HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Building and Safety
'CITY
, r"""'-
OF SAN 8ERNA~DINHR.QUEST
-
FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Larry E. Reed, Director
Increasing Plan Checking
REC'1). - M;~Rl'-cCff .Fees & Increasing Plan
, Check staff
\989 OCT 20 Ml, 8. 03
From:
Dept:
Building and Safety
October 18, 1989
Date:
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
none
Recommended motion:
That the proposal for increasing Plan Check fees and increasing Plan
Check staff be referred to the Council Ways and Means Subcommittee
for discussion.
cc: Marshall JUlian, City Adminstrator
~ Jim Richardson, Deputy City Administrator
~ Larry E. Reed
Contact person: Phone:
~ rtfJ
, Signature
384-5274
Ward:
City Wide
Staff Report
Supporting data attached:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
#001 000 41731
Source: (Acct. No.)
$147,000
(Acct. DescriPtion)
PLAN CHECK
Fees)
Finance:
1}~/
Council Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item No.3'/.f
/p!:~--~-",.
. 'wi .....1
~ITY. OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The proposal for increasing Plan Checking fees and Plan Check staff is
comprised of three parts:
1. Background
2. staffing
3. Revenue / fee increase
BACKGROUND:
Please refer to memo dated July 10, 1989, titled "Department staffing
is Inadequate to Enforce the Building Code as Required by state Law",
pages 1-4 (attached).
The combination of high volume of plans being received for Plan
Checking and increased requests for customer assistance both at the
front counter and by phone have made it impossible for the Department's
two Plans Checkers to do the required code review (safety) as well as
provide adequate customer service. For public safety reasons, most
plans are now being sent to an outside Plan Check / Engineering firm.
STAFFING:
The Department's Plan Check function has two counter clerks, one Plans
Checker, and one Plan Check Engineer. The current cost of the Building
Department Plan Checking is $163,146:
Clerk Typist II (2)
Plans Checker (1)
Plan Check Eng. (1)
TOTAL:
$45,843
$52,290
$65.013
$163,146
Three additional positions are needed to keep pace with the level of
activity:
Plans Checker (2) $91,224
Plan Check Eng. (1) $55.138
TOTAL: $146,362
The current staff of four, plus three additional positions would bring
the total program cost to: $309,508
(These, figures include overhead, supplies and equipment costs.)
REVENUE:
Plans Checking fees collected are based on Section 304(e) of the
Uniform Building Code which states that Plans Check fees shall be 65%
CA.STAFF-9
Page 1
10/19/89
75-0264
c
of the building permit fees as shown on table #3-A (attached). Fees
collected for Plan review for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989, was
$751,~53. The estimate for the current year is over $901,000.
The current cost of $163,146
revenue provides approximately
costs of supporting development.
the following fees:
compared with the projected current
$737,000 to help cover the indirect
Staff is proposing to increase or add
1. Increase Plan Check fees:
a. to 95% for commercial, industrial and uulti-family buildings.
b. to 75% for single family and two-family buildings
2. $150 application fee to review a proposal to use an alternate
material and/or method of construction than that specified by code.
3. A $75 Board of Building commissioner filing fee to hear an appeal
of an administrative decision.
The above fee increases will raise an additional $87,930.
COUNCIL: CA. STAFF-9
COMMENT: The concept of additional staffing to improve service has
been discussed with the private sector at the "Development
Advisory Committee" meeting and received positive support.
Projected revenues would provide additional funding to help
establish the "One Stop Center" proposal to be presented
separately.
