Audit shows changes needed at Development Services Department

Nearly a decade after a damning evaluation of the city’s planning and development processes resulted in more than 460 recommended changes, a recent audit of two smaller components of the Development Services Department found some steps left incomplete from a pair of more recent reviews.

On Wednesday, the Audit and Finance Committee of City Council heard the results of the audit, which was a follow-up to a 2017 review of the demolition permitting process and a 2019 audit of the city’s permitting process. The draft audit found that four of the six recommendations included in those two documents had been completed.

One of the two incomplete changes is that DSD does not ensure demolition permits are issued with all needed reviews, safety measures and notifications. The audit noted that issues remain in the notification process for demolition permitting. The second incomplete change is the lack of a coalition agreement with Austin Energy, which is seen as essential for ensuring coordination between the two organizations.

Relating to the demolition permits, the auditor’s office noted, “None of the nine sample permits we analyzed had evidence of an environmental inspection, which is required of all demolitions. Three of the nine sample permits did not have verification of a plumbing disconnect, which verifies that there is no running water on the property. There were also several other components that were not documented across the sample, including lead paint reviews, asbestos reviews, and City Arborist reviews.”

Those shortcomings were attributed to a lack of a process to organize all needed documents, including those related to recent changes in the demolition approval process.

The audit said the coalition agreement with Austin Energy is needed as part of an overall improvement of DSD’s permitting process called for in the 2015 report and the 2019 follow-up. While DSD has reached agreements with other relevant bodies – including Austin Public Health and Austin Water – its staff told auditors that a recent director-level retirement and “ongoing consulting work” have impeded progress with Austin Energy.

In a Dec. 1 response memo, DSD Director José Roig said the department agrees with the audit.

He said the issues with the demolition permitting process are due to shortcomings with permitting software and that an ongoing effort to procure a new enterprise case management system would solve that problem. Until that decision is carried out, he said department staffers are working to design an interim solution.

Roig wrote that DSD is working with McKinsey & Co. as part of the consulting firm’s ongoing review of the city’s planning and development process before moving forward with a final agreement with Austin Energy.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Angela Means, deputy director of DSD, said all needed changes to department processes are expected to be completed early this spring.

“As far as the coalition agreements, it was important for us to make sure that we included the great work that we’re doing there to ensure that all of the coalition agreements include that language. We anticipate having that completed by late March, early April when the McKinsey effort is completed,” she said. “As far as the demolition permits, we will have the interim solution completed within the next 30 days.”

Council Member Vanessa Fuentes said she would like the coalition agreement to lead to improved service for her constituents in East Austin.

“The feedback that I’ve received from my community – there’s significant supply chain issues with getting transformers in the area, and the processes with Austin Energy have been flagged for me on numerous occasions as a huge part of the delay in us being able to get housing off the ground,” she said. “I’d like to talk through with Austin Energy their level of commitment to see what else they can and are working on.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.