HomeMy WebLinkAbout18A-Human Resources ORIGINAL.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: LINN LIVINGSTON, DIRECTOR Subject: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION
Dept: HUMAN RESOURCES
Date: November 13, 2007
M/CC Meeting Date: Nov. 19, 2007
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
On November 13, 2007 Personnel Committee recommended this item for Mayor and Common
Council approval.
Recommended Motion:
1. Reclassify (1) Senior Civil Engineer, Range 4550, $6,896 - $8,383 to Principal Civil
Engineer, Range 4570, $7,620 - $9,262.
2. Reclassify the Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer, Range 4600, $8,850-$10,157 to
City Engineer, Range 4600, $8,850-$10,157.
3. Add Deputy City Engineer, Range 4580, $8,010 -$9,736.
4. Add (1) Senior Administrative Assistant, Range 1400, $3,264-$3,967.
5. Add Assistant Director of Development Services, Range 4620, $9,778 - $11,885.
6. Delete Principal Planner, Range 4550, $6,896 - $8,383.
7. Authorize the Human Resources Department to update Resolutions 6413 and 97-244.
Signature
Contact person: Phone:
Supporting data attached: Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $224,300
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
��9� 7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
Subiect:
Development Services Department Reorganization.
Background:
As part of the City of San Bernardino Organizational Review completed by Management
Partners earlier this year, it was noted that the Mayor and Common Council placed a high
priority on continuing improvements in Development Services. Their recommendations included
internal reorganization and reclassifying various positions in the Public Works Division. To
assist with implementation, the City Manager's Office retained Ralph Andersen&Associates to
analyze the organizational,procedural, and business practices in the Public Works Division.
Ralph Andersen &Associates assigned John Goss, senior staff member, to complete the analysis.
Mr. Goss reviewed the Management Partners report, the Development Services Action Plan
(2007), the Process Improvement Project(2004-05), and"The Winning Team"process(2000),
as well as,numerous forms,policies,procedures, tracking paperwork, and similar Pubic Works-
related items. In addition,Mr. Goss met with numerous staff members to review job duties,
concerns/issues, and recommendations related to the land development process.
Upon completion of the analysis, Mr. Goss met with the City Manager, the Assistant City
Manager, and the Development Services Director to discuss his results. Mr. Goss acknowledged
that ongoing staff shortages hindered the department's ability in many respects, and developed
recommendations with that in mind. The four key areas along with the current status are
summarized as follows:
• Continue to support Development Services' efforts to improve business practices,working
conditions, and equipment.
The Mayor and Common Council authorized Development Services to proceed with the
Interactive Voice Recognition System(IVR), GIS module for PERMITS+, and automated
inspection processes. Automatic archiving of Planning,Building, and Public Works files
continues on an ongoing basis. Development Services contracts with outside plan check
firms on an as needed basis.
• Retain a space planner.
This will be scheduled after approval of the reorganization recommendations.
• Develop a stronger management structure.
This is the key issue in Mr. Goss' study and is addressed in this agenda item. In summary,
the proposed reorganization will provide an enhanced management and supervisory structure
2
in the Public Works division. The structure is modeled after high performing engineering
divisions in other similar cities.
• Improve clerical support.
This effort is underway and this reorganization includes the addition of a clerical support
position.
After considerable discussion, City staff determined that modifications related to the
reorganization of the Public Works Division would better suit the City's needs. Mr. Goss
presented his recommendations to the Organizational Review Ad Hoc Committee for review and
comment, and the City Manager discussed the proposed modifications. This reorganization is a
net of two (2) additional positions.
Financial Impact:
The annual cost for the proposed reorganization is approximately$224,300.
Reclassify one Sr. Civil Engineer to Principal Civil Engineer:
Budgeted Proposed
Salary $83,320 Salary $93,726
Benefits 25,952 Benefits 27,781
Total $109,272 Total $121,507 $12,235
Add Deputy City Engineer:
Proposed
Salary $ 98,520
Benefits 28,680
Total $127,200 $127,200
Add one(1) Senior Administrative Assistant:
Proposed
Salary $40,153
Benefits 13,815
Total $53,968 $53,968
Add Assistant Director of Development Services:
Pronosed
Salary $111,042
Benefits 30,896
Total $141,938 $141,938
i
Delete the Principal Planner position:
Budget ed
Salary $84,816
Benefits 26,218
1 Total $111,034 ($111,034)
i
i
Total Annual Cost for Department Reorganization $224,307
{
3
The additional cost will be funded through a reimbursement by the Economic Development
Agency(EDA) in lieu of creating two new planning/engineering positions at EDA. There is no
net impact to the EDA budget.
Recommendation:
1. Reclassify(1) Senior Civil Engineer, Range 4550, $6,896-$8,383 to Principal Civil
Engineer, Range 4570, $7,620 - $9,262.
2. Reclassify the Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer, Range 4600, $8,850-$10,157 to
City Engineer,Range 4600, $8,850-$10,157.
3. Add Deputy City Engineer,Range 4580, $8,010 - $9,736.
4. Add(1) Senior Administrative Assistant,Range 1400, $3,264-$3,967.
5. Add Assistant Director of Development Services, Range 4620, $9,778 - $11,885.
6. Delete Principal Planner,Range 4550, $6,896- $8,383.
7. Authorize the Human Resources Department to update Resolutions 6413 and 97-244.
4
t
E
a)
$ \ •
2 \ :
\
\ mi
3
U t5
\ � -
j e— i
O )
\ \ \
§ ) \
U) .
0 ! .
0.1\ �
|{ ){ ) )t
\ § § ) \ §
WO
\k § - {
D {E { y
: ! \ ,
/ {kf
E
/
}
WO
-
U ° ) : - - - -
_ } j,
# !
� � 2 k
0 !
/ / § / `•
o [ o -
-
§ g 2 3 - -
s@ .
g §
CO
_f - k
Z2 w
E
{{
\ ƒ \\ \ { { \® {� ƒ
- - - _ !
! ! 2 ! ! ! > #
SENIOR CIVIL.ENGINEER
Class specifications are intended to present a descriptive list of the range of duties performed by employees in the
class. Specifications are not intended to reflect all duties performed within the job.
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
Under direction, supervises the design, evaluation and construction of public works and utilities;
supervises the engineering design section functions; and performs related work as required.
ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHTS
The class of Senior Civil Engineer is the supervisory management level in the engineering series.
Supervision is received from the Director of Development Services, City Engineer or designee.
Supervision is exercised over professional and subprofessional civil engineers assigned to the engineering
design section.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES
The following duties are typical for positions in this classification. Any single position may not perform all of these
duties and/or may perform similar related duties not listed here:
1. Provides courteous and expeditious customer service to the general public and City department staffs.
2. Directs and supervises the personnel assigned to the design section; develops engineering project
plans, specifications and estimates; studies and recommends the solution of difficult engineering
problems; develops or revises design and construction standards for public works and utilities
structures and appurtenances where necessary.
3. Orders surveys, maps and data collection; prepares estimates in the investigation and evaluation of
preliminary plans for the expansion and modification of public works and utilities systems; prepares
estimates and reports; reviews submittals by consultant engineers and sets improvement requirements
for private land developments.
4. Sets final impact fees for various projects; reviews building plans submitted by architect's for
division condition and fees;collects all impact fees related to development.
5. Trains assigned employees in their area of work including engineering methods, procedures and
{ techniques.
i
i 6. Verifies the work of assigned employees for accuracy, proper work methods, techniques and
compliance with applicable standards and specifications.
7. Attends and participates in professional group meetings; stays abreast of new trends and innovations
in the field of engineering.
8. Routinely adheres to and maintains a positive attitude towards City and Department goals.
9. Performs related work as required.
Page- 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - -
Senior Civil Engineer(Continued)
GENERAL OUALMCATIONS
Knowledee ot:
Statistics and the graphic presentation of materials;
Engineering economics and project cost estimating;
Plan checking methods;
Applicable laws, codes and regulations;
General research, statistical and report writing methods;
Principles and practices of management,administration, supervision,training and public relations;
Terminology used in civil and related field and office engineering work;
Advanced methods, materials and standard engineering specifications used in the construction of
public works and utilities projects;
Zoning ordinances,setbacks,tax and improvement easements and encroachments;
Principles,practices and equipment used in civil engineering,drafting and architectural design.
Ability to:
Prepare, draft and maintain maps and drawings;
Review and evaluate engineering plans for competency;
Schedule and program work on a long-term basis;
Interpret engineering notes accurately;
Make mathematical computations quickly and accurately;
Prepare clear and concise reports;
Read and understand blueprints,plans and specifications;
Evaluate materials,workmanship and construction methods;
Apply civil engineering principles and practices to the solution of difficult problems related to the
design and construction of public works;
Plan,organize,manage and supervise engineering design and plan checking work;
Perform the more difficult and responsible engineering work of the unit;
Understand and carry out oral and written instructions;
Communicate clearly and concisely,both orally and in writing;
Establish and maintain effective relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
Minimum Oualitications
Registration as a Civil Engineer with the State of California and five(5)years of related experience or
a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering and ten years of progressively responsible
engineering design and modeling experience.
License or Certificate:
3 Possession of a valid Class "C" California Driver's License is required. For out-of-state applicants, a
valid driver's license is required. A valid Class "C" California Driver's License must be obtained
within 10 days of appointment(CA Vehicle Code 13405c).
PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT
The conditions herein are representative of those that most be met by an employee to successfully perform the
essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to
perform the essential job functions.
Environment: Indoor and outdoor environment; exposure to noises; work in inclement weather
conditions.
Physical: Incumbents require sufficient mobility for walking, standing or sitting for prolonged
j Page-2
i
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO . -
Senior Civil Engineer(Coodnued)
periods of time;to transport materials and supplies weighing up to 20 pounds.
Vision: See in the normal visual range, with or without correction; vision sufficient to read small
print,computer screens and other printed documents.
Hearin¢: Hear in the normal audio range,with or without correction.
APPROVED: DATE:
Director of Human Resources
CSB APPROVED DATE:
HR/Job Descriptions-Class&Comp App:Senior.Civil.Eng.10154
Page-3
FIELD ENGINEER
Class specifications are intended to present a descriptive list of the range of duties performed by employees in the
class. Specifications are not intended to reflect all duties performed within thejob.
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
Under general direction, plans, supervises, and coordinates public works inspection, land survey and
permit functions;reviews and evaluates public works project plans; administers public works construction
contracts; supervises and directs survey parties, construction inspectors and aides; coordinates assigned
activities with other divisions, outside agencies and the general public; and performs related work as
required.
ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
The class of Field Engineer is the supervisory management level in the engineering series. Supervision is
received from the Director of Development Services or City Engineer. Supervision is exercised over
professional and technical sub-professional staff of the field engineering section.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES
The following duties are typical forpositions in this classification. Any single position may not perform all of these
duties and/or may perform similar related duties not listed here:
1. Provides courteous and expeditious customer service to the general public and City department staffs.
2. Plans, organizes and supervises public works inspection, land survey work and public works contract
administration; reviews and evaluates plans and maps for conformance with standards and codes;
performs preliminary checks; inspects public works projects and resolves problems encountered by
survey parties.