/J:t/
'" (V (_.(U(d/(iJ<,~,__
. ( /L-#bY
ames C. R~c ardson, "=-----'
Deputy City/Administrator-
~/ Development
CA.STAFF-9
Page 2
10/19/89
,r""
'-" ""'"'"
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R D I 'N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8909-2716
TO:
Marshall JUlian, City Administrator
Larry E. Reed, Director of Building and Safety
FROM:
SUBJECT: Department Staffing is Inadequate to Enforce the Building' Code
as required by State Law
DATE:
July 10, 1989 (computer copy: September 18, 1989)
COPIES:
,w. R. Holcomb, Mayor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This memo is based upon my understanding of what the city is required to
perform in the way of enforcement and administration of the Building Code
(California Building Code that was adopted and amended by the city). The
City is not doing all that is required for it to do by law. The
Department simply does not have the staffing to properly serve our
customers or public safety. I am in a quandary as to how to convince the
Council of this situation. Additional staff could be transferred from the
Department's Code Enforcement Division to help with Plan checking and
Field Inspections. This is not, however, how the Council intended this
staffing to be used. This memo attempts to explain what the Department is
doing, should be doing and the volume of activity along with an
explanation of the negative impacts.
I. Plan Check Division:
A. Counter/Service Functions:
The counter staff takes in all the Department's plans for checking,
building and Certificate-of-Occupancy applications, including receipt
of development / permit fees. This volume is a significant amount as
shown in the following list and is expected to increase by 20% by
this time next year.
MONTHLY AVERAGES
1989. 1990
Plan Check applications received
Permits issued (typed)
certificates-of-Occupancy applications received
425
475
121
530
590
135
In addition to application and fee intake, the front counter
staff also act as a phone reception, which includes taking
messages for Plan Checkers, Field Inspectors, Code Officers,
doing information record research requests for developers, real
estate agents, attorneys, and the general public, etc., verifying
and calculating fees and the typing of permits.
--
1"""'"
'-"
.,'1<<
,.J
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8909-2716
Department Staffing is Inadequate to
September 18, 1989
Page 2
Enforce the Building Code
Given the volume of work and current staffing levels, the
following negative situations are in evidence:
1) long lines of frustrated customers waiting for assistance
2) frustrated staff trying to balance assisting incoming counter
customers, answering the phones, and typing permits, filing,
etc., etc., etc.
3) not enough time for staff to maintain files and Department
Plan Checks / permit records
4) not enough time for staff to update informational customer
handouts
5) not enough time for staff to cross-train each other
6) breaks, lunch, vacations, sick leave requires taking clerical
support by Director's Secretary or from code Enforcement
Division
B. Plan Check Functions:
Efficient plan examination coupled with field inspection and
building maintenance inspection are the keystones of an effective
Code Enforcement. The Plan Check Division is responsible for
making sure the design of a structure as shown in the
construction plans is drawn to code. In addition, Plan Checkers
are also responsible for reviewing at the counter application
submittals for completeness, answer designers and home owners'
questions and attend Development Review Committee and
Environmental Review Committee meetings.
The code is composed of a number of codes commonly referred to as
the Building Code. The Building Code covers thousands of items
dealing with: dimensions, clearances, spatial relationships,
strengths, fire resistiveness, light and ventilation, types and
arrangements of materials. The Building Code covers:
1) structural and fire and life safety codes
chapters 5 through 22
23
31 -
33
34
35 -
36
37
38
disabled
exits
skylights
sound control
roof structures
fire places
fire sprinkler systems
- occupancy/use classification
construction type requirements
- structural design requirements
accessibility
chapter
chapter
chapter
chapter
chapter
chapter
chapter
chapter
through 30
--
I
-
--
.
f'"
'-'
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8909-2716
Department staffing is Inadequate to Enforce the Building Code
September 18, 1989
Page 3
chapter 54 - energy conservation
2) mechanical codes (heating, ventilation, air conditioning)
3) plumbing code
4) electrical code
5) swimming pool code
6) building code specifications and standards
The Department of Building and Safety is not spending enough time
to do an adequate job of checking plans for Building Code compli-
ance. The Department cannot legally approve building permit
applications and construction plans that are drawn in violation
of a code or Ordinance. The two Plan Checkers and one inspector
borrowed from Field/Building Inspection Division are not adequate
for the volume of construction plans and the number and
complexity of codes. Given the current volume of activity and
current staffing levels, the following negative aspects are
evident:
1)
frustrated customers; permit applicants are waiting 5-6 weeks
to just begin the building code plan review
2)
frustrated customers; based upon having to pay higher fees to
use an outside plan check service
3) angry customers; when plans are being approved with
violations of City Code, then caught after constructed and
required to redo the construction. These situations set up
conflict situations with the city. Permit holders/property
owners don't understand how it can take 6-8 weeks to get a
permit, pay higher fees, and have the city approved plans,
and then he/she must still correct the violation
.
