HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - Building Department Customer Service. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 22
February 24, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Building Department
Jay Elbettar, Building Director, (949) 644 -3282
jelbettar @city.newport - beach.ca.us.
SUBJECT: Staff Proposal to Add Two Plan Checker and One Part -time
Permit Technician Positions to Reduce Reliance on Contract
Plan Checkers and to Improve Customer Services in the
Building Department
• ISSUE:
Should the City Council amend the Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 budget to authorize two
additional civil engineer (plan check) positions and a part -time permit technician position
for the Building Department to reduce the volume of plan checks performed by
consultants and to improve customer service?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a budget amendment transferring $27,641 from account number 2930 -8080
and $4,359 from unappropriated general fund balance to various salary and benefit
accounts in division 2930 to cover the cost of employees added in this fiscal year.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The Building Department staffing level and the use of consultants was the subject of a
City Council study session held on January 27, 2004 (Recycled report included in
agenda packet).
. That discussion centered on the proper use of consultants to perform the plan review
function versus in -house staff, percentage of work sent out, quality of outside plan
check services, possibility of procuring full -time consultant staff on site, and space
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 2
considerations. Staff was directed to address these issues and to submit this request •
for further Council consideration.
Analysis
The current Building Department plan check staffing level has not changed since the
late 1970's. Since the construction activity has increased, the department has used
consultant services to address these temporary fluctuations. The plan check
requirements have grown over time. Since 1980, the State imposed additional plan
check requirements on local jurisdictions, such as disabled access and energy
standards. The department also assumed additional plan check responsibilities such
as harbor construction, fire alarm and sprinkler, and water quality reviews. With these
additional responsibilities, plan review staffing levels have not been adjusted. Since
1997, the department's reliance on consultant plan review services has been
inordinately high (See Exhibit IV of the study session staff report). It is evident that this
service demand is no longer temporary by the volume of work performed by
consultants, which has increased to 61%, based on valuation. A survey of adjoining
cities is listed below for comparison:
City Percentage of Plan Check Done by Consultants •
Newport Beach 61 % (Based on valuations)
Costa Mesa 15% (Based on valuations)
Huntington Beach 20% - 30% (Based on valuations)
Irvine 13% (Based on number of projects)
The increased use of consultants places undue demand on department staff to perform
more quality control checks and the administrative task of processing the correction
reports and coordination with other departments. Numerous complaints have been
received related to the plan review consultants. The Building Department provides the
consultants with orientation, training, and copies of all department forms, policies and
standard operating procedures in order to achieve the maximum level of consistency
between our in -house and consultants' plan review service. In addition, the department
instituted a quality control program in which in -house engineers conduct cursory reviews
for each consultant plan review report upon receipt and before permit issuance. We
changed this procedure last year to random reviews since it was impacting our in -house
service level. Since 1998, the department has severed its relationship with five
consultants because they did not meet the quality of service that we require. One
chose to terminate unilaterally.
The department explored the feasibility of procuring consultant services on site and
received reluctant responses from the consultants we contacted. They stated that it is
extremely difficult for them to provide such staffing due to market conditions. However, •
staff believes that the competitive nature of the building plan review industry forces
consultants to utilize municipally employed engineers on a part-time basis to address
their own staffing needs to meet increasing demands. Proposals were received from
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 3
• Charles Abbott Associates and VCA Code Group. The proposals were $83 and $80 per
hour respectively for an on -site consultant plan review engineer. The City's estimate for
a full -time permanent civil engineer position is $42.75 per hour, including benefits. The
following is the annual cost of on -site consultants and permanent staff.
• Annual cost of one on -site consultant is $166,400 - $172,640
• Annual cost of one proposed engineer position (Step 4) is $88,903
• Annual cost of one proposed part-time permit technician (Step 4) is $30,028
• Annual cost of two engineers (Step 4) is $177,806
• Annual cost of two engineers and a part-time permit technician is $207,834
Space Considerations
The Building Department shares the "Professional and Technical Building" with the
Planning and Public Works Departments. The space necessary for staff /customer
interaction has become severely limited at the counter. The customer waiting area is
insufficient despite several attempts to improve it by ordering smaller chairs to increase
seating area, adding outdoor seating, enclosing the second floor conference room, and
adding a desk for the customers to use. The shortage of meeting space impacts the
department's operation and services.
iIf the Building Department relocates either wholly or partially off -site, then the
coordination with other departments and cashiering becomes difficult, not to mention
access and maintenance of the historical permit records and plans. We feel that adding
the requested positions to improve our service delivery needs to go hand -in -hand with a
space adjustment.