3. Participates in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies and priorities;
recommends and implements resulting policies and procedures.
4. Monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery methods and procedures;
recommends,within departmental policy,appropriate service and staffing levels.
5. Directs, coordinates and reviews the work plan for assigned engineer services and activities; assigns
work activities and projects; monitors work flow;reviews and evaluates work products, methods and
procedures;meets with staff to identify and resolve problems.
6. Consults with the public,contractors, engineering consultants, developers and others on public works
projects, engineering problems, engineering designs,methods and standards; monitors contractors for
compliance with contractual requirements; negotiates and approves change orders; approves partial
and final payments and recommends implementation of contractual enforcement provisions for
inadequate performance by contractors; monitors contractor compliance with federal labor laws.
7. Maintains records of inspection and project status; calculates contractor quotes; checks bids and
billings for accuracy; inspects difficult projects; verifies commercial and industrial building plans;
checks and updates plans and maps; makes copies of, and files, plans and maps; conducts field
surveys.
Page- 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -
Field Engineer(Continued)
8. Performs a variety of responsible professional staff work, laying out projects to meet project
definition, collecting and compiling data, statistically analyzing data, preparing exhibits and writing
reports and legal descriptions.
9. Participates in the selection, training, motivating, and evaluating of assigned staff; provides or
coordinates staff training; works with employees to correct deficiencies; implements discipline
procedures.
10. Provides staff assistance to the Director of Development Services; prepares and presents staff reports
and other correspondence as appropriate and necessary.
11. Attends and participates in professional group meetings; stays abreast of new trends and innovations
in the field of engineering.
12. Responds to and resolves difficult and sensitive citizen inquiries and complaints.
13. Routinely adheres to and maintains a positive attitude towards City and department goals.
14. Performs related work as required.
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
Civil engineering principles, practices, methods and procedures involved in the field of municipal
public works;
Principles and practices of management, administration, supervision,training and public relations;
Engineering economics and project cost estimating;
Methods, materials and standard engineering specifications used in the construction of utility projects;
Engineering and surveying principles,practices and equipment;
Applicable laws,codes and regulations;
Engineering drafting;
Appropriate safety precautions and procedures.
Ability to:
Administer public works construction contracts;
Prepare comprehensive reports;
Apply engineering knowledge to the solution of specific engineering problems;
Read and understand blueprints,plans and specifications;
Evaluate materials,workmanship and construction methods;
Review and evaluate engineering plans for competency;
Supervise and direct a staff of professional and technical personnel engaged in field and office work;
Express ideas on technical subjects clearly and concisely,orally and in writing;
Make mathematical computations quickly and accurately;
Plan,organize,manage and supervise field engineering and construction inspection work;
Understand and carry out oral and written instructions;
Communicate clearly and concisely,both orally and in writing;
Establish and maintain effective relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
Page-2
CrrY OF SAN BERNARDINO -
Fleld Engineer (Continued)
Minimum Oualifications
Registration as a Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer with the State of California, and two years of
supervisory-level professional engineering experience performing responsible field and office plan
reviews and land surveys.
License or Certificate:
Possession of a valid Class"C"California driver's license.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT
The conditions herein are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the
essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to
perform the essential job functions.
Environment: Indoor and outdoor environment; exposure to noises, vibrations, odors and dust;work
in inclement weather conditions.
Physical: Incumbents require sufficient mobility for walking, standing or sitting for prolonged
periods of time.
Vision: See in the normal visual range, with or without correction; vision sufficient to read small
print, computer screens and other printed documents.
Hearin,=: Hear in the normal audio range,with or without correction.
APPROVED: DATE:
Director of Human Resources
CSB APPROVED DATE:
HR/Job Descriptions-Class&Comp App:Field.Engineer.10183
Page-3
OtHNANU�NC - -
s
o
a o
Class Code: -
c°NDtn CSB Date Adopted:
Signature:
City of San Bernardino Civil Service Board
Signature:
Director,Human Resources
Bargaining Unit:
CLASS SPECIFICATION
Principal Civil Engineer
EEOC Job Category: Officials and Administrators
JOB SUMMARY
Under general direction, plans, organizes, integrates, oversees, evaluates and manages the operations,
activities and staff of the Capital Projects Design Engineering unit, the Construction Project Inspection
unit and the Survey section in the City's Public Works Division; manages multiphase capital improve-
. ment projects from conceptual initiation through construction closeout; and performs related duties as
assigned.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This single-incumbent class is responsible for planning, managing, monitoring, overseeing, coordinating,
integrating and evaluating the work of professional and technical staff in the Public Works Division's
Capital Projects Engineering Design and Construction unit.Assignments are broad in scope and allow for
a high degree of engineering discretion in their execution.
Principal Civil Engineer is distinguished from Senior Engineer, P.E. in that the incumbent in the former
class is responsible for managing and directing all activities and staff involved in engineering design and
construction for the City's capital improvement projects.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The duties listed below are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be
performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the
work is similar,related or a logical assignment to this class.
1. Plans,organizes,controls,manages and evaluates the work of capital projects engineering, survey and
inspection units; with subordinate managers and staff, participates in establishing operational plans
and initiatives to meet CIP goals and objectives; implements plans, work programs, and project
management processes/procedures to achieve division performance expectations; coordinates and
integrates assigned functions and responsibilities to achieve optimal efficiency and effectiveness;
participates in developing and monitoring performance against the annual division operating budget
and the City's CIP budget.
Principal Civil Engineer Page 1
i
2. Plans and evaluates the performance of assigned staff; establishes performance requirements and
personal development targets; monitors performance and provides coaching for performance
improvement and development; provides or recommends compensation and other rewards to
recognize performance; takes disciplinary action, up to and including termination, to address
performance deficiencies, subject to management concurrence, in accordance with the City's human
resources policies, Civil Service Rules and labor contract provisions.
3. Provides day-today leadership and works with staff to ensure a high-performance work environment
that supports achieving City objectives and service expectations; provides leadership and participates
in programs and activities that promote a positive employee relations environment.
4. Plans, manages, directs, monitors, evaluates and integrates the operations, activities and staff of the
design, survey and field engineering functions in the Public Works division; manages and administers
projects and operations in compliance with accepted federal, state and municipal standards governing
City-funded capital improvement design and construction projects; prepares monthly and annual
performance matrices.
5. Manages and oversees multiple City-wide capital projects utilizing in-house staff, consulting
engineering firms and construction contractors; directs the management of all aspects of capital
project design, development and implementation including technical research/analysis, funding and
cost analyses, planning, scheduling, public involvement, project budgeting, project performance and
results; ensures all necessary regulatory approvals and permits are obtained to implement projects;
directs the preparation and review of cost estimates; determines project scopes, schedules and budgets
and makes adjustments as needed to expedite projects and ensure reasonableness; reviews comments
on project plans, specifications and estimates for conformance with project requirements and budgets;
reviews drawings and specifications for compliance with City standards; seals plans.
6. Manages and oversees advertisements and bidding processes for capital works construction projects;
reviews and recommends approval of addenda; reviews and ensures completeness and accuracy of
specifications and bid documents; ensures documents are submitted and projects are bid in a timely
manner.
7. Directs the preparation of and reviews requests for proposals for outside services; manages the
consultant and contractor selection process; reviews revisions to specifications; ensures the proper
selection and supervision of consultants and contractors; drafts agreements and amendments for
consultant services; negotiates, administers and manages contracts, professional services agreements
and cooperative project agreements; monitors and enforces all contractual terms, obligations and
requirements; reviews project reports and consultant plans for design, accuracy, scope of work,
completeness and constructability; reviews and recommends approval of payments; reviews and
approves requests to release contractor retention.
8. Monitors and evaluates capital construction project progress; authorizes the purchase of materials and
monitors work activities and expenditures to control costs; evaluates contract and budget change
orders for cost and working day adjustments; reviews and approves recommended substitutions of
materials; conducts regular project management meetings; prepares, reviews and submits regular
project updates to other City divisions/departments, the City Manager and for City
briefings/publications.
Principal Civil Engineer Page 2
9. Coordinates and integrates multi-phase design, development and construction projects with various
regional, state or federal jurisdictions, as well as with special-interest groups, other stakeholders and
the public; drafts interagency agreements for reimbursement and conveyance of easements; reviews
and verifies rights-of-way procedures for projects to ensure proper acquisition.
10. Works with construction contractors and engineers to resolve conflicts and facilitate solutions;
inspects project sites to ensure compliance with project specifications and City policies.
11. Prepares, reviews and approves a variety of capital projects documents prepared by subordinate staff
to ensure completeness and accuracy, including staff reports, project plans and specifications,
requests to advertise, requests to adopt plans and specifications, notices to award, notices of
completion and budget supplements and revisions; reviews grant applications and ensures project
compliance with grant requirements.
12. Analyzes and responds to requests for information and complaints; represents the City and makes
presentations at various meetings and public hearings.
13. Prepares reports, memoranda, letters and other documents regarding capital construction project
issues for both internal and external distribution; ensures the maintenance of detailed records of
project activities,findings,progress and results.
QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
1. Theory, principles, practices and techniques of civil engineering, capital projects and project
management as they apply to a public agency.
2. Principles and practices of municipal public works administration,planning and design.
3. Methods, materials and techniques for the design and construction of public works infrastructure
and facilities.
4. Theory, principles, practices and techniques of land surveying, automated mapping and
geographic information systems.
5. Capital project funding and budgeting,objective development and work planning/scheduling.
6. Federal, state and local laws, regulations and court decisions applicable to assigned areas of
responsibility
7. Procedures, trends, approaches and problem-solving techniques used in capital projects design,
surveying,construction,engineering, inspection and compliance processes.
8. Modem methods of construction and structural design concepts.
9. Principles and practices of public administration, including budgeting, purchasing, contract
administration and maintenance of public records.
10. Research methods and analysis techniques.
Principal Civil Engineer Page 3
11. Principles and practices of effective management and supervision. -
12. City human resources policies and procedures and labor contract provisions.
Ability to:
1. Plan, direct, manage, coordinate and integrate the work of capital projects design engineering,
land surveying operations,construction inspection services and project management.
2. Define complex management and fiscal issues, perform difficult analyses/research, evaluate
alternatives and develop sound conclusions and recommendations.
3. Understand, interpret, explain and apply federal, state and local policy, law,regulations and court
decisions applicable to areas of responsibility.
4. Present proposals and recommendations clearly,logically and persuasively in public meetings.
5. Represent the City effectively in negotiations and other dealings on a variety of difficult,
complex, sensitive and confidential issues.
6. Prepare clear, concise and comprehensive correspondence, reports, studies and other written
materials.