4) staff if fearful of a major mishap which could expose the
City to a lawsuit.
The Plan Check Division requires three (3) additional staff:
one (1) counter technician
one (1) Plan Checker, and
one (1) Plan Check Engineer
II. Building Inspection Division:
Field inspection is the second keystone to a balanced Code Enfor-
-
-
--
f""
"'-'
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8909-2716
Department staffing is Inadequate to Enforce the Building Code
September 18, 1989
Page 4
cement program. Plan examination, if not followed up by field
building inspection is as worthless as approved plans that are
never used. The Building Inspector (in the field) must use the
plans approved by the Plan Checker as the basis for his/her
inspection. The Building Code requires the permit holder/contrac
tor to call for progress inspections during the course of con-
struction. There are over twenty (20) types of inspections
between sites and final inspection. The range of field inspec-
tions are as follows:
STRUCTURAL
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
PLUMBING
site
temporary elec-
trical service
footing
foundation (some-
times combined
with footing)
underslab mechan-
ical/gas piping
underground/under underslab
slab electrical plumbing
under floor /
post & beam
framing
rough mechanical
including duct'
insulation
rough electrical
prior to drywall
rough plumb
ing prior
to drywall
insulation/vapor
barrier (energy
conservation)
gas piping
electrical
service
permanent
special
equipment
such as back
flow preven
tion, roof
drains, etc.
lath & drywall
equipment instal-
lation & fire
dampers in duct
masonry (fireplaces,
walls wood stoves,
etc. )
fire regulations
final building
final mechanical
final electrical
final
plumbing
Given the level of construction there is
handle the volume of "called-inspections".
only enough staff to
Building Inspectors
--
r',
\...I
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8909-2716
Department Staffing is Inadequate to Enforce the Building Code
September 18, 1989
Page 5
doing on the average between 15 and 20 called-inspections per day
are not able to do follow-ups on permits where the homeowner and
contractor are not calling for inspections. Building Inspectors
also handle the Certificates of Occupancy Program (business
license). This Division lacks any assigned clerical support. To
obtain clerical support, this Division's staff has resorted to
asking counter staff or Code Enforcement Division's one clerk to
. squeeze in their record keeping and typing. Given the volume of
work and staffing levels, the following negative aspects are
evident:
1) individual inspectors cannot coordinate, keep records
pertaining to the thousands of permits and Certificate of
Occupancy applications and records
2) frustrated customers; based upon incomplete or misplaced
records, and general slowness in obtaining approval
3) buildings (with issued permits) are being constructed without
inspections
4) lack of inspections in new buildings leads to deviating from
approved plans. having violations of City Code (possible
structural problems) and possible legal problems.
III. Code Enforcement Division:
Code Enforcement is the third aspect of a total code compliance
program. If it is important to regulate new development in the
first place, it is equally important to regulate the use and
maintenance of buildings after they are constructed. The City of
San Bernardino is currently suffering from inadequate past code
enforcement program (plan check, field inspection and property
maintenance).
The City's extent and rate of deterioration is higher than the
average City of it's size. Property maintenance programs histor-
ically must be heavily supported from the General Fund, because
of the lack of revenue generated in programs. I am not recom-
mending any additional Code Officers this year, however, provid-
ing an additional clerk for the seven (7) Code Officers would be
equivalent to adding an additional Code Officer.
IV. Records:
In addition to the undersized staff for the volume of work, the
Department's records are a "mess". The former Director of
Building and Safety, Mark Sutton, developed a plan for bringing
the Department's files from the 1940's to a 1960's record keeping
system. This centralizing of all the Department's files into a
-
~
".,....