There are three alternatives to space considerations. The first would be placing the
new plan check engineers' work stations on the second floor where the inspectors are
currently located. These stations require a fair amount of space due to the size of plans
the engineers review. The inspectors' area will be remodeled to create another
customer interaction space /meeting area and to allow Planning to expand into the
vacated inspectors' area to relieve its staffing congestion. The inspectors would move
into a new trailer somewhere on the City Hall campus.
The second alternative is similar to the first except the inspectors would be relocated
from the City Hall campus to a leased space. Several operational issues are inherent in
this alternative such as coordination with the plan check engineers which normally
occurs daily and coordination with other departments involved in the development
review process such as Fire, Planning, and Public Works. Customers meet with
inspectors at the Building Department counter to ask questions and resolve field issues.
Relocating the inspectors would impact their customer interaction. The inspectors
• require daily access to plans, Building Department records, forms, and supplies which
will no longer be readily accessible. In addition, the approved plans are usually stored
in a secured vault in the Building Department with strict record management and control
procedures in place to protect these plans making it unfeasible for the inspectors to
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 4
transport these plans to an off- campus location. The commercial inspection teams •
perform mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plan check. Routing of the plans to them
and their required interactions with the customers during the review and approval
process will decentralize that process.
The third alternative is to have the new staff share offices with the current staff
members and keep the inspectors in their area. The plan check engineers would use
the commercial inspectors' area, which is used for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
plan review. This alternative is only viable when the inspectors are in the field. This
office sharing has several disadvantages in that the engineers will not be able to
perform their plan review effectively with their reference material and codes unavailable
nor when the commercial inspectors are present. The commercial inspectors' area is
an open office space, which would present a challenge to the engineers when
discussing technical issues or corrections with customers in person or on the telephone.
In summary, we believe that locating a portion of staff away from City Hall campus will
be inefficient and not user friendly for our customers. Therefore, we recommend the
first alternative and will follow the City Manager's lead in deciding where the appropriate
location for a trailer would be.
Building Code Board of Appeals •
The Building Code Board of Appeals endorsed the addition of two full -time civil engineer
positions and a part-time permit technician position at their meeting on February 12,
2004, by a unanimous vote. The board felt the proposal would serve to improve
customer service.
Prepared and submitted by:
, Building Director
JE /mg
Attachments: 1. Council work session staff report, dated 1/27/2004, with Exhibits I
through V
2. Building Code Board of Appeals Minutes of 2/12/2004 .
Council S\2DDakouncil repri 2 -24 -04
0
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 5
Attachment 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session Agenda Item No. 3
January 27, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Building Department
Jay Elbettar, Building Director, (949) 644 -3282
jelbettar @city.newport- beach.ca.us.
SUBJECT: Building Department Staffing Levels —Contract Plan Checkers
Versus Staff Plan Checkers
• ISSUE:
Should the City Council authorize one additional plan check engineer position and half a
permit technician position to reduce the volume of plan checks done by outside
consultants and to improve customer service?
DISCUSSION:
Background:
In 1991, the historic normal construction activity decreased due to the declining
economy and continued its decline until 1995. Since 1995, the construction activity has
steadily increased and leveled off in 2003, to 2.6 times the 1993 volume (Exhibit 1).
In 1994, the City cut back staff in all departments due to the slowing economy and the
loss of property tax revenue to the State. At the same time, in July 1994, the Building
Department assumed the fire alarm and fire sprinkler plan check function from the Fire
Department in lieu of laying off one of the plan check engineers. This change also
streamlined the plan check process. In June 1995, the grading engineer was laid off
due to staff cutbacks and the plan check staff was reduced from four engineers to three.
. Following the layoff, construction valuation almost doubled in fiscal year 1995/1996 and
continued to climb from $79,692,000 in 1995 to $220,623,000 in 2000 and back down to
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 6
$187,489,000 in 2003. Construction valuation is projected to be $215,000,000 for the
current fiscal year based on valuation ending November 2003 (Exhibit 1).
Current Work Load:
Currently and for the last four years, the plan check and permit processing work load
has been at an all time high (Exhibits I, II, III). Plan check engineers and permit
technicians have to cope with higher customer service demands at the permit counter.
Approximately one third of walk -in customers come in to see an engineer for technical
information or to ask clarification questions on a plan check done either by staff plan
check engineers, or by plan check consultants. Providing this service requires a full
time plan check engineer position (see Exhibit 111) at the counter.
In July 2000, the Building Department assumed the responsibility of plan check, permit
processing and record keeping for construction within the Harbor, which was previously
done by Public Works and the Marine Division of the Fire Department. This was done
in conjunction with the reorganization of the Marine Division under the Harbor
Resources Division.
