Mount Vernon building department reports backlog cut to seven and record permit revenue in 2024

Mount Vernon Commissioner of Buildings Patrick Holder presented a year‑end operational report to the City Council summarizing the Building Department’s 2024 performance, staffing pressures and next steps for permitting and inspections.

Holder said the department cut a backlog of roughly 800 older applications (pre‑2021) to seven remaining legacy files and processed about 1,273 permits in 2024. He reported permit and fine revenue of about $3.95 million for the year, and noted the city expects to top $4 million as additional fees (e.g., elevator and absentee landlord fees) are collected.

Why it matters: the Building Department’s operational capacity affects housing starts, business permits, public‑safety inspections and owners seeking to close real estate transactions. The department described a rapid growth in application volume after launching the OpenGov permitting system late in 2022 — from around 70 to roughly 200 applications per month — and said that a state directive to add certain annual inspections increased the workload by an estimated 1,500 inspections.

Key metrics the department presented: - Application intake: OpenGov now receives about 200 applications per month (up from ~70 historically). The department sampled applications and reported an average first response for applications without plans of about seven business days (10 business days is the target window communicated by staff). For applications submitted with plans, department review averaged around seven business days in‑house, but the department said design professionals took an average of about 98 days to respond to initial review comments in a sampled set. Holder cautioned that permit timelines are influenced by multiple parties (planning boards, consultants and design professionals), so total permit turnarounds vary widely. - Permit issuance: For an ideal application, staff estimated permit issuance could take about 25 business days (clerks and plan consultants), while imperfect applications that need rework can take months. - Inspections: The department reported completing 2,102 of 2,108 scheduled inspections in 2024 (this figure included both new inspections and older backlog items carried forward). Holder said many additional multiple‑dwelling and public‑assembly inspections had failed initial review in the department’s sample because those properties had not been inspected in many years. - Backlog and records: Holder said the department is managing roughly 11,000 property folders and is deploying Laserfiche (records management) to better inventory open permits, certificates of occupancy and violations; the department is in early phases and expects clearer data as Laserfiche implementation continues. - Staffing and productivity: The department reported three building inspectors and three housing inspectors on staff. Inspector productivity averaged approximately five inspections per inspector per week in 2024 (department said some inspections require hours of on‑site work and substantial report writing). Because the state added about 1,500 annual inspections, the department said the added workload would require substantial staff hours (the department estimated about eight staff hours per inspection when accounting for field time and paperwork) and in some areas has relied on outsourcing to consultants. - Compliance and enforcement: Holder said the average time from violation issuance to dismissal improved in 2024, falling to about 61 days from roughly 111 days previously. In the initial rounds of multiple‑dwelling and public‑assembly inspections performed under the state directive, many properties did not pass initially – the department reported zero properties passing on the first inspection in a sampled set. - Technology and service: The department said online query response averages about three days and encouraged constituents to use OpenGov to view application status. The office reported it will work to produce monthly, non‑random samples of application processing times and a process flow map showing who touches an application at each stage.

Solar permits and legislative timing: Council members raised the recent solar permitting local law, which requires permit review in ten days. Department staff said many solar submissions involve structural and fire‑safety issues (roofs of older homes, adjacent buildings, and unusual electrification scenarios) and that solar reviews have recently averaged about 15 days because of those safety concerns and the volume of applications; the department suggested a council–staff conversation to align statutory timelines with operational realities.

Outsourcing and finance: Holder explained the department is using outside consultants to meet inspection obligations; the city retains a portion of fees (department indicated Mount Vernon receives about 30% of the fee and consultants receive the remainder under current arrangements). Holder also described that 2024 revenue represented the department’s highest year on record and attributed part of this to improved processes and developer engagement.

Council requests and next steps: council members asked the department to provide the next report with non‑random monthly samples (e.g., all applications received during a calendar month), a process tree mapping who touches an application and when, and clearer breakdowns for permits that do or do not require land‑use board approvals. Holder said staff will produce these items, continue Laserfiche rollout, and pursue targeted outsourcing to close inspection gaps.

Direct quotes included Commissioner Patrick Holder: "Prior to when I came in in 2021, we had about 800 applications backlogged. As of this January, we're down to 7 backlogs going back from 2019." He also told council "we've now added in 2024 about 1,500 inspections in addition to what we were doing before," describing the added workload and the need for outside support.

No formal votes or ordinance actions occurred at the council discussion; the session was a departmental performance report and council asked for more detailed, month‑based metrics at the next meeting.