........
r":..j.~,,
, ....,I
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8909-2716
Department staffing is Inadequate to Enforce the Building Code
September 18, 1989
Page 6
hard-coPY high density filing system is about 1/3 complete will
require the purchase of additional filing units and the alloca-
tion of more space. This hard copy filing does" not address the
mountain of construction plans of finaled buildings the Depart-
ment is currently storing. A policy decision will. need to be
made as to whether the City tosses or keeps those types of plans.
The longer term way to store and maintain this resource is
microfilming. Microfilming of our central hard copy files, along
with plans of completed buildings would bring the Department's
record keeping system into the 1980's. (The next stage -1990's -
is computerized microfilming plans and record keeping systems.)
v. Summary:
The Department of Building and Safety's three program areas are
not in balance. The Department, given the current staffing,
compared to the number of plans submitted, is not doing the level
of plan checking required by California Law. Three (3) addi-
tional staff are required in the Plan Check Division:
one (1) counter technician
one (1) Plan Checker
one (1) Plan Check Engineer
To handle the certificate of Occupancy program and begin to
organize the Department's mountain of plans, the Building Inspec-
tion Division needs two additional staff:
one (1) Building Inspector
one (1) clerk
One additional clerk in the Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement Officers more productive.
Department's budget memo dated June 20, 1989.
If adequate staffing of the Plan Check and Building Inspection
Divisions cannot be provided, an alternative would be to reassign
the Code Enforcement Officers from the blight abatement program
to Plan Check and Building Inspection Divisions. Given the
extent of this city's deterioration, this is not a pleasant
option.
Division will make
For cost, see the
Larry E. Reed, Director
Department of Building and Safety
LER:nhm
,........1i..'"
"-'"
1988 EOITION
3.A
TABLE NO. 3.A-BUILOING PERMIT FEES
FEE
Other Inspections and Fees:
I. Inspections outside of normal business hours .
(minimum charge-two hours)
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 30S (g). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .......
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....
(minimum charge-one-half hour)
4. Additional plan review required by changes. additions
or revisions to approved plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(minimum charge-one-half hour)
TOTAL ....LUAnON
SI.OO to SSOO.OO
SSOI.OO to S2.ooo.00
S2.00\.00 to S25.ooo.00
S25.00I.00 to S50.ooo.00
SSO.OOI.OO to SIOO.ooo.OO
SIOO.OOI.OO to S500.ooo.00
S500.00\.00 to
Sl.ooo.ooo.OO
Sl.ooo.OOI.OO and up
SI5.00
SI5.00 for the first S500.00 plus S2.00 for each additional
S\OO.OO or fracuon thereof. to and including S2.ooo.00
$45.00 for the first S2.OOO.00 plus $9.00 for each addi-
tional Sl.OOO.OO or fraction thereof. to and including
S25.OOO.00
S252.OO forthe first $25.000.00 plus $6.50 for each addi-
tional Sl.OOO.OO or fraction thereof. to and including
$50.000.00
$414.50 fort he first S50.OOO.OO plus S4.50 for each addi.
tional $1.000.00 or fraction thereof. to and including
Sloo.ooo.OO
$639.S0 for the first $100.000.00 plus $3.50 for each
additional SI.ooo.oo or fraction thereof
S2039.50 for the first S500.OOO.OO plus $3.00 for each
additional SI.ooo.oo or fraction thereof. to and including
$1.000.000.00.
S3539.50 fOrlhe first Sl.ooo.ooo.oo plus S2.00 for each
additional SI.ooo.oo or fraction thereof
.$30.00 per hour"
. . $30.00 per hour"
. . . $30.00 per hour"
.S30.00 per hour" I
"Or the total hourly cost to the Jurisdiction. whichever is the greatest. This cost shall Include
supervision. overhead. equipment. hourly wages and fringe benefits of (he employees
involved.
19