In June 2002, the Building Department assumed the responsibility for enforcement of
council policy L -18 and L -22 dealing with design and construction water quality
requirements. In July 2003, this responsibility expanded to also include the State Water
Quality Management plan requirement for construction projects.
In July 2002, we streamlined the plan check process so that 90% of plan checks will be
done in less than four weeks. This increased the demand on the plan check engineers
and a higher demand for outside consultant plan check service.
The annexation of Newport Coast and Bay Knolls in July 2002, and Santa Ana Heights
in July 2003 increased the building stock by 15 %. Santa Ana Heights has been going
through a redevelopment boom, which includes the construction of several office
buildings. Four of them are currently in plan check. More office buildings are still in the
design phase and others have been completed and are submitting tenant improvement
projects into plan check.
Measures Taken:
To keep up with the increased workload, we have taken the following measures:
a) Plan Check Consultants
The Building Department signed agreements with four plan check consultants
and have been sending overflow plan checks out to them (Exhibit IV shows that
by valuation about 61% of plan checks are done by consultants). While plan
check consultants are a common relief used by cities to address fluctuations of
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 7
plan check workload, it is usually to satisfy a temporary need and has many
shortfalls. Plan check consultants provide services for many jurisdictions and
have to be trained and informed of local requirements. Consultants tend to run a
mass production operation, which does not render the same quality plan check
and customer service that staff delivers. Also, some of our plan check staff time
is used monitoring the quality of consultant plan checks and reviewing and
approving revisions to the approved drawings. In general, our customers prefer
that their drawings be plan checked in -house and prefer dealing with familiar and
readily accessible city staff. While we closely manage and coordinate projects
checked by consultants, we constantly receive requests from customers to have
their projects checked "in- house ". We also receive complaints regarding
consultants lacking customer service. Outside plan checks constitute a major
portion of our customer complaints.
b) Expedite Plan Review
In addition to using consultants for overflow plan check, we also use the
expedited plan check service to check small projects (additions and alterations)
on a fast track. Permit applicants for small projects can request an expedited
plan check and pay the applicable fee. Permit technicians and plan check
engineers spend additional time to process these special service requests.
c) Tenant Improvement Fast Track
Submittals for tenant improvement projects have been separated from the rest of
Submittals and fast tracked to allow tenants to move in quickly into tenant space
since the plan check associated with this type of project does not include
reviewing structural design. While this process accelerates review and approval
of tenant improvement projects, it impacts the plan check turnaround time for
other projects.
d) Restoring Cancelled Position
Because of the sustained high construction activity over the past ten years and
the discontent of our customers with plan check consultants, we proposed during
fiscal 2000/2001 budget process and the City Council approved that we
substitute and fill the previously authorized vacant grading engineer position with
a plan check engineer position. In October 2000, we hired a plan check engineer
in place of the grading engineer.
Higher Service Standard
The Building Department increased its service level over the last seven years to provide
a higher degree of accuracy and care in plan check and to provide better customer
service. This increased the time necessary to provide plan check and permit
processing service.
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 8
Consultant versus In -house Plan Check
0
Notes:
1. City pays an average 70% of the plan check fee collected for jobs sent to
consultants. 30% of the plan check fee is kept by the department for processing,
coordinating and checking the quality of plan check.
2. The City currently employs four plan check engineers. Each engineer checks an
average of $20 Million worth of construction valuation per year. We estimate it
would require hiring four additional engineers to do all the plan check by
department staff at the current construction activity level.
3. Construction activity has been very high during the last four years and the
Building Department relied on outside consultants for overflow plan check since
1997. We expect the construction activity may drop to an average valuation of
$150 Million per year when the economy improves and interest rates increase.
At that level, six plan check engineers could plan check approximately $120
Million worth of construction and $30 Million worth would be checked by outside
consultants.
Staff Plan Check Engineers
Consultants
Types of Projects checked
• Single- family dwellings (tracts and
• New single- family dwellings
complex custom homes)
• Major residential additions
• New non - residential structures (office
and alterations
buildings, churches, mixed -use buildings,
etc.)
• Residential additions and alterations
• Additions to commercial buildings
• Tenant improvements
• Harbor structures (docks, piers, seawalls,
etc.)
• Fire alarm, fire sprinkler
• Miscellaneous permits over the counter
(Minor residential additions and
alterations, re -roof, fences, retaining
walls, patio covers, etc.)
• Revisions to drawings for projects under
construction including those originally
checked by consultants
• Coordinate projects checked by
consultants and review the quality of work
Number of Projects
883 + 1478 misc. projects checked over the
486
checked in
counter
2002-2003
Construction Valuation
$73,468,925
$115,357,000
Notes:
1. City pays an average 70% of the plan check fee collected for jobs sent to
consultants. 30% of the plan check fee is kept by the department for processing,
coordinating and checking the quality of plan check.