7. Exercise sound,expert independent judgment within general policy guidelines.
8. Exercise tact and diplomacy in dealing with sensitive and complex issues and situations.
9. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with all levels of City management, the
City Council, other governmental officials, consultants, contractors, employees, the public, the
media and others encountered in the course of work.
Education,Training and Experience:
A typical way of obtaining the knowledge, skills and abilities outlined above is graduation from a
four-year college or university with major coursework in civil engineering, or a closely related field;
and at least eight years of progressively responsible professional engineering experience,at least three
of which were in a supervisory or program/project management capacity; or an equivalent
combination of training and experience.
Principal Civil Engineer Page 4
Licenses; Certificates; Special Requirements: -
A valid California driver's license and the ability to maintain insurability under the City's vehicle
insurance policy.
Certification as a Professional Engineer by the California State Board of Registration for Civil and
Professional Engineers.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS
The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to
successfully perform the essential functions of this class. Reasonable accommodations may be made to
enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to sit; talk or hear, both in
person and by telephone; use hands to finger, handle and feel computers and standard business
equipment; and reach with hands and arms.The employee is frequently required to stand and walk.
Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus.
WORK ENVIRONMENT
The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters
while performing the essential functions of this class. Reasonable accommodations may be made to
enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
The employee works under typical office conditions, and the noise level is usually quiet. The employee
may occasionally be required to work outside, exposed to unfavorable weather conditions, where the
noise level may be loud.
TESTING STANDARDS
Principal Civil Engineer Page 5
�efFNnRDiN
o m
G
G 2
Class Code:
CSB Date Adopted:
GNLED IN Signature:
City of San Bernardino Civil service Board
Signature:
Director,Human Resources
Bargaining Unit:
CLASS SPECIFICATION
Assistant Director of Development Services k
EEOC Job Category: Officials and Administrators $ �'
JOB SUMMARY
Under general direction, assists the Development Services Director with the planning, organizing,
directing, and integrating the wide variety of operations and programs in the Development Services
Department; which includes three major divisions of City government: Planning, Building, and
Public Works; provides aid in coordinating assigned activities with other City departments and
outside agencies; provides highly responsible and complex administrative support to the Director;
advises the City Manager, City Council, and the Mayor on current and advance planning matters,
building safety and inspection issues, land development, project control, and capital improvement
project engineering and construction; and performs related duties as assigned.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
The Assistant Director of Development Services is responsible for managing, directing and
integrating the functions, programs and activities of the Planning Division, Public Works Division,
and Building Division, which collectively make up Development Services. The incumbent provides
advice and strategic leadership to the Director, the City Manager, and City Council, and to other
department directors on a wide range of short-and long-term Development Services initiatives that
manage and control City growth, development, improvement, and reinvigoration. Responsibilities
are broad in scope and involve highly sensitive and publicly visible operations, projects, and
processes that require a high degree of policy, program, and administrative discretion in their
execution.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The duties listed below are intended only as illustrations of the varipus types of work that may be
performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if
the work is similar,related, or a logical assignment to this class.
1. Assists the Director to plan, organize, control, direct, and evaluate the work of the Development
Services Department; with subordinate managers and supervisors, establishes operational plans
and initiatives to meet department goals; implements departmental plans, policies, work
programs,permitting and inspection processes and procedures required to achieve all department
objectives; coordinates and integrates multi-division functions and responsibilities to achieve
optimal efficiency and effectiveness; develops and monitors performance against the annual
departmental budget and the City's CIP budget.
Assistant Director of Development Services Page 1 of 5
2. Assists the Director in establishing strategic plans for the City' overall management and policy
goals and objectives for a department within the framework of City Manager and City Council
policies and mandates; coordinates department program and policy issues with managers on a
City-wide basis.
3. Assists the Director to plan and evaluate the performance of managers, supervisors, and staff;
establish performance requirements and personal development targets; monitor performance and
provide coaching for performance improvement and employee development; provide or
recommend compensation and other rewards to recognize performance; take disciplinary action,
up to and including termination, to address performance deficiencies, in accordance with the
City's human resources policies and procedures, Civil Service Rules, and labor contract
provisions.
4. Provides leadership and works with division managers to develop and retain highly competent,
customer service-oriented staff through selection, compensation, training, and day-to-day
management practices that support the City's mission and strategic goals.
5. Assists the subordinate Deputy Director/City Planner, directs and oversees current and advance
planning for the City; ensures the delivery of knowledgeable, effective support to the Planning
Commission and City Council on local and regional infrastructure planning issues; oversees the
amendment of existing planning regulations/ordinances and the City's General Plan; ensures
land development policies stay current with development trends and community goals; ensures
protection of the City's natural resources and preservation of the community's character;
performs executive-level reviews of selected planning division cases; ensures the optimum
establishment and collection of plan processing and impact fees.
6. Assists the subordinate Deputy Director/City Engineer, directs and oversees the City's capital
projects engineering/construction, land development engineering/plan checking, transportation
planning and traffic engineer, and real property administration; ensures the allocation of
necessary resources for delivery of technically/professionally sound engineering services across
core elements of the City's mission and raison d'etre.
7. Assists the subordinate Building Official, ensures the safety and physical integrity of residential,
commercial, and industrial structures throughout the City; directs and oversees the building plan
checking and building inspection processes, thereby ensuring residents' and businesses'
compliance with all building and zoning codes.
8. Confers with and advises division managers on the interpretation of regulatory and ordinance
compliance and permitting issues for especially sensitive or highly visible situations/cases.
9. Develops and reviews reports of findings, alternatives, and recommendations involving a broad
range of complex planning, land development, building safety, and engineering-related issues;
makes presentations before the City Council, other agencies, community groups, and the media
on the City's development services operations and initiatives; tracks the preparation of staff
reports for City Council consideration.
Assistant Director of Development Services Page 2 of 5
II
10. Monitors national and regional trends related to municipal development services and evaluates
their impacts on San Bernardino; recommends policy and process changes and improvements.
QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
1. Theory, principles, practices, and processes of current and advance urban planning, zoning,
and development; City code promulgation and related land and community development
practices in a municipal government.
2. Practices for administrative oversight of municipal engineering functions such as
infrastructure design/construction, traffic planning/management, land development quality
control, and assessment district formulation.
3. Requirements and methods for the delivery of quality building and safety plans examination
and inspection services.
4. Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and court decisions applicable to assigned areas of
responsibility.
5. Principles and practices of public administration, including budgeting, purchasing, contract
administration, and maintenance of public records.
6. Organization, functions, legal requirements, and practices of the City Council, Planning
Commission, and other boards/committees.
7. Sources of funding for meeting development services program and service delivery needs.
8. Research methods and analysis techniques.
9. Principles and practices of sound business communication.
10. Principles and practices of effective executive management.
11. City human resources policies and procedures, Civil Service Rules, and labor contract
provisions.
I
1 Assistant Director of Development Services Page 3 of 5
i
Ability to:
1. Plan, organize, control, manage, integrate, and coordinate the work of a large, complex
department providing comprehensive Citywide urban planning, public works and
development engineering, and building safety programs and services.
2. Define complex management, fiscal, budget, master planning, community development, and
infrastructure improvement issues, perform difficult analyses and research, evaluate
alternatives, and develop sound conclusions and recommendations.
3. Understand, interpret, explain, and apply federal, state, and local policy, law, regulations, and
court decisions applicable to areas of responsibility.
4. Evaluate department programs and services and make changes or recommendations for
improvement.
5. Present proposals and recommendations clearly, logically, and persuasively in public
meetings.
6. Represent the City effectively in negotiations and other activities on a variety of difficult,
complex, sensitive, and confidential issues.
7. Prepare clear, concise, and comprehensive correspondence, reports, studies, and other written
materials.
8. Exercise sound, expert independent judgment within general policy guidelines.
9. Exercise tact and diplomacy in dealing with sensitive and complex issues and situations.
10. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with the City Manager, Mayor and
City Council, other department directors, managers, employees, representatives of the land
development sector, property owners, citizens, the public, and others encountered in the
course of work.
Education,Training, and Experience:
Requires possession of a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university with major
coursework in Public Administration, Urban Planning, or a closely related field; and at least ten
years of progressively responsible community development, municipal planning or public works
engineering experience, at least five of which were in a management capacity; or an equivalent
combination of training and experience. A Master's Degree in Public Administration is
preferred.
Licenses; Certificates; Special Requirements:
A valid California driver's license and the ability to maintain insurability under the City's
vehicle insurance policy.
Assistant Director of Development Services Page 4 of 5
i
i
PHYSICAL DEMANDS
The physical and metal demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an
employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this class. Reasonable accommodations
may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
While performing the duties of this job,the employee is regularly required to sit; talk or hear,both in
person and by telephone; use hands to finger, handle, and feel computers and standard business
equipment; and reach with hands and arms. The employee is frequently required to stand and walk.
Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus.
WORK ENVIRONMENT
The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee
encounters while performing the essential functions of this class. Reasonable3 accommodations may
be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
The employee works under typical office conditions, and the noise level is usually quiet.
TESTING STANDARDS
Assistant Director of Development Services Page 5 of 5
1
I (� ,,Z:dersen
&Assocates
5800 Stanford Ranch Road,Suite 410
Rocklin,California 95765
(916)630-4900
Fax: (916)60-4911
Internet Access
info @ralphandersen.com(e-mail)
http:/hvww.ralphandersen.com(World Wide Web)
October 1, 2007
Project Staff:
John Goss
FINAL REPORT
ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS PRACTICE ANALYSIS
OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
WITH AN EMPHASIS ON THE
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINo
RDMEOWED OCT 0 2 2030;
CITY OF SAN RERNARDINO
DEVELOPM:NT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
A Tradition of Excellence Since 1972
p Ciry of San Bernardino
J
Table of Contents
Paee
ChapterI—Overview....................................................................................................................1
Background................................................................................................................................1
Purpose.......................................................................................................................................1
Methodol ogy..............................................................................................................................2
Chapter II—Findings and Recommendations............................................................................3
Recent Efforts by City Staff to Address Procedural and Business Process Issues
inthe Public Works Division................................................:....................................................3
f Basic Organizational, Space and Clerical Obstacles Challenge Management in
r Solving Procedural and Business Process Issues in the Public Works Division.......................5
Chart I—City of San Bernardino Development Services Department
Current Organizational Chart.....................................................................................................7
Chan II—City of Ontario—Engineering Department—Organization Chart............................9
Chart III—Proposed Organization Chart—City of San Bernardino
PublicWorks Division.............................................................................................................12
Business Practices Need To Be Improved...............................................................................15
Chart IV—Plan Applications,Plan Review and Permits Issued—
August2006—July 2007 .........................................................................................................17
Chapter III—Summary of Recommendations.......................................................................„.26
City of San Bernardino
Chapter I
Overview
Background
1 The City of San Bernardino (City), with an estimated population of 204,552, and 59.2 square
miles, is the largest city in San Bernardino County. It was incorporated in 1854, reincorporated
in 1886, with its first Charter adopted in 1905. San Bernardino has a much longer history than
most California municipalities, and occupies a crucial location as a major regional transportation
and logistics hub for southern California.
