Mount Vernon building department reports faster permit response times, outlines steps to cut backlog

Mount Vernon’s building department told the City Council at a work session May 27 that the department has reduced its average first response time for permit applications and laid out a set of operational changes to address a backlog of applications and inconsistent data entry.

Deputy Commissioner Dawn Asbury told council members that “the initial response to applications was on average about 44 days. In the month of April, it improved to 15 days.” The department said the overall four‑month average (January–April 2025) was about 29 days and that staff are working toward a 10‑day initial response target.

The department attributed much of the improvement to expedited processing for low‑complexity permits (for example, fences, windows, roofs and signs) and to new procedures that move applicants toward submitting requested documentation through OpenGov, the city’s permitting platform. Deputy Commissioner Heidi Nemec reported that the department received 807 applications from January through April 2025 and issued 405 permits in that period.

The presentation also identified several problem areas. The department reported 419 complaints received from January through April 2025, and said inspections and enforcement activity followed those complaints; staff said inspections produced about 155 violations and that applicants filed 45 violation‑dismissal requests, of which 13 were granted. Comptroller’s staff told the council the department’s revenues are running ahead of last year; the comptroller’s office said, “we are 10% ahead of last year.”

Council members pressed staff on data quality. When asked why one inspector’s logged totals appeared substantially higher than others, department staff said the figures were skewed by inconsistent entry of inspection results into OpenGov. “The data is skewed because even though we have multiple inspectors that are doing probably around the same amount, because they're not entering the data correctly into OpenGov, the numbers are skewed,” Asbury said. Staff said they met with inspectors last week to standardize data entry and will monitor entries for the next two months.

The department described immediate and planned steps to address delays and to increase consistency: - Cross‑training clerks: staff said biweekly cross‑training will begin in June and continue through July so permits do not stall when individual clerks are absent. - Temporary summer staffing: a temporary clerk was hired to handle an anticipated increase in summer permit applications. - Inspector tools and training: staff said inspectors have iPads with the OpenGov app and that recent Wi‑Fi issues were resolved; they also have held trainings and will require inspectors to enter observations within five business days of an inspection. - Designated follow‑up clerk: the department will assign an office clerk to work with inspectors to close permits within 5–10 business days after inspections when additional office review is required. - Data migration: staff said they are transferring historical records from the legacy system (referred to in the presentation as Muniste) into OpenGov so future reports will include historical work now missing from OpenGov exports. - Customer‑facing improvements: staff are creating guides and short videos, improving email oversight, and piloting automated responses to common administrative queries; the department said it has met with an external vendor described as a digital‑clerk provider to explore automated front‑end responses.

Janira Borges, identified in the presentation as a Harvard Bloomberg Fellow working with the department, summarized a customer survey conducted March–May that had 21 responses. “We received a total of 21 submissions,” Borges said. She reported that most respondents were homeowners, that 13 of 21 respondents described staff as helpful or courteous, and that 15 of 21 said the quality of customer service exceeded expectations. Borges also reported the longest permit experiences reported by respondents ranged from three to six months, while some applicants reported permits taking one to two weeks.

Councilors raised other operational questions: how complaints are categorized (staff said the “other” category includes items such as short‑term rentals and illegal parking and that the department will run a report to break down the “other” group for council), how multi‑dwelling buildings account for a large share of complaints (staff said multifamily properties generate more complaints), and how public assembly inspections are scheduled (staff said inspections require a request and that when property owners do not apply, the department issues violations; staff estimated they have issued “around 20” violations related to public assembly inspection failures and said they have completed roughly 50–60 public assembly inspections jointly with the fire department).

The department asked council members for guidance on whether they would like consolidated month‑by‑month reporting; staff agreed to provide reports covering the same monthly range for the next briefing. Staff also said they will provide a follow‑up report breaking down complaints listed under “other,” and that they will coordinate with Commissioner Perez, Commissioner Holder and the comptroller’s office on specific workflow and staffing questions.

The presentation closed with staff noting progress is ongoing and that several process changes — cross‑training, a temporary clerk, standardized OpenGov entry and historical data migration — are intended to improve response times, inspection closing rates and customer communications. The work session continued into the city’s legislative agenda after the building department presentation.