2. The City currently employs four plan check engineers. Each engineer checks an
average of $20 Million worth of construction valuation per year. We estimate it
would require hiring four additional engineers to do all the plan check by
department staff at the current construction activity level.
3. Construction activity has been very high during the last four years and the
Building Department relied on outside consultants for overflow plan check since
1997. We expect the construction activity may drop to an average valuation of
$150 Million per year when the economy improves and interest rates increase.
At that level, six plan check engineers could plan check approximately $120
Million worth of construction and $30 Million worth would be checked by outside
consultants.
0 SUMMARY
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 9
The plan check group has elevated its quality standard and decreased its plan check
turn - around time. The plan check process has been streamlined by coordinating the
plan check with other departments which participate in the process. It acquired the plan
check of fire sprinkler and fire alarm plan check duties from the fire department and plan
check of Harbor structures from Public Works. Plan check staff also checks compliance
with recently adopted council policy on water quality and mandated Federal Clean
Water Act construction requirements. The group's scope of work has increased by
approximately 15% due to annexations and struggles to keep up with the increased
construction activity from a construction driven economy. The need for additional staff
is permanent and we feel should not be permanently solved by hiring outside
consultants. Current plan check staffing is at the same level it was in the 80's when
construction valuation averaged less than half the current level.
Funding Availability:
The additional staff cost would be completely offset by the reduction in consultant fees.
The following table represents the construction valuation, plan check revenue and
expenditures and consultant fees since the department began utilizing them for overflow
plan check services.
Fiscal Year
Construction
Valuation
Total Plan
Check
Revenue
Plan Check and
Permits Division
Expenditures
Consultant Fees
(Included in Division
Expenditures)
1996/1997
$204,000,000
$774,756
$187,555
1997/1998
$225,000,000
$960,870
$188,534
1998/1999
$303,000,000
$1,111,144
$239,900
1999/2000
$221,000,000
$1,161,599
$292,322
2000/2001
$227,000,000
$1,293,712
$1,091,300
$280,947
2001/2002
$145,000,000
$1,124,955
$1,143,688
$274,540
2002/2003
$187,000,000
$1,366,915
$1,299,669
$438,691
"Expenditure figures are not available for these years when the Plan Check and Permits
Division budget was not reported separately within the Building Department budget.
• Total cost of one proposed engineer position (Step 4): $88,903
• Total cost of one proposed half technician position (Step 4): $30,028
• Total cost of two engineers and half a permit technician
position: $207,834
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 10
The Building Department charges fees for plan check and inspection services. We
expect that revenue from plan check based on an average $150 Million annual
construction valuation will cover the division's proposed staff costs and remaining
consultant costs.
Prepared by:
Faisal Jurdi, Deputy Building Official
FJ /mg
Attachments: Exhibits I through V
Submitted by:
Jay Elbettar, Building Director
0
0
9
•
•
$350
c
$300
O
145
M
$250 '
�
>
!n
C
O
$200
C
O
j
—
$150
C
$100 "
O
U $50
BE
3,500
Y 3,000
v
r 2,500
v
cots 2,000
'.a
p 1,500
1,000
E
0
Z 500
• 0
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 11
Exhibit I
Construction Valuation
$303
$225 $221 $227
$204 $215
$146
145
$72 $70 $80
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*
FY Years *Projected
Exhibit //
Number of Plan Checks oer Calendar Year
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*
Calendar Years *Projected
2500
U') 2000
C<
W
� 1500
F-
V 1000
u-
t #1
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 12
Exhibit III
Customer Log 2002 — 2003
Oct -02 Nov -02 Dec -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 Mar -03 Apr -03 May -03 Jun -03 Jul -03 Aug -03 Sep -03 Oct -03
❑ # OF CUSTOMERS ASSISTED
■ # OF CUSTOMERS ASSISTED BY AN ENGINEER
❑ # OF CUSTOMERS THAT WAITED MORE THAN 30 MINS
$450,000
$400,000
to $350,000
0)
w $300,000
a
$250,000
rL
W $200,000 '
to
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000-
$0
Exhibit IV
Professional Technical Services Expenditures
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20W
Fiscal Years *Projected
•
•
� I�I
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20W
Fiscal Years *Projected
•
•
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 13
• Exhibit V
Building Department Revenue vs. Budget
•
95 -96 96-97 97 -98 98 -99 99 -2000 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003-
2001 2002 2003 2004`
Fiscal Year `Projected
Revenue
❑ Total $ Budget ® Total $ Revenue
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 14
Attachment 2 •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAFT
Building Code Board of Appeals Minutes
February 12, 2004
Regular Meeting - 2:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Crall, Liske, Luehrs, Root, Yont, Cranston.