While the City has had important residential growth in recent years, it does not match the per-
centage growth found in some of the other larger cities in the Inland Empire, such as Ontario and
Riverside. However, there has been a significant amount of commercial and industrial develop-
ment in the City. Conversion of portions of the former Norton Air Force Base and other areas
within the City to industrial uses, especially in the logistics area, has been both a challenge and
benefit to the City.
G
Purpose
The significant amount of development activity in the City produces a challenge to City staff. It
is important that City and state laws and regulations are accurately followed in reviewing Bevel-
' opment plans so that the resulting projects will protect the health and safety of the public. At the
same time staff needs to make certain that plan reviews are completed in an expeditious manner
and not delay beneficial construction projects.
The City of San Bernardino received a consultant prepared report early in 2007 which reviewed
and evaluated the entire City organization. Part of that report examined the Development Ser-
vices Department consisting of the Divisions of Building, Planning and Public Works. This latter
Division is headed by the Deputy Director/City Engineer who oversees the Sections of Engineer-
ing Design, Land Development, Field Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Real Property and Na-
tional Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
While the earlier study offered some general recommendations for this Department, the goal of
this study is to bore more deeply into and analyze the organizational, procedural and business
practices of the Public Works Division and to address complaints that have been made about the
processing of development plans. This report will identify permit processing issues and solutions
to these issues in the Division's Land Development Section. However, as this study has pro-
gressed, it has broadened to address issues in other areas within the Development Services De-
partment. Still, this report does not evaluate or analyze issues within the Planning and Building
Page 1
City of San Bernardino
and Safety Divisions, but only the Public Works Division in particular and the Development
Services Department in general.
Methodology
The methodology for accomplishing this operations, organization and business practice analysis
is simple and straightforward. First, pertinent documents were reviewed including an examina-
tion of the Department's organization chart and the citywide organizational report prepared ear-
lier this year. Pertinent interdepartmental memoranda were also examined. A number of other
reports and processes for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department were ex-
amined, such as the "The Winning Team" process in 2000, the Process Improvement Project
(PIP) program (2004-5), and the Development Services Action Plan (2007). Forms, computer
printouts, and procedures used to process various permits, both in San Bernardino and other local
government entities in the region were reviewed. Tracking systems for the Department and indi-
vidual plan checkers were examined.
Besides meeting with the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Development Services Direc-
tor, and a policy advisor to the Mayor, individual interviews were conducted with the City Engi-
neer, three Senior Civil Engineers, Engineering Associate, City Building Official, Planning Di-
rector, Construction Engineer, Engineering Assistant, and an Administrative Analyst. In addi-
tion, the heads of NPDES, Real Estate and Administration were interviewed. City staff was help-
ful and accommodating, were forthcoming in their insights and observations, and promptly re-
sponded to follow up emails when needed.
II In addition, representatives of Hillwood Development and the City's contract plan check firms
were interviewed to gain their perspective of the City's plan check processes.
II Also, plan check procedures were examined in other, larger jurisdictions in the Inland Empire,
which have significant development activity. These jurisdictions include San Bernardino County
and the cities of Ontario, Riverside and Redlands. The County, Ontario and Riverside conduct
n plan check with their own staff, while Redlands contracts out this service to one of the same con-
I_ sultant engineering firms used by the City. While not a comprehensive comparable city/county
survey, this information is useful in evaluating the organization and business practices of the
City's Public Works Division.
It should be noted that in very limited portions of the report, some general conclusions are of-
fered regarding the City's contracts, ordinances and resolutions as they pertain to the processing
of development plans. These conclusions are based solely on the "plain reading" of these docu-
ments, and should not be considered a legal interpretation of this material. Any legal opinions of
these documents are the province of the City Attorney, and should be referred to that office for
further comment, if needed.
�I
Page 2
City of San Bemardino
Chapter II
Findings and Recommendations
This report will present its findings, followed by a recommendation or recommendations related
to those findings. These findings and recommendations are organized into three major sections:
1. Recent Efforts By City Staff To Address Procedural and Business Process Issues
in the Public Works Division;
n 2. Basic Organizational, Space and Clerical Obstacles Challenging Management in
�I Solving Procedural and Business Process Issues in the Public Works Division;
and
3. Business Practices Which Need to be Improved.
¶ After these sections are presented, a summary of the recommendations will be presented for re-
view, consideration and possible action.
IIRecent Efforts by City Staff to Address Procedural and Business Process Is-
sues in the Public Works Division
�I Management of the Development Services Department has been sensitive to the needs and con-
cerns of the Public Works Division's customers. They are well aware of the complaints related to
delayed plan checks, problems in tracking applications that are in the plan check process, plans
IIbeing misplaced or lost, and equity in calculating fees. Management has been diligent in solving
some of these problems. They are constantly making, or seeking to make, improvements to the
II Department's business practices, both procedurally and in the acquisition of helpful equipment
and technology.
II Finding — Development Services Management has pursued several important busi-
ness practice and technological changes to improve service to the public
The Management of the Development Services Department has been diligent in pursuing
and implementing business practice changes and enhancements in order to improve ser-
vices to customers of the Public Works Division. Some of these improvements evolved
from the "Winning Team" process in 2002, and the "Process Improvement Project" (PIP)
in 2004-05.
Currently, the Department is following up on the "Development Services Action Plan"
(March 2007) which is a prioritized list of beneficial projects. Some of the more impor-
tant projects from this action plan are:
• Obtain a large format copier/scanner;
Page 3
i
City of San Bernardino
• Automate the building inspection process;
• Develop an Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) System;
• Undertake needed space planning;
¶ • Complete auto archiving (scanning, removal and storage) of Public Works,
1� Planning and Building and Safety files;
• Add a GIS Module for Permits Plus to provide access to land based information
for the public and staff, and
• Contract with outside plan check firms to assist in the plan check workload.
,I In January, the City contracted with Hall and Foreman and AEI-CASC to provide additional plan
check consultant assistance to City staff. This has helped supplement staff plan checking efforts
�I during periods of high development activity. Further, a proposal by the Department this Septem-
ber to expand the plan check consultant review to also include NPDES, or water quality review,
is applauded as a positive step in relieving the work load of existing staff and speeding up the
n plan check process.
1 In April, applicants were able to make appointments for initial plan check review, avoiding long
II watts in the lobby. This appointment schedule applies to Public Works, Planning and Building
and Safety.
11 In July, the City Council Budget Subcommittee recommended the funding of the IVR System,
integration of PERMITS PLUS/GIS, the next phase of auto archiving of Public Works docu-
ments, a work space study, and the acquisition of wireless `hand helds' for the building inspec-
tors.
More minor, but still important, steps were taken internally to improve the plan check process.
II These steps included preparing a work schedule for Public Works counter personnel, and devel-
oping a policy so that counter staff can accept plans even if fees being paid have been slightly
miscalculated with the understanding that there will be an additional fee collected before the pro-
II ject's Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
In addition, the previous weekly staff meetings, segmented in order to provide counter coverage,
N have been revised so that all staff involved with plan check can meet together. This should help
improve communication among plan check staff. Also, plans are now distributed directly to the
NPDES Section, rather than waiting a week for their receipt. Finally, input on demolition is now
provided from Construction Inspection for projects being reviewed by the Design Review Com-
mittee.
With the first phase of the scanning and auto archiving of records completed, one former storage
space is being converted into a small conference room. Currently, with only one conference
room for the Public Works, Planning and Building and Safety Divisions, this should provide
needed space for appointments with customers and for staff meetings.
These are important examples of the Department's management constantly striving to improve
service to their customers and to assist the efficiency and effectiveness of their employees. Even
Page 4
City of San Bernardino
with these timely changes, there are still additional improvements that need to be considered and
implemented. These proposals will be spelled out in the following sections.
Recommendation — It is recommended that management of the Development
Services Department should be supported in their efforts to improve the business
¶ practices, working conditions, equipment and technology in the Public Works Di-
vision in order to provide better service to their customers.
Basic Organizational, Space and Clerical Obstacles Challenge Management in
Solving Procedural and Business Process Issues in the Public Works Division
�I Even though Department management has quickly implemented several process, space and tech-
nology improvements that have improved the ability of the Public Work's Division to more effi-
ciently process their work and to serve its customers, there are certain basic obstacles that pre-
vent the Department from totally succeeding in achieving its customer service objectives. While
specific business practice recommendations will be offered later in this report, this section will
�I focus on some basic organizational, space and clerical challenges that need to be addressed if the
department is able to function effectively. Often policy makers, management and developers will
look for a `magic bullet' to solve a perceived problem, when the cause of that problem is found
�I in very basic structural, facility and staffing issues. This section will focus on these 'basic' issues
in an effort to enable the department to be more effective and more successful in servicing its
1 customers.
"I Finding — There is Inadequate Work Space for the Development Services Depart-
ment
The first reaction last June in walking through the Development Services Department on
the third floor of the San Bernardino City Hall is that there is inadequate space for staff,
furniture, files and equipment. Offices are tucked into spaces not designed for an office,
1� files and maps are stacked on office chairs, file cabinets, desks and tables, and in hall-
ways. Part of this clutter is because of boxes of files being auto archived, which are wait-
I! ing to be transported to storage. But part of this clutter is because there are inadequate ar-
eas to store the volume of files and maps maintained and processed by this department. It
appears that there may be far more material located in offices and other work areas than
Ican be stored in the Public Works Division map and storage room. When there is a useful
wall map blocked by several boxes of files, that map is no longer of use to staff. When
offices are cluttered with maps and files, work efficiency decreases and the chances of
Imisplacing documents increase.
One symptom of this inadequate space is the fact that engineers and plan checkers have
small offices with no room to lay out the large maps and plans they are checking. Plan
checkers must find a table in the hall, or to locate a vacant workstation created by staff
turnover in order to spread out large maps for review.
Since beginning this project, the Director has spent time with staff to clean up their of-
faces. This should have a beneficial effect on staff morale, and should assist in avoiding
misplaced plans by reducing some of the clutter. However, the basic problem remains
Page 5
City of San Bernardino
�I that the department is occupying space constructed in 1972, which is no longer adequate
for the size and function of the present department.
„ Visiting a comparable department in another city, such as the City of Riverside, which
has recently remodeled its work space for its engineers and plan checkers, will allow one
1I to see the difference between a City providing adequate work space for their engineers
J and one which is not. Such a comparison shows a marked contrast between the work en-
vironment in San Bernardino, and the work environment in Riverside. Having adequate
�I room to spread out plans to perform a basic plan check is important to the standard effi-
ciency of the plan check operation.
