas a chance and said that it will take two or three years to implement these ideas.
Mr. John O’Connor of the RBA congratulated the new Director and said that today was a breath of fresh air. Mr. O’Connor said that he had heard a lot about the progress of the last two years, but said that he was more pessimistic because he thought that DBI went from a surplus to a deficit. Mr. O’Connor stated that morale of the Department is low and said that it is good to have a Director that comes with a knowledge base and understands structural engineering and plan check.
Mr. Ritchie Harte of the RBA said that sometimes new blood is the only way to go and said that he thought that the Director’s report was fantastic. Mr. Harte stated that the Commission had done a good job in hiring this Director. Mr. Harte said that the Mayor said that money is not the object and said that the RBA was looking forward to working with the new Director and the Commission.
Mr. Leo Cassidy of the RBA said he welcomed the new Director and said that it was wonderful to have a new man that is qualified for the job. Mr. Cassidy said that the Director’s report was amazing considering that the Director was only on the job for forty-nine days. Mr. Cassidy stated that it is great to see someone who is treating the City like a business and actually going to work in the morning.
Mr. Suheil Shatara welcomed the new Director and said he looked forward to working with him. Mr. Shatara said that he had one area of concern and that was the coordination between the different departments especially Planning. Mr. Shatara stated that the policy for demolition needs to be looked at from DBI and not Planning.
Mr. Joe Cassidy of the RBA welcomed the new Director and said that he had been working with this Department for twenty-seven years. Mr. Cassidy said that the Department had gone down in the past two years. Mr. Cassidy stated that he had met with the Director and said that the RBA was just asking that all stakeholders get their permits in an orderly fashion. Mr. Cassidy said that the Director had proven himself in two other California counties and said that he looked forward to service at DBI being improved.
President Walker thanked everyone for their comments and asked Director Hasenin to proceed with the report on the proposed budget changes for 2007/2008.
Director Hasenin gave the following presentation for changes to the budget to go along with the proposed new organization for DBI.
- Business Process Reengineering Project
- Premium Plan Check Program
- Hire Engineers with Specialized Expertise
Business Process Reengineering Project
- DBI needs to deliver quality service to the public in a timely, efficient and cost effective manner. DBI will undertake a multi-year project that will focus on processes with the most service impact on the public. DBI will be realigned to increase accountability through a new structure.
- Four new positions are requested for the Business Process Reengineering Project.
(This would involve realigning and restructuring the Department through a new structure. It would require hiring four new project based management positions that would be allowed for a duration of three years.)
Premium Plan Check Program
- DBI will add several plan check engineers to process premium projects. Costs will be recovered from the premium fee authorized in the Building Code. On-going plan checking will continue without disruption or delay.
- Positions added will be Mechanical and Structural Engineer.
(This would reinstate a previous program that was discontinued. It would allow those customers requiring a faster turnaround time for their projects to be approved to pay an additional 50% for permit fees and to get expedited service. This would require three new positions, a structural engineer, a plan checker and a supervisor. A structural engineer would be hired in July to get the program going and then hire the additional positions as needed. If the program is successful then it would be continued, but if at the end of the year it does not pencil out then it would be eliminated. The priority for the standard permitting process is still a priority. President Walker expressed concerns that this would create an inconsistent and unfair process. Director Hasenin explained that it would be a separate department.)
Add Engineer with Specialized Expertise
- Geotechnical Engineer to have in-house expertise in seismic, hillside, and other geotechnical issues.
- Fire Protection Engineer to deal with the increasing complexity and uniqueness of projects being proposed in San Francisco.
This program would add a couple of specialty type engineers needed in a City of this size and due to the complexity of projects. One engineer would be a geotechnical engineer and the other one would be a fire protection engineer that would serve as a technical advisor to the Director. Director Hasenin stated that this plan would not replace what the formal plan check is doing nor would the fire protection engineer’s position do reviews for fire codes.
Total Operating Budget $48.4 Million
(A Decrease from prior year operating budget of $0.6 million)
- Funded Employees 2006 – 2007 = 289.7
- Added in 2007 – 2008 = 4.0
- Total Funded Employees = 293.7
President Walker called for public comment on the budget presentation.
Mr. Ken Cochrane asked that the Commission consider approving this reorganization in order to encourage business to come to San Francisco. Mr. Cochrane stated that if there is a one week delay in a high-rise building that one week delay could cost between $40,000 - $50,000. Mr. Cochrane said that San Francisco needs business to locate in this City to build their offices and create jobs.
There was no further comment.
Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, that the Commission approve the Director’s briefing and encourage its implementation. The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC 029-07
Commissioner Grubb made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, that the Commission accept the amended advisement of the budget as made clear by the Director. The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC 030-07
Director Hasenin thanked Patty Herrera and William Strawn of DBI for helping him put together this presentation.
|