Excused: Board Member Jeannette
STAFF PRESENT:
Jay Elbettar, Building Director
Faisal Jurdi, Deputy Building Official
Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney
Monika Goodwin, Administrative Assistant
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2003
Motion was made by Board member Liske to approve the minutes and seconded
by Board member Luehrs. The Motion was approved by acclamation, as written, the
September 30, 2003, Building Code Board of Appeals Minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
The Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda was posted on Thursday, February 5,
2004, outside of City Hall,
OLD BUSINESS: - None
NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM 1: Election of Building Code Board of Appeals Chairman and Vice
Chairman for the Year 2004
Motion was made by Board member Cranston to appoint board member Liske
again for chairman. Mr. Liske asked staff whether this was possible and Mr.
Elbettar said yes it was possible. Board member Root seconded the motion. Mr.
Root nominated Mr. Luehrs for vice chairman. Mr. Liske seconded, and the
Motion carried by acclamation.
INDEX
Minutes
•
Public
Comments
Posting of the
Agenda
Old Business
New Business
Election of
Building Code
Board of Appeals
Chairman and
Vice Chairman
for the Year 2004 •
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 15
ITEM 2: Building Department Staffing Levels
Mr. Elbettar gave a power point presentation to the board and highlighted the
main points of the staff report. He noted that Mr. Jurdi prepared the staff report
and was available to answer questions. Mr. Elbettar stated that staff was hoping
for a recommendation from the board to City Council. He explained that staff
presented this issue to the City Council during their January 27, 2004, study session
and several issues were raised by council members, such as percentage of work
that should be sent out, comparison with other cities, possibility of having full -time
consultant on site, space considerations, the proper use of consultant service,
whether the department chooses the right consultants, and about any quality
control in place. Staff attempted to address these issues in this report and will be
before City Council again on February 24, 2004, at their regular council meeting
at 7 p.m.
Mr. Elbettar stated that staff presented this issue to the Building Code Board of
Appeals for any comments, feedback, and endorsement the board may provide
for staff. He noted that this report included additional information. He explained
the current plan check staffing level of four State licensed and ICC certified plan
check engineers, who have vast experience. Plan check staff is augmented by
five outside consultants, including one geotechnical consultant. The permit
counter provided service by one senior permit technician, three permit
technicians and one student aide. The three technicians included two
experienced technicians and one technician trainee.
• He pointed out that in 1994, the Building Department assumed plan check of fire
alarm and fire sprinklers from the Fire Department. The slides showed additional
work that the Building Department had assumed over the years. In 1995, the
grading engineer was laid off due to budget cutbacks. During the same year,
construction valuation increased from $79 million to about $140 million. In 2000,
valuation increased almost threefold, to $220 million. The average valuation for
the last seven years has continued to be about $216 million. He pointed this out
on the chart, where an imaginary upward line could be drawn showing
consistently increasing activity. If the economy improved and the construction
activity leveled out, he expected the valuation to be at a level of about $150
million. He believed that this level would very likely never decrease due to the
high property values in this City.
Mr. Elbettar spoke to the current workload at the customer counter which related
to the construction valuation and which had been consistently high with an
average of over 100 customers per day. It was estimated that more than one
third of these customers required an engineer's assistance. He estimated that if
each engineer spent an average of 15 minutes per customer, which would be 30
customers times 15 minutes per day for a total of 7.5 hours engineering assistance
per day at the counter. In 2000, the Building Department assumed the additional
function of plan check and inspection of harbor construction from Public Works,
such as harbor and marina issues that have also been before this board. In 2002,
the Building Department assumed additional responsibility in accordance with
• Council Policy L -18 and L -22, involving water quality issues relating to design and
construction.
Item 2: Building
Department
Staffing Levels
The Board
recommended
staff's hiring
proposal to City
Council for
approval
Building Department
Staffing Levels
January
27, 2004
Page 16
•
Mr. Elbettar stated that the annexation of Newport Coast, Santa Ana Heights and
Bay Knolls increased the building stock by approximately 15 %. Newport Coast's
main construction was still handled by the County with the Building Department
handling only secondary permits. This was not the case with Santa Ana Heights,
which has been going through a building boom, including recent construction of
several office buildings with more in plan check. Mr. Elbettar stated that the
Building Department . consistently exceeded revenue projections as
demonstrated by this year's expected construction valuation of over $200 million.