11 The City Council Budget Subcommittee recommended in July that $25,000 be allocated
J for a workspace plan. This is a step in the right direction. However, a space plan should
not be developed just to `shoe horn' the same number of employees into the same limited
�I space. Options of using other space in the vicinity of City Hall such as the City building
off the Civic Center parking structure, or vacant, nearby office space should be explored.
11 Recognizing that the Planning, Public Works and Building and Safety Divisions provide
1 their services at a common central counter, any staff that would be relocated to other
space should not be critical to support the counter operation. In the Public Works Divi-
sion, portions of traffic engineering, 'back of the house' plan checking, and engineering
design are possible candidates for relocation, thereby freeing up space on the third floor
for the remaining departmental operations.
Recommendation — The Development Services Department should hire a con-
sultant to conduct a workspace plan for its offices, and not restrict the consultant
]I to allocating staff only to the third floor of City Hall. Other space options should
be considered for relocating staff not critical to support operations at the public
counter. Meanwhile, organizing maps and files, auto archiving maps and files and
moving boxes out of the Department's work areas, along with the completion of
the small conference room, should be completed.
�I Finding—A Stronger Management Structure Should Be Developed
The basic organizational structure of the Public Works Division could be improved. Both
the structure and the job classification nomenclature of the Division need to be examined
and probably changed.
V First, the head of the Division is a Deputy Director/City Engineer, who oversees a vacant
position of Field Engineer. Reporting to the Field Engineer are Engineering Design, Land
Development/Plan Check, Field Engineering/Public Improvement, Traffic Engineering,
CReal Property, NPDES, and Project Manager. This organizational structure can be seen in
Chart I, "City of San Bernardino Development Services Department, Current Organiza-
tional Chart."
fl'
I
Page 6
Ciry of San Bernardino
¶¶ Chart I
ILI Ell El
gli jjl in 1! j
JI
3fl 11,
Iii i�
E
Q
II d
c c �i !,j 11,55
T' � .i 1 All o �
C � I
ED ki
c fp
o �S
I
J DIN' xox 3
Do , vol I E r1l, I xi t3 d�{
Page 7
11
City of San Bernardino
�I By way of comparison, the City of Ontario has many of the same functions in its Engi-
neering Department, which is part of a larger development services agency. Ontario is
1� similar in size (population) to San Bernardino, and has substantial development activity
J like San Bernardino. Its engineering department has many of the same functions as San
Bernardino such as design, field services, survey party, land development, NPDES, and
JI traffic engineering. While it does not have a real estate section,it does include transporta-
tion planning and programming which is not included in San Bernardino's Public Works
Division, except for the traffic engineering function. Chart II, "City of Ontario, Engineer-
1I ing Department, Organization Chart," displays the organization and functions of this de-
1 partment.
�I Comparing the two charts can be informative. First, Ontario uses the job classifications of
assistant, associate, senior associate and principal engineer in its engineering department.
Of the seven sections in the department, six are led by principal engineers. This compares
li to senior civil engineers heading up the engineering design, land development and traffic
11 engineering sections in San Bernardino.
11 An organizational review of the City prepared earlier this year commented that the de-
partment's"structure is flawed" and that the department"suffers at least in part because it
currently discourages employing better qualified professionals in key professional man-
11 agement positions." Not employing a certified traffic engineer and having the land devel-
opment section managed by a senior engineer "where the norm is a principal engineer"
was specifically pointed out as issues in this report'.
11 Comparing the San Bernardino and Ontario organization charts supports this conclusion.
Ontario employs six principal engineers who are designated as section heads, while San
11 Bernardino uses the senior engineer designation at this level.
In addition, Ontario also has three top management positions who report to the City En-
gineer overseeing the principal engineers, while San Bernardino only has a field engineer
(vacant) which the consultant understands is at the principal level. As noted in Chart II,
Ontario has two Assistant City Engineers, one heading a Design/Field Services function
,I and a second leading Engineering Services. A Traffic/Transportation Manager oversees
the Transportation Division.
This means that Ontario has ten engineers at the principal engineer level or above, while
San Bernardino has, at most, two. This gives Ontario the ability to bring a higher level of
seasoned and experienced engineers to address the work of their engineering department.
In addition, Ontario's different engineering levels provide a more substantial career lad-
der for their employees. This, in turn, helps attract junior level engineers to Ontario as
II well as assist in retaining staff engineers who see possible career advancement within the
City. Adopting similar engineering levels in San Bernardino could help address staff re-
tention and turnover issues in the Public Works Division.
II
'Management Partners,"City of San Bernardino Organizational Review,"pp. 153-4
Page 8
1I City of San Bernardino
Chart II
1 <
c g Y yy
( I Em ao
EE £� LLI N y qC y �i •i1 Z. W¢m �¢ �''W N$
1 ¢O f 2 J I N G O
JI V O E of m a E ^ $ }_f
f UN NyV) ^l� P L EE
m
C
GH w 3i y.€r$ io „ 6m H€:1
W
O d 1 V ! a s� n im a i9 w=3
0.-
-.
� m on
Z
11 O p
CM
6 { 33
t'
�. e
I o O c e m m e
.per
J m 5 _ E
O F t
O w A O w
N ¢e L e u
1 H C 6
E $ �
Vl V C + H� L €m sii
01 IW Q q�e' Fa R§
f H
it
II
II Page 9
City n San Bernardino
Second, Ontario's engineering department organization is simple, clear-cut, and combine
like uses into three operating functions. Design and field services are combined in one
division, environmental water issues are merged with land development review, and
transportation planning and programming are joined with traffic engineering and signal
operations.
While copying another city's organization is unnecessary, beneficial lessons can be
learned from the practices of other jurisdictions. San Bernardino's organizational struc-
ture certainly could be streamlined, creating better lines of authority, reporting relation-
ships and accountability for its public works functions. This can be accomplished by
placing the Engineering Design and Field Engineering Sections, each headed by a Princi-
pal Engineer into a Design/Field Engineering function overseen by an Assistant City En-
gineer. Merging Land Development, also lead by a Principal Engineer, and NPDES into a
Land Review Section, also headed by an Assistant City Engineer, is also recommended.
A Traffic Engineer rather than a Senior Civil Engineer should oversee traffic engineering,
and the Real Estate could either be a stand-alone section reporting to the City Engineer,
or to an Assistant City Engineer.
Assistant Director. While the City Council Budget Subcommittee has already recom-
mended the creation of an Assistant Director of Development Services, this new position
adds another layer of management at the top of the Department. It also raises the issue of
the role of the three division heads (Planning, Public Works and Building and Safety),
who are each a Deputy Director, and how that role might be modified and reduced by
adding the Assistant Director position. In effect, three division heads/deputy directors
who currently report directly to the Department Director would be removed one level
from the Director.
It likely would be more useful and beneficial to the engineering operations of the Public
Works Division to add the two Deputy City Engineer positions, and upgrade the section
head positions from senior to principal, than to add the Assistant Director position. It
would place management and higher level engineer expertise where it is needed. While
two Deputy City Engineer positions would be added, the deletion of the Assistant Direc-
tor position and the intent by the Director not to fill Survey Party Chief position, would
not increase the Division's total number of positions. Further, development fees and the
design/administrative funds that are included with each capital improvement project
could cover the cost of these two engineering positions. Space to accommodate these new
positions would need to be addressed by the space planner consultants contemplated to be
hired by the City.
Another problem encountered by the Division is retaining and attracting engineers who
have credentials as a surveyor. This qualification is needed in order to sign and review
certain plans. The Division currently has one permanent staff engineer with this qualifica-
tion, who is nearing retirement. Unfortunately, certified surveyors are at a premium since
most professional engineers do not have this additional certification. Creating an organi-
zation that includes higher-level and higher paid engineers will increase the likelihood
that the City will be able to attract an engineer in the future who is certified both as a pro-
fessional engineer and a surveyor.
Page 10
City of San Bernardino
To accomplish these and other benefits to the City, the proposed revision of the organiza-
tional structure of the Public Works Division is offered in Chart III, "Proposed Organiza-
tion Chart — City of San Bernardino Public Works Division." It should be remembered
that this modification could be achieved without a net increase in staff positions.
In reviewing the current Department organization chart presented in Chart I the consult-
ant found that it did not completely reflect the nature and structure of the Department,
specifically in the Public Works Division. Focusing on only that Division, it appears that
the organizational structure is partially in flux. This in part due to turnover, with engi-
neers leaving for other jobs. Also, a vacancy created in the Survey Party Chief position
created an opportunity for the Director to eliminate this position and assign the two sur-
vey party technicians to the Construction Engineer.
Changes in the Division's organizational structure is also partially the result of moving
resources, like a senior civil engineer from design to land development/plan check to
cover the heavy workload in that section. There is also an Engineering Assistant II budg-
eted and listed in design, but who works in and lends support to the land develop-
ment/plan check section. These moves may help address workload issues in the short run,
but at the expense of workload in the design section. Chasing workload by backfilling
n multiple vacant positions is frustrating and argues for greater use of consultant engineers
as a stopgap until a full complement of staff can be obtained. Further, a design engineer
may not be an effective plan checker and moving such an engineer to Land Development
(I may actually be counter productive. In the meantime, the Department's organization
chart, if it is to be an effective management too], should be presented accurately so that it
reflects the true nature of the current organization.
Creating the two Principal Civil Engineer positions in the proposed organization would
require changing the titles and classes of two existing engineering positions. One is the
Field Engineer, which it is understood is at the principal salary level, and the other would
require reclassifying a vacant Senior Civil Engineering position to a Principal Civil Engi-
neer in the Land Development Section.
A minor adjustment would be to relocate the Administrative Analyst I position from the
Land Development Section to either report to the City Engineer, if the analyst's work fo-
cus is desired by management to be only on the Public Works Division. If the analyst's
responsibilities are for the entire department,this position should report to the Director.
Recommendations — It is recommended that a stronger management structure be
created in the City of San Bernardino Public Works Division by:
• Following the proposed organization chart in Chart III,placing the De-
sign and Field Services Sections, Real Estate and the Project Manager
under an Deputy City Engineer, putting the Land Development and
NPDES Sections under a second Deputy City Engineer, and upgrading
the head of the Traffic Engineering Section from a senior civil engi-
neer to a Traffic Engineer.
Page 11
City of San Bernardino
Chart III
0
U m
� 9
m 5 q
c
w` w`
'nI r w
11
9 C
C d
O o
� N a
U Oo
C � `d .5 m w 0
O U 0 .y w m �.ui N
N p w
m2 = w
Up m Y E ONN
C W U c
d �
p N W W W
Y
N 4J N m W � U
Z c U Z
'm
m W
C a
U
c s m
p o G Orn
m N W p
J d
Page 12
City of San Bernardino
• Establishing higher level, better qualified engineering positions, spe-
cifically establishing principal engineer level positions to head the sec-
tions of design and field engineering, and land use. Also, adding two
deputy city engineer positions over designtfield operations and land
development/NPDES functions should strengthen management and di-
rection for these activities and provide high-level engineering experi-
ence to the City. The Traffic Engineering Section should be headed by
a Traffic Engineer. Finally, the Assistant Development Services Direc-
tor position should not be filled on a permanent basis.
