HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-05-164 - Bill 124 Preparedness
)
~
Development &
Technical Services
~
Report To:
Date of Meeting:
Submitted By:
Prepared By:
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report:
Report No.:
Subject:
Chair Christina Weylie and Members
Development & Technical Services Committee
September 26, 2005
Jim Witmer, Director of Building
Jim Witmer, (741-2846)
"All"
September 13, 2005
DTS-05-164
BILL 124 PREPAREDNESS
RECOMMENDATION:
"That Council authorize pre-budget approval for the Building Division to hire the
additional resources as identified in the report to satisfy the Corporations new
obligations under the Building Code Act and Ontario Regulation #305/03 (Bill 124) to a
maximum of (7) FTE's."
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINIENT TO THIS MATTER
· DTS - 05 - 098, June 13, 2005 - Bill 124 - An Act to improve public safety and to
increase efficiency in building code enforcement
· DTS - 04 - 086, June 7, 2004 - Status report to DTS Committee on Bill 124
· BPS - 01 - 032, March 5, 2001 - Report to DTS Committee on Bill 124.
BACKGROUND:
On March 5, 2001 DTS Committee received an information report from the Chief Building
Official with respect to Bill 124, "An Act to Improve Public Safety and to Increase Efficiency in
Building Code Enforcement". Committee requested that the Chief Building Official report back
on the full implications of Bill 124 once it was proclaimed and the regulations there under
enacted. Bill 124 was the province's response to the Building Regulatory Reform Advisory
Group's (BRRAG) report presented to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in August of
2000.
Bill 124 received first reading on November 1, 2001. The Bill was proclaimed on July 25, 2003,
without any changes from the first reading, as the Building Code Statue Law Amendment Act,
2002, and Ontario Regulation 305/03 was filed to implement the Province's Building Regulatory
Reform.
Some of the amendments to the Building Code Act, 1992 and the Building Code came into force
on September 1, 2003, while the majority took effect July 1, 2005. Notwithstanding this
timeframe some of the requirements within the legislation relating to qualifications of designers
and building officials as well as timeframes for permit issuance were deferred until January 1,
2006.
On June 13, 2005 Council approved a new Building By-law which included a Code of Conduct
for municipal building officials. In that report it was determined that a review of our current
business processes and service levels was required to identify process improvements to ensure
that we were able to comply with the proposed legislated service timelines.
That review was undertaking with the assistance of The Syntegrity Group during the spring and
summer of 2005 and the following report summarizes our findings.
REPORT:
In early 2005 the following Project Objectives were identified:
To make improvement recommendations for an auditable process to meet Bill 124
service levels and current client expectations.
o The key service levels established by the Province are; residential permits issued
within 10 business days or written notification must be given with 10 business
days indicating the reasons for denial, and
o Inspections completed within 48 hours of request.
Improve data integrity in AMANDA and expand its function an use within the corporation
as a valuable corporate information tool.
Review and analyze the permit and inspection processes and make improvements
where needed.
Expose the corporation to process mapping, analysis and simulation.
With the assistance of the consultant we mapped our ("as is") current business processes for
plan examination and building inspection for new construction of single family dwellings,
duplexes, townhouses and semi-detached units. This work represented 45% of all the permits
we issued and processed and was the easiest group to be able to evaluate and confirm our
ability to respond to the new legislated requirements. We used this opportunity to evaluate how
we were performing as it related to the new requirements. The following were the observations:
Permits:
· Current resources inadequate to meet service level requirements
· Staff operating at over capacity
· To meet current timeframes, we used overtime and borrowed resources from Inspection
leaving the inspection area short staffed
· Adjustments are required to meet service targets, staff training and development, work
strategically and mitigate risks
· Evaluation required for balance of the 55% of the permit activity to determine required
resource levels
Inspections:
· Generally meeting the Bill 124 target of 48 hours, but current client expectation is
around within 36 hours
· Final inspections and follow up not being completed and files closed
· Many inspections being rushed with potential to miss deficiencies
· Client service expectations are same day or next day service based on historic service
delivery, (20+ years) and industry standards (other municipalities)
· Need more accurate metrics on inspection travel time
· Need to increase the amount of available inspection time
· Need to analyze risk in quality of inspections when meeting the expected timeframe of
the client
· Need to adhere to established standards for each type of inspection
The next step was to develop the new "as it will be" process.
· develop role changes, model and test through simulation
· select the best options
· create the "as it will be" simulation
· develop and evaluate a shared resource for Permits and Inspections to address peak
activities
· identify technology improvements
· Develop plan for on-going monitoring and measuring.
The significant changes that were identified in moving to the "as it will be" were:
· improved co-ordination and communication with Planning and Engineering
· Site Plan approval a pre-condition or as close as possible building permit application
· Bill 124 clock targets set as per the legislation
· Internal Targets at each major step in the process
· Consistent AMANDA documentation by the inspectors
· Consistent logging of travel times
· Administrative support more effectively utilized
Other considerations:
· Reallocation of administrative activities
· Mandatory requirements at application submission
· Re-designed office floor plan to facilitate workflow
· Fee collection and notification tasks dedicated to specific staff
The recommendations within the report to satisfy our new obligations are as follows:
· Develop budget requirements and an implementation plan ( e.g. new forms,
communication plan, training for customers and staff, technology improvements, etc)
· Create a Supervisor of Permits position
· Add Administrative position
· Add Front Counter Plan Examiner position
· Add Plan Examiner position
· Add (3) three inspector positions for Part 9 additions, alterations, sheds, decks, pools,
plumbing and complaints
· All new hires will be capable of both Plan Examination and Inspection duties to enable
response to fluctuating activity levels
· Implement the "as it will be" process maps
· Communicate the findings and recommendations with the stake holders
· Implement Red Flag program January 1, 2006 to allow us to address situations when
the builder is calling prior to being ready for the inspection or has not completed all of
the previous deficiencies.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The estimated annual cost for salaries and benefits of $436,206 for the proposed additional staff
resources will be funded through building permit fees collected within the Building Division
Enterprise and there will be no cost to the tax base as these expenses are directly related to the
enforcement of the Building Code Act and Regulation.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Communication plan is being developed to advise stake holders of changes.
CONCLUSION:
With the recommended process improvements and resource structure the simulation model
illustrates that we will be able to meet Bill 124 service levels permit issuance and inspections for
the construction of new singles, semis, townhouse and duplex units 99% of the time.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Witmer, CET, CBCO
Director of Building
Gordon Stewart, P.Eng.
General Manager,
Development and Technical Services
Roger LeBrun
Manager of Budgets and Financial Services