He noted that so far the Building Department tried to handle this increase by
using outside plan check services since 1997. Currently 61 % of our projects based
on valuation are checked by consultants, while the remaining 39% are checked
in- house. The department provided expedited plan review when requested and
paid by the customer based on overtime. The department also provided fast
track plan check for tenant improvements that are checked within two weeks.
In the year 2000, the previously cancelled plan check position was restored by
City Council. He pointed out that the staffing level of four engineers has
remained the some dating back to 1979. The City of Irvine used outside
consultant plan check for about 13% of their projects; City of Costa Mesa about
15 %; Huntington Beach between 20 and 30 %; and City of Newport Beach about
61 %. Mr. Elbettar theorized if two additional engineers were hired and the
economy would stabilize at about $150 million, about 20% of plan check would
be left to outside consultants based on valuation.
He spoke about the increase of consultants' use and the comparison of types of
.
projects that were sent out. The use of consultants remained quite challenging
as City staffing, workload and major additions must be considered. Large
commercial projects are checked in- house, including tenant improvements, and
smaller projects, which are checked over the counter. Mr. Elbettar stated that
the department projected revenue versus budget very conservatively as these
fees must also be used for inspections a few years down the road. A substantial
part of the department's expenditures are budgeted for consultants.
He stated that based on the City Manager's direction, the cost of two engineers
and one part-time permit technician were included in the staff report. The total
cost of one engineer position, including benefits and retirement, was $88,903 per
year. The cost of one part -time permit technician was $30,028 per year. The
total cost of two engineers and one part time permit technician was $207,000.
Staff and City Manager will ask for City Council approval to add two permanent
full time engineer positions and one part time permit technician to reduce the
use of consultant services, and try to reach a balance of 80% plans checked by
staff engineers and 20% by consultants.
The public hearing was opened and closed since nobody asked to speak.
Mr. Luehrs asked about the complaint level in regard to outside consultants plan
checks. Mr. Elbettar stated that most plan check complaints were about outside
consultants. Complaints go directly to the City Manager and Council. Mr.
Elbettar said that an architect called him in complete support of this proposal
after the council's study session. Many architects would rather have plans
•
checked in -house than by outside consultants, and sometimes customers would
rather wait longer for inside plan check than use consultants. Mr. Luehrs asked
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 17
the percentage of complaints. Mr. Elbettar said the ratio of complaints were 3 or
4 about consultants to 1 about statt. However, most of the coordination issues
became even more complex due to the outside consultants not being available
for the customers.
Mr. Luehrs asked where the additional statt would be located. Mr. Elbettar
mentioned discussions with the City Manager, Mr. Bludau, and that there was no
denial that City space needs were high, therefore a plan for a new City Hall
existed. He stated that the Building and Planning Departments have space
needs. It was suggested to partially or wholly relocate the Building Department,
however, Mr. Elbettar advised against this plan since it would be a major setback
in customer service delivery and going away trom the one -stop shop service. It
some of the inspectors could be relocated to a trailer or some other location,
preferably still within the City Hall campus, the gained space could be used for
two engineer ottices; a customer meeting room, and two ottices could be
provided for Planning to help them relieve their congestion.
Mr. Liske stated that trom personal experience he was completely opposed to
outside plan check. Since every municipality has its own codes, etc., and the
outside checker was not tamiliar enough with these, which made for very bad
customer service. The consultants also were not available for contractors' and
builders' needs, which was very trustrating as he related trom personal
experience. Mr. Liske joked the department was perhaps too profitable. Mr.
Elbettar believed that Dennis Danner would charge them high rent as this
property was prime location.
Mr. Elbettar addressed some other points raised at the council study session since
Mr. Luehrs was present at that time. He spoke to the question raised as to the
quality of the outside plan checkers and whether statt chose the right outside
checkers. The department's quality control program had to be reduced to
random checks last year since it was attecting the department's own workload.
As a result of these quality control checks and complaints received, since 1997
Live consultants were terminated, one of them chose to terminate on his own
since he could not meet the department's quality standards. The department
tinds itselt in constant turmoil with training new outside consultants and trying to
assure they meet our quality and service demands for our customers. This City
has many ditterent issues than other cities that outside consultants might not be
tamiliar with, such as harbor construction, etc. The Building Department provided
manuals, training, Corms, etc. for outside consultants. Another issue mentioned
was having an outside consultant on site at City Hall. Statt received two
reluctant consultant feedbacks since consultants use in many cases municipally
employed engineers on a part -time basis. The bids were for $83 and $80 per
hour, for a total of over $160,000 per year, which represented twice the cost of
one statt engineer cost.
Mr. Crall agreed completely with Mr. Liske and supported statt's proposal. In
experience, Newport Beach was the best when comparing his dealings with of
cities.