• To help accomplish recommendation #2 without a significant increase
in the Division's budget, the vacant Field Engineer position should be
replaced with by a Principal Civil Engineer to supervise the Design
Section. A vacant Senior Civil Engineer position in the Land Use Sec-
tion should be reclassified to a Principal Civil Engineer position to
head that section. The Administrative Analyst I position should be
moved from the Land Use Section and report to either the City Engi-
neer or the Development Services Director.
11 • Creating a Departmental organization chart that accurately reflects the
staffing and functions of the Public Works Division.
11 Finding—Clerical Support to the Public Works Division Should be Improved
In the early 1990s cities throughout California took drastic measures to control and re-
duce expenditures due to a recession. Nonessential, and sometimes essential, staff posi-
tions were cut in order to balance the municipal budget because of stagnant or declining
revenues. One technique used in balancing the budget was to eliminate clerical positions
assigned to individual city functions and place the remaining clerical jobs in an office or
departmental clerical pool.
It appears that this may have occurred for the functions which now constitute the Devel-
opment Services Department. An Administrative Division was created some years ago
which consists of basically a clerical pool, serving various functions the Department.
As clerical needs of the Department have evolved, so has the nature of the clerical sup-
" port. The clerical pool has assumed specific administrative, fiscal and clerical responsi-
bilities, leaving little time for to provide general clerical support for the three divisions in
the Department. For example, the two account clerks handle payroll, accounts payable,
billing, and progress payments for CIP projects. Three of the four administrative clerks
F work at the counter, interacting with the public and answering the phones for Planning,
i Public Works and Building and Safety. The fourth administrative clerk serves as relief for
the other three clerks for breaks, sick leave and vacation leave, and has certain side duties
such as collecting annual permit fees for mobile home parks and billing minor escalation
permits.
The Interactive Voice Mail System will relieve the workload of the counter clerks, and is
an important technological improvement which should provide improved service to the
Page 13
¶ City of San Bernardino
J public. It should also provide some additional clerical hours needed for the efficient op-
eration of the Public Works Division.
�I There is one secretary in the clerical pool that supports Public Works, but already has
substantial responsibilities, including preparation of plans and specs for CIP bids, inspec-
tion letters, maintenance of insurance certificates, and minutes of some the City's less ac-
tive commissions such as a Parking Place Commission, Handicapped Accessibility Ap-
peals Board and the Underground Utilities Committee. She also occasionally covers the
�I counter if needed and performs other minor clerical support for the division.
Because of the inability of the clerical pool to support the rest of the Department, secre-
tary positions have been added in recent years to support the Planning Director and the
Building Official. Recently, a clerk position was added to serve the NPDES Section. This
is in addition to the secretary positions working for the Director and the City Engineer.
Still, there is a lack of clerical support for public works. There is no clerical position that
provides clerical support for the professionals and technicians in the division except for
the secretary who reports to the City Engineer and the secretary from the clerical pool
who has very specific but limited responsibilities in public works.
1 An example of the lack of clerical assistance in the division is the use of the administra-
tive analyst for clerical support in the Land Development Section. This includes schedul-
ing engineers meetings, receiving and returning engineers calls including complaints,
making certain that plans submitted at meetings outside of city hall are placed in the
tracking system, bond releases, and spending hours searching for lost or misplaced plans
as a result of the tracking system not properly being used.
IIt is true that this position does some entry-level analyst work such as preparing the
monthly reports and developing pavement management analysis. But as pointed out ear-
; ( lier in this report, this position is misplaced in the Land Development Section and should
be assigned to either the City Engineer or the Director in order to focus on the analyst
work need in this Department.
Another example of the lack of clerical support is the lack of attention in overseeing the
file room. First, many files are not returned to the file and plan room and are found in
various offices, work areas and hallways. Second, there is no file clerk assigned to keep
the file room organized. Third, even senior staff commented that the file room is in disar-
ray. It was mentioned that a single plan file could have six copies of the same letter, in-
stead of retaining just the original, indicating the lack of file management. It is also men-
tioned by staff that maps are rolled and stuffed inefficiently in the file room.
Another problem is that, while Land Use Section counter personnel maintain a log of
plan applications, there is not a consistent practice of logging in plan submittals nor con-
sistently using transmittal slips when plans are referred to other city departments for re-
view. While this is a management issue that will be discussed later in this report, there is
also the issue that no one person assigned to keep track of the plans being reviewed, sort
of a 'traffic cop' to keep the plan review and tracking system on track. Use of the admin-
Page 14
�I
City of San Bernardino
istrative analyst for this purpose part of the time (searching hours for lost plans) is not an
appropriate use of this position.
For the efficiency and effectiveness of the Public Works Division, clerical support needs
to be added to support their work activities. At a minimum a clerical position, possibly at
�. the secretary level or the level below, such as a Clerk 11 or III level needs to be added to
be the 'traffic cop' for plan review and possibly for plan design, and to provide clerical
assistance especially for the Design, Land Development and Field Engineering Sections.
A file clerk (records maintenance clerk) should also be considered to administer the file
room, oversee the completion of the scanning process, and obtain files that have been ar-
chived as requested by staff.
This recommendation does not necessarily mean that two new clerical positions need to
be added to the Division to support their workload. The actual staffing composition
would need to be determined after further examination of options by the Department.
Some possible options that Department might consider is:
• Use of one-half of an Administrative Clerk II position that might be freed up by
the IRV system to assist in overseeing the division's file system.
• Assign divisional clerical duties to the Secretary to the City Engineer to spread
the workload among the clerical staff already assigned to this division.
' The bottom line is that while one clerical position may need to be added to help organize
and support clerical processing within the Public Works Division, there are other re-
sources that could be made available to the Division to address its clerical needs.
IRecommendation — It is recommended that the clerical support to the Public
Works Division should be improved. First, the Department should be encouraged
to find ways to better use existing clerical resources, such as the Secretary to the
City Engineer and any clerical time that will be freed up through the installation
of the IVR system to support the clerical and filing needs of the Public Works Di-
vision. Second, Division engineers should discontinue using the administrative
analyst for clerical support since that is not why that position was created. Third,
one clerical position may need to be added to fill the lack of basic clerical support
to the Public Works Division. This should have the benefit of more effective and
efficient staff with better day-to-day oversight of plan tracking. In effect, this po-
sition is viewed as a 'traffic cop' to keep the paper work processes of the division
flowing smoothly.
Business Practices Need To Be Improved
The Public Works Division receives development plan applications and reviews them to deter-
mine if they conform to city and state regulations. Approval of mass grading, precise grading,
j street improvement, street lighting, main sewer system, landscape, hydrology and water quality
plans is sought by developers from the City for a wide variety of projects, ranging from one lot
developments to high value projects of several hundred acres with improvements of over one
million square feet. While on and off site improvements are reviewed in the Public Works Divi-
Page 15
City of San Bernardino
sion, building permits and building construction inspection is performed by the Building and
Safety Division.
As previously mentioned, there have been customer complaints about the Public Works Division
related to delayed plan checks, inadequate application tracking, misplaced or lost plans, and the
calculation of fees. While it is true that at times developers use the `system' to their advantage
and attempt to obtain advantages in plan processing and unwarranted concessions from staff, it is
also sometimes true that the customer complaints about the Division are based on fact.
�! This section reviews the reasons for the processing problems in the Division, examines the busi-
ness processes used by the Division, and offers recommendations for improving these business
1� practices.
i As mentioned previously, the Development Services Department has made a number of recent,
ongoing improvements in its business practices. The use of outside plan check consultants and
construction design help, plus allowing applicants to make appointments for initial filing and
submittal of plans are steps in the right direction. Plans to install an IVR system, pursue the next
phase of auto archiving the files, prepare a work space study, and integrate the PERMITS
PLUS/GIS systems are all beneficial proposals to assist the Division's business practices.
However, the delays in the plan check process and lost or misplaced plans are based on inade-
quate staff devoted to plan check and the plan application tracking system not being properly fol-
lowed. These are both management and system issues which need to be addressed by Depart-
ment management.
Finding—Staffing Seems Inadequate for Current Plan Check Workload
Regarding the workload and staffing issue, there does not appear to be adequate staff re-
sources to address the plan check workload. This reflects observations by staff, the engi-
y neenng plan check firms, and the consultant. While one large application will require
I several months of staff review, even very small applications can take an inordinate
amount of time due to the inexperience of the applicant and their engineer. Often, the
plan checker needs to `hold the hand' of the applicant and engineer and lead them
through the review process step-by-step.
While it is difficult to compare the time required to review each plan, a general review of
the number of plan submittals to the Division over the past 12 months shows an ongoing
level of plan applications exceeding the number of permits issued, except for the last
month of the period being measured, July 2007. This basically means that the Division is
behind in its plan check process. While other cities require the completion of the first
plan check in two- three weeks, San Bernardino some times does not even start the plan
check process during this period of time. When this study was started in June 2007 it was
verbally reported that there were 150 applications `in process' with many of those plans
`in queue.' Chart IV, "Plan Applications,Plan Review and Permits Issued, August 2006—
July 2007"presents the reason for this backlog.
Page 16
City of San Bernardino
Chart IV—Plan Applications,Plan Review and Permits Issued
August 2006—July 2007
Month Plans Submitted Plan Reviews Permits Issued
August 54 42 38
September 40 34 33
October 43 51 25
November 34 68 27
December 33 56 26
I]
J January 38 46 43
lFebruary 45 49 18
March 45 43 41
April 34 32 41
May 39 62 43
June 42 88 36
1 July 15 77 38
1 Source:Development Services Department Monthly Reports(Revised)
Again, the numbers in Chart IV have limited value in there is a wide variation in the number of
I staff hours required to process each application. Also, depending on the complexity of the plan
and the quality of its first submittal, there often are two, three and even more plan checks on the
same set of plans. Multiple plan checks on the same set of plans is why the number of plan re-
views each month often exceeds the number of plans submitted and permits issued.
The main value of Chart IV is to present general trends. First, it shows that,except for July 2007,
the number of plan submitted was fairly constant, ranging from 33 to 45 plans from September
2006 through June 2007. It also shows that with the moving of some staff from design to plan
check and with the addition of two new plan check consultant firms in January 2007, and allow-
ing time for the firm's first series of plan checks, the number of permits issued per month by the
Division began increasing in March. From August 2006 through February 2007, the number of
permits issues averaged 30 per month. Since then,the average has been 40 permits per month.
Nevertheless, during the 12-month period from August 2006 through July 2007, the average
number of plans submitted exceeded the number of permits issued by 4.5 applications per month.
This, of course, means that the backlog of plan reviews will build up over this time period. Also,
Page 17
City of San Bernardino
there are delays in the review of water quality issues according to the City's NPDES Coordinator
due to heavy workload.
As mentioned earlier, department management has moved staff from the Design Section to Land
Development to backfill vacant positions in that section. It has added two more consultant plan
checkers to review larger plan applications, and is now completing the RFP process to expand
II the work of these consultants to allow them to also review the water quality issues related to
NPDES requirements.
Another way to address the workload issue is to transfer some of the plan check responsibilities
to the Building and Safety Division. This Division, which reviews building construction plans,
�l has not been plagued with complaints of plan review delays or lost or misplaced plans. In some
11 jurisdictions, the building division has a broader plan review responsibility than in San Bemar-
dino. In fact, in 2004, Department management discussed transferring responsibility for review-
, ing on-site work such as grading, on-site improvements and retaining walls to Building and
Safety. A staff plan was developed for this transfer with the implementation of the plan's first
I phase involving single-family infill projects. This transfer was successful, but the second and
third phases involving grading and on-site improvements for single-family infill projects was
never implemented.The current City Building Official is receptive to this expansion of responsi-
bility. Obviously, this is another approach to relieving the workload of the Public Works Divi-
sion to solve the plan check problem.
In order to address the workload/staffing issues, it is suggested that the City:
1. In the short term, immediately negotiate with the engineering firms that provide plan
check services to make greater use of their services, until the backlog of plans has
been eliminated. A downturn in economic activity might also help achieve this result.
Currently, with one or two major exceptions, all plans involving $3,000 or more in
fees are referred to a plan check consultant. Negotiations with the consultants to re-
duce this level and adjust the consultant fees so they can financially accept smaller
plan check applications should be considered.
2. In the mid term, Department management should expand the plan review of Building
and Safety to include more complete review of small single-family infill projects.
3. Also, in the mid term, the City should consider improving and upgrading the engi-
neering staff, and reorganize the Division, as suggested earlier in this report. This
should have a beneficial impact on both the Land Development and Design Sections
of the Division.
Recommendation—It is recommended in terms of staffing that the Department:
• Make greater use of the plan check consultants until the plan check
backlog is eliminated.
• Expand the role of Building and Safety in the plan check process be
examined.
Page 18
City of San Bernardino
• The City take steps to improve and upgrade engineering staff and re-
organize the Division as suggested earlier in the report.
Finding—The Plan Application Tracking System Is Not Properly Followed
Currently, when a plan is received at the counter it is numbered and logged into an excel
spreadsheet called the "New Master Plan Check Log" (NMPCL). As plans and drawings
are sent to other departments for comments on fire protection and landscape plans, these
transmittals are tracked on a "Drawing Status Log." Forms or slips are used to record a
' plan being sent to another department for review and comments, or to be returned to the
applicant's engineer for plan revision based on the first or subsequent plan check. Finally,
when the plan and the plan mylar is signed, it is logged into the "Drawings to be Filed
Log." The acceptance of plans at the counter and the subsequent entries into the logs as
the plans are recorded and are monitored by an Engineering Assistant I. The software
computer program, Permits Plus, on the other hand, is used in fee calculations, for exam-
ple, including fee changes since the project's value may change if it is revised during the
review process.
Also, the outgoing City Engineer in early May instituted a policy requiring plan check
consultants to list plan check comments on a Microsoft Word document that can be sent
to Division staff as well the applicant and their engineer so that there is rapid communi-
cation on issues that might need staff attention. Also, in the case of second plan checks,
documentation is obtained on how adequately the applicant's engineer responded to
comments from the first plan check. This is not always effective since some comments
are not too useful unless they are identifying a problem directly on the plan (redline
comments). Also, to the extent Division staff was requested to provide plan comments on
Word documents, the interviews conducted by the consultant indicated that this technique
for communicating plan comments was not consistently practiced.
Ultimately, the City should examine technology that would permit redlined plans (plans
with engineer's comments) to be scanned into the computer system so that they can be
electronically transmitted to the applicant and the applicant's engineer.
Tracking System Not Followed. There is evidence based on staff interviews that, not
only are plan comments on Word documents not being consistently followed,but the plan
application tracking system is not being consistently followed as well. For example, there
was testimony that plans are received at meetings, brought into the Division for review,
but not always entered into the tracking system. One staff called this an "elevator" sub-
mittal.
One plan checker admitted that sometimes he forgets to fill out the transmittal slip when
plans are routed to another department for comment. In another case, a counter person in-
dicated that he had a record in his log book of a plan being received for its fast plan
check, and then being sent back to the applicant's engineer. Then the plan came back in
for its third plan check. There was no record of the plan coming back in and then being
sent back out for its second plan check even though that second plan review had oc-
curred.
Page 19
City of San Bernardino
Any plan check tracking system can be effective, whether it is a manual system, one us-
ing an excel spreadsheet or a software program like Permits Plus. The key for the track-
ing system to work is to consistently follow its procedures. It is clear that the Division's
tracking system procedures are not being completely followed and properly utilized. The
j Division's top management needs to make these procedures clear to plan check staff
through training, setting proper expectations, and following up by holding staff account-
able for meeting these expectations. This is a management issue that needs more attention
by Division management.
Permits Plus. One question raised by city management is why the Permits Plus system is
not more fully utilized by the Public Works Division to accomplish, among other proc-
esses, tracking of plan checks and permits. After all, this system has been available to the
Division for several years, and has been fully integrated into the permit processing of the
Building and Safety Division.
There are several answers to that question. First, the Permits Plus system requires a sig-
nificant commitment of staff resources for its implementation. In Building and Safety a
point person was assigned to Permits Plus and was chiefly responsible for being trained
and following through to make certain that the system was properly implemented. The
Division also had significant support from the City Building Official who also is well
versed in the system. Unfortunately, in Public Works there has not been a similar com-
mitment of staff resources to implement Permits Plus in that Division. Recently, one staff
person received two weeks training with the system, and then promptly left City em-
ployment in July.Now another person is scheduled to receive this training.
But more than training on the system is needed. The trained staff member needs to work
with City IT to apply the Permits Plus program to the plan check functions, and then pro-
vide training to the staff who will be using the system.
Second, apparently Permits Plus is not a particularly user-friendly system. Engineers in
other jurisdictions point out problems with this system, such as only being able to pull up
one window or screen at a time Also, the system is very data intensive, requiring a sig-
nificant amount of time to input data from a staff already overloaded with work. Finally,
other jurisdictions find it difficult to obtain the type of management reports that are useful
to them.
In the brief survey that was conducted by the consultant, it was found that the City of On-
I
tario developed their own computer tracking system, rather than use the Permits Plus
program. Similar to San Berardino, the Public Works Departments in the City of Red-
lands and in San Berardino County have only used part of the Permits Plus plan check
program, while Permits Plus is fully integrated into the building permit processes of these
two jurisdictions.
Of the jurisdictions surveyed, the most interesting case was the City of Riverside. They
have fully integrated Permits Plus into all of their programs—building, planning and en-
gineering/plan checking. Even though they have had a fully functioning Permits Plus sys-
tem since 2003, they are now examining other alteratives. They cannot obtain the re-
ports they need from the system, such as the time required to process an individual plan,
Page 20
City of San Bernardino
or the time for each plan check by staff person. Also, the system will not allow an appli-
cant to also be listed the engineer for a project. Therefore,the City of Riverside is explor-
ing a system implemented in the City of Burbank, called "Edge Soft." They will experi-
ment with a single application in Public Works, and if that works, they plan to migrate
from Permits Plus to the new system.
While the Permits Plus system has been a useful software system over the past several
years for a number of jurisdictions, the City may want to join the City of Riverside in ex-
amining other alternative software systems for the plan check process before the City in-
vests more money into the Permits Plus program.
Recommendation — Since the Public Works Division is using an excel spread-
sheet to track its plan checks, it is recommended that:
• Management needs to train, set expectations and hold staff accountable
for meeting these expectations to make certain that the City's current
plan check tracking system is followed.
• Department management should consider joining the City of Riverside
in exploring options to Permits Plus to determine if there is a more
user-friendly software system for the plan check process.
• If the Department decides to continue with the Permits Plus system, it
should make a sufficient staff commitment to its implementation, simi-
lar to what was accomplished in Building and Safety.
• As a minor point with the current excel spread sheet tracking system,
the Division should explore deleting the "Drawing Status Log" since it
overlaps data already presented in the more comprehensive "New
Master Plan Check Log."
Finding — It Could Not Be Determined If Recheck of Consultant Plan Checks by
City Staff Engineers Was Too Detailed or Lengthy
An applicant can pay a premium fee to become a "priority project," which means that the
plan will be referred immediately to a plan check consulting firm. The purpose for paying
the premium fee is to expedite plan check review.
There are developer complaints, however, that it can take nearly twice the time to have
the plan checked since senior engineering staff spends too much time double checking
work performed by the consultant. The concern is that the premium fee does not result in
an expedited plan check, but in a delayed plan check.
While the consultant could not determine if the recheck of consultant plan checks by City
staff engineers was too detailed or lengthy, the former City Engineer commented in July
that he directed staff (presumably verbally) to address only critical issues in reviewing
consultant plan check work including public health and safety issues. However, he quali-
fied that directive in a July memo when he stated, "I have instructed my staff to only
check the consultants' work on issues where their license will be compromised."
Page 21
City of San Bernardino
This theme was repeated in discussions with senior engineering staff when they indicated
an unwillingness to risk their engineering license by "blindly" approving a consultant's
plan review. This is within the context that the two new plan check consultants received
positive marks for the plan review work they are performing.
A different perspective, however, was offered by another professional engineer who
oversees the plan check process in another city, and has been a practicing engineer since
1969. He stated that he never heard of a City Engineer or a city employee engineer losing
a professional license or be in jeopardy of losing their license for signing plans designed j
and prepared by another engineer. Further, he pointed out, it is the responsibility of the
engineer who prepared the plans to make certain that what is on the plans are accurate,
correctly designed and drawn, not the agency representative who merely reviews the
plans for conformance to the agency standards, specifications and policies.
Of course, the approving agency is not immune from a potential lawsuit. However, agen-
cies such as the City of San Bernardino carry liability insurance or are self insured to pro-
tect against such lawsuits and to cover the liability of City staff.
This does not mean that some staff review of the plan check firm's work is not in order,
but the focus should be on obtaining competent engineering firms and training them
properly regarding the City's regulations. Senior staff engineers have informed Ralph
Andersen & Associates that this training has been accomplished. If space were not at
such a premium in this Department, more of comfort level by senior staff with the con-
sultant's work might be achieved if the consultant's engineer did their work for the City
at City Hall.
Using the argument that a detailed review of plans checked by an engineering consultant
firm is needed in order not to compromise the City staff engineer's license does not ap-
pear to fit the practice of other local government jurisdictions. The City Engineer should
take care to provide proper oversight to his/her staff to make certain that recheck of the
consultant's plan check work is brief, reviews pertinent public safety issues, if necessary,
and does not unduly delay an expedited plan check process.
Recommendation—It is recommended that:
• The City Engineer should seek the counsel of other City Engineers to
determine the practice in other cities regarding the level of detail in the
recheck of consultant plan check work.
• The City Engineer should provide proper oversight to senior staff to
ensure that review of a consultant's plan check work is brief, reviews
pertinent public safety issues, if necessary, and does not unduly delay
the plan check process.
Finding — There is Some Evidence That There is an Absence of Field Investigations
to Support the Design Work and Plan Review of the Public Works Division
Among senior management staff of the Development Services Department there has been
some discussion of whether or not there are voids in field investigations to support the
Page 22
City of San Bernardino
work of the Design Section and other functions of the Public Works Division. The con-
cem is that because of heavy workload not enough time is spent performing field investi-
gations for various Division projects. Also, there may be an attitude developed over the
years within the Division that the Construction Inspection Section will resolve any field
problems. This study found enough examples of the lack of field investigations that the
issue should be examined in more detail by Department management.
One example of the absence of engineering fieldwork is the Victoria Avenue sound wall
project design which did not have enough posts to support this structure, and had to be
redesigned resulting a change order for this project. Also, the plans did not show a storm
drain that needed to be demolished since it was in the line of the sound wall construction.
This presumable was because of the lack of or incomplete field investigations.
Recommendation — It is recommended that the City Engineer ensure that ade-
quate fieldwork is performed to support plan review and in designing construction
projects.
Finding—Work Measurements Need To Be Reviewed
One valuable management tool is work program data that can measure work process and
can project work trends and activities. The Development Services Department collects
and reports this data in its regular monthly reports. These reports, usually totaling over 20
pages, cover a number of departmental activities ranging from building permit valuation,
building inspections, mobile home park inspections, grants and code enforcement, recon-
struction permits stemming from the Old Fire, to capital improvements, major projects j
permitted and plan checks submitted and reviewed. A large amount of commentary de-
scribing specific projects are included in the report. Again, the data in the report is useful
to management in reviewing workload activity and trends.
In reviewing the monthly plan check data for the 13-month period of July 2006 through
July 2007, it was discovered that identical data was reported for six of those months, in-
cluding a stretch of three months where identical data was reported. After this discrep-
ancy was reported to Departmental management, the Division's analyst who is responsi-
ble for preparing the monthly reports, supplied the correct information which is presented
in Chart IV.
This raises the issue of what level of review is given to the Department's monthly reports.
The plan check data is usually reported toward the middle of the monthly report, being
found on page 14 of the 22-page report for July 2007. So the plan check data may not re-
ceive the same level of interest and review as other portions of the report. There may be
more interest in the commentary about major projects than in looking at cold, hard unin-
teresting statistics. It may also mean that the data in this part of the monthly report had
not been visited for awhile, otherwise this data discrepancy might have been discovered
and corrected earlier. Also, it is not now possible from the report to determine how many
plan checks are being performed in house by staff and how many are being reviewed by
the plan check consultant since data is not collected in that manner.
Page 23
City of San Bernardino
Recommendation—It is recommended that:
• The monthly report should be reviewed with city management to make
certain that it provides the information desired by City administration
and the Mayor and City Council.
• The plan check data in the monthly report should be refined to identify
the number of plan checks being performed by staff and plan checks
being performed by the consulting engineers.
• Department management should ensure that accurate data is being in-
cluded in the monthly report.
• The analyst should be tasked to track workload accomplished and pro-
jections for major department activity rather than performing clerical
support for plan check engineers.
Finding — A Goal For Plan Check Turnaround Is Not Being Identified and Imple-
mented.
This finding may seem contrary to conventional practice. Clearly, the other jurisdictions
surveyed track the receipt of plans and maps, and have a performance goal of completing
the first plan check within two to three weeks of submittal. The City's plan check con-
sultants agree in their contract to a turnaround of in three weeks after receiving all mate-
rial for standard plan reviews, and two weeks for expedited plan reviews. Of course, ex-
tremely large projects will take a longer period of time for review.
However, as recently as July, the former City Engineer wrote, "I have directed my staff to
tell the applicant that once their project comes up in the queue, it should take no longer
than four weeks to receive the initial plan check comments." There are two problems
with this statement. First, unless it is an extremely complicated project, staff should be
able to accomplish the review in three rather than four weeks, since the consultant engi-
neering firms can complete their review in three weeks. Second, the time for review does
not include the time required for a project to wait in queue, even though the former City
Engineer stated, "The time in queue is difficult to estimate..." The wait period needs to
be calculated in determining the actual time required to process the plan submittal. In
other words, the period for reviewing a submittal is the waiting time plus the time for re-
view. The Division should be able to measure that information since the "New Master
Plan Check Log" records the date for each plan submittal. There is no reason that the ana-
lyst cannot calculate the period of time from receipt of a submittal to the time a permit is
issued. This data can then be used to project estimates as to the length of the queue before
the two to three week review begins. This information can be helpful in order that appli-
cants will know what to expect in the processing of their plans.
Recommendation — It is recommended that the Public Works Division develop
information to determine the current wait or delays being experienced by appli-
cants in the plan check process. Once this is accomplished, the Division should
establish goals for the length of time plan and map submittals are allowed to be in
Page 24
City of San Bernardino
queue, how long the plan check will take once the plan check process begins, and
then calculate the time the total plan check process will take from filing the appli-
cation to issuing the permit. This information should be communicated to appli-
cants so they have a general idea how long it will take to process their plans.
Finding—The Plan Check Fee Structure Should Be Examined
Even though there were developer concerns about the amount and equity of fees charged
for plan check services, it was indicated that the consultant need not to examine the plan
check fee issue. However, after discussing the fee issues with representatives of other ju-
risdictions in the same market as San Bernardino, it appears that a flat rate approach to
determine fees, rather than the value of the project, are being used to calculate plan check
fees.
The City uses a formula based on the projected value of the development to determine
plan check fees. There have been complaints from the applicants concerning this formula
since some times the actual value of the work being performed for a project is far differ-
ent than what is being used in calculating the fee. To avoid that issue, other jurisdictions
use a flat rate fee based on some objective measure like the number of pages of plans re-
viewed by the plan checker.
It should be noted that there is no perfect fee structure for calculating plan check fees. It
seems that every plan check fee system has its flaws. There is no one fee methodology
that is totally equitable in measuring the value of work involved in performing the plan
check. Any fee can bring cries of unfairness at being too high for the work performed.
Still, a more understandable fee structure that is easier to administer by the City that
should be considered.
Recommendation — It is recommended that the City evaluate a flat rate plan
check fee structure using the practice in neighboring cities as a guide.
i
Page 25
I '
City of San Bernardino
Chapter III
Summary of
Recommendations
This report offers a number of recommendations based upon the data, documents and informa-
tion collected as part of this study. Based on several findings and conclusions developed in this
report, the following recommendations are offered for consideration and possible action. As a
point of information and for ease of reading and review, some of the more detailed, separate rec-
ommendations presented earlier in the report are folded into the major recommendations which
follow. The recommendations of this report are:
1. The City of San Bernardino should support its Development Services Depart-
ment in its efforts to improve its business practices, working conditions, equip-
ment and technology in its Public Works and other divisions in order to provide
better service to its customers.
Comment: Management of the Development Services Department has initiated, and
in some cases implemented, several business practice, working condition, equipment
and technology improvements. These improvements include scheduling applicant ap-
pointments at the counter, contracting with outside plan check firms to assist the plan
check workload, auto archiving old files, and other minor changes. Other proposals
include extending plan check consultant's review to include water quality issues
(NPDES), work space planning, developing an Interactive Voice Recognition System,
obtaining a large format copier/scanner, and automating the building inspection proc-
ess. These are positive improvements and should be supported by the City.
2. A consultant should be hired as soon as possible to conduct a workspace plan for
the Development Services Department. The consultant should not be limited to
allocating Department staff only to the third floor of City Hall.
Comment: This report finds that there is the appearance of inadequate workspace for
the Development Services Department, and it was learned that the City is considering
hiring a consultant to develop a workspace plan for this Department. Because of the
apparently tight workspace for many of the staff, the work space consultant should be
permitted to consider options that would relocate staff to other sites not critical to the
support of public counter operations.
3. A stronger management structure should be developed in the Public Works Di-
vision without adding more staff by reorganizing the Division in accordance with
Chart III (see page 12), and by establishing higher level engineering positions in
order to attract and retain more experienced engineers.
Page 26
Fl
9
4 City of San Bernardino
Comment: The Department's organization has been termed "flawed" by other con-
sultants, and clearly is not as streamlined as similarly sized cities in the Inland Em-
pire. Learning from the City of Ontario, it is proposed that the City reorganize the
' Public Works Division along the lines proposed on Chart III (see page 12). This or-
ganizational structure provides for clearer lines of authority, a better combination of
functions, offering better accountability among engineering and technical staff. This
change would also create an organization that accurately reflects the staffing and
functions of the Division.
' As importantly, an upgrade in engineering staff is proposed by moving section heads
who are Senior Civil Engineers to Principal Engineers which is the norm for cities
like San Bernardino. In the case of Traffic Engineering, the Senior Civil Engineer po-
sition should be upgraded to Traffic Engineer. Further, it is proposed that two Deputy
City Engineer positions be created, who along with the Traffic Engineer, would over-
see the major functions of the Division and assist the City Engineer in management of
the Division. These two positions would be offset by deleting a vacant civil engineer-
, ing position and the Survey Party Chief. This would provide the City an overall
higher level of engineering expertise where it is needed, help attract needed engineer-
ing talent, create a career ladder for the City's junior engineers thereby helping to re-
tain existing staff, and put the City in a better position to attract what is becoming that
rare engineer who is both a registered civil engineer and a certified surveyor. A less
significant change would be to move the Analyst position from the Division to report
either to the City Engineer or to the Director. Also, the Assistant Development Ser-
vices Director position should not be created, and the funds that would be devoted to
this position should be used to fund the other recommended changes.
4. Clerical support for the Public Works Division should be improved.
Comment: There is no position that provides clerical support for the professionals and
technicians in the Public Works Division except for the City Engineer's Secretary and
the Secretary from the Administrative Division (clerical pool) who has very specific
but limited responsibilities in Public Works. This has resulted in the inappropriate use
of the Analyst for clerical purposes, no clerical oversight of the file and map room or
the scanning process, and, most importantly, there is no assigned clerical position to
keep on top of the paperwork work flows, or act as a "traffic cop"in assisting counter
personnel in tracking plan checks in the Division.
Clerical support can be improved by using hours that will be freed up for an existing
Administrative Clerk II position in the clerical pool by installation of the IRV System,
by assigning divisional clerical duties to the City Engineer's Secretary, and by adding
one more clerical position to the