Mr. Luehrs asked whether there was a standard as to how many plan check
engineers per million valuation were employed by Newport Beach and other
cities. Mr. Elbettar said this was a good question and statt would try to Lind out.
Building Department
Staffing Levels
January
27, 2004
Page 18
He noted that the department engineers' productivity had been monitored
during the last several years and compared with the outside consultant's work.
Each City engineer is checking an average of $20 million construction per year.
Therefore, it was quite obvious that with only four engineers the department was
getting buried. However, a straight comparison was difficult because most other
cities' plan checkers responsibilities do not include many of the different
functions such as review of harbor work, grading plan review and fire sprinklers
that our engineers do. In addition, Newport Beach's geography represented
additional challenges, such as seawalls, bays, high water tables, etc., requiring a
more complex review of plans. Therefore, the City's engineers are of high caliber
and licensed.
Mr. Luehrs asked if assuming the additional staff was hired and at some future
time construction activity would begin to wane, were there any restrictions or
hidden costs if City Manager Bludau were to propose to lay off some Building
Department staff?
Deputy City Attorney Dan Ohl assumed this was a question for Human Resources
or the Finance Department regarding the costs. Mr. Elbettar interjected that the
City had experienced cutbacks prior to 1995, and unless a moral obligation
existed, the City was not obligated legally or financially.
Motion was made by board member Luehrs to approve staff's recommendation
to City Council to hire two additional plan check engineers and one part-time
permit technician. Mr. Crall seconded the motion.
Chairman Liske noted the valuation charts in the 1990s were extremely low since
the County was in a depression, not just a recession. The valuation numbers then
recovered and increased around 1997, and with the annexation of the new
areas he could not foresee a decrease of valuation in the future. Mr. Liske stated
for the record that he fully supported staff's proposal and urged the board to
support the motion unanimously.
Mr. Yant voiced his support of the hiring proposal and stated that if nothing else,
strictly on a financial basis, to hire two and one half staff represented less than
half the cost of four outside consultant staff. With the market's competitiveness
he wondered whether hiring engineers might prove quite difficult. Mr. Elbettar
expected it to be a challenge; however, the reputation of the City as a fine
community and a fine City government may attract individuals from other
jurisdictions. He also pointed out the possibility of hiring lower level graduate
engineers at lower cost and train them. He realized it might be difficult to recruit
and retain experienced and qualified engineers.
Mr. Liske noticed David Groverman, a building plan check engineer, was present
as an observer and wondered how much overtime he was working these days
considering the shortage of engineers. Mr. Elbettar noted that Mr. Groverman
was actually going out on injury leave soon. Mr. Elbettar mentioned an article in
the Sunday Los Angeles Times by a writer, Alicia Thompson, who had called him
and was referred to the Planning Director Patty Temple before writing an article
about Newport Beach. The article was about the change in Newport Beach's
housing and buildings in the past and present. The City used to be a vacation
community. However, this has changed now to a permanent nice home
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 19
community. Therefore, the houses are built larger and because of this trend Mr.
Elbettar believed the increase in valuation of the housing stock would continue
for some time to come.
Mr. Liske asked about the department's responsibility in regard to Newport Coast.
Mr. Elbettar said the Building Department currently handled secondary permits,
such as simple addition, patio cover, swimming pool, water heater replacement,
window change out, landscaping, etc., for the Newport Coast area. Several
completed planning areas have been turned over to the department already.
Mr. Cranston said he most certainly supported the motion since he had always
experienced in the past much better service from in -house staff as opposed to
outside consultants. He wondered however, that outside consultants would still
be required even after increasing staff by two engineers. Mr. Elbettar said
prudent use of outside consultants was a good policy to address peaks and
valleys of valuation. He did not believe it wise to base the staffing level on the
peaks. When the economy stabilized, six plan check engineers would be able to
do between 70% to BO% of plan check, which he believed was a good balance.
The above Motion was approved unanimously by the board.
• COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Elbettar spoke about the survey situation, which changed considerably since
the board's last meeting. It was reported in the last meeting that some inaccurate
surveys were done. This was not the case and was found to be inaccurate. It was
actually a local architect who was charged with presenting fraudulent information
and was forging surveyor's signatures and making unauthorized changes on plans.
He was arrested and then released. The case was still pending at this time. This
architect was responsible for the last three years, which is the statue of limitation, for
32 homes being over height, and twelve of them were under construction. The City
worked very hard with the property owners since then and came up with a "special
circumstance" variance to address many of those homes. Some of them were able
to bring the heights down. The Building Department and Planning Department
have cooperated with the Police Department in their investigation. The Building
Department also filed a complaint with the Architect State Board of Registration
against this architect.
Mr. Elbettar then addressed the NFPA 5000 code, newly adopted by the Building
Standards Commission. This code was brand -new and the residential code, which
was published by the International Code Council, formerly known as International
Council of Building Officials. He recalled a board member had asked during the
last meeting about any possible impact a new Governor might have in regard to
the code. Mr. Elbettar stated that so far it has made a difference. The Governor
has postponed the enactment of any laws with financial impact for six months. The
40 makeup of the commission may also change.
Communications
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 20
Mr. Liske asked whether he could contact the Building Standards Commission. Mr.
Elbettar said the commission has a website and he mentioned Mr. Stan Nishimura,
Executive Director of the commission. Staff will provide the address for the board
members.
k k
2:48 p.m.
MONIKA GOODWIN, RECORDING SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
Adjournment
0
Y._ J
0
City of Newport Beach NO. BA- 035
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2003 -04 AMOUNT: $32,000.00
FECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates X Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AM Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Transfer Budget Appropriations No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
SOURCE:
X from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
X from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
To transfer and increase expenditure appropriations related to two additional full -time plan check employees and one
part-time permit technician to reduce volume of plan checks performed by consultants. Employees to start in May.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE
Fund Account Description
010 3605 General Fund Fund Balance
*VENUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund /Division Account Description
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Signed:
Approval: Administrative Services Director
�ed: r21, , Z Rk`,
Administrative Ap oval: City Manager
Signed
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit Credit
$4,359.00
$27,641.00
Automatic
$22,640.00
$4,000.00
$2,200.00
$80.00
$322.00
$28.00
$8.00
$384.00
$2,000.00
$338.00
Date
�
D ld
Date
Description
Division
Number
2930
Building - Plan Check
Account
Number
8080
Services - Professional & Technical
Account
Number
7000
Salaries - Miscellaneous
Account
Number
7020
Salaries - Perm Part-time
Account
Number
7210
Cafeteria /Medical Allowance
Account
Number
7224
Retiree Insurance Reserve
Account
Number
7225
Retiree Insurance
Account
Number
7290
Life Insurance
Account
Number
7295
Employee Assistance Program
Account
Number
7425
Medicare - Fringe
Account
Number
7439
PERS - EE Contribution
Account
Number
7461
SRP - LIUNA
Signed:
Approval: Administrative Services Director
�ed: r21, , Z Rk`,
Administrative Ap oval: City Manager
Signed
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit Credit
$4,359.00
$27,641.00
Automatic
$22,640.00
$4,000.00
$2,200.00
$80.00
$322.00
$28.00
$8.00
$384.00
$2,000.00
$338.00
Date
�
D ld
Date
City of Newport Beach NO. BA- 035
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2003 -04 AMOUNT: $3z,000.00
EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates X Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Transfer Budget Appropriations No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
SOURCE:
X from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
X from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
To transfer and increase expenditure appropriations related to two additional full -time plan check employees and one
part-time permit technician to reduce volume of plan checks performed by consultants. Employees to start in May.
AL;L;UUN I ING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE
Fund Account Description
010 3605 General Fund Fund Balance
REVENUE ESTIMATES (360 1)
Fund /Division Account Descri
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Division
Account
Account
Account
Account
Account
Account
Account
Account
Account
Account
Account
Signed
Signed:
Signed:
Approval:
Administrative ApP/roval: City
2 2L 1)1,4 Vr ,
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Services
Amount
Debit Credit
$4,359.00
$27,641.00
Automatic
$22,640.00
$4,000.00
$2,200.00
$80.00
$322.00
$28.00
$8.00
$384.00
$2,000.00
$338.00
.2 _ /2- -ate
Date
D e
Date
Description
Number
2930
Building - Plan Check
Number
8080
Services - Professional & Technical
Number
7000
Salaries - Miscellaneous
Number
7020
Salaries - Perm Part-time
Number
7210
Cafeteria /Medical Allowance
Number
7224
Retiree Insurance Reserve
Number
7225
Retiree Insurance
Number
7290
Life Insurance
Number
7295
Employee Assistance Program
Number
7425
Medicare - Fringe
Number
7439
PERS - EE Contribution
Number
7461
SRP - LIUNA
Approval:
Administrative ApP/roval: City
2 2L 1)1,4 Vr ,
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Services
Amount
Debit Credit
$4,359.00
$27,641.00
Automatic
$22,640.00
$4,000.00
$2,200.00
$80.00
$322.00
$28.00
$8.00
$384.00
$2,000.00
$338.00
.2 _ /2- -ate
Date
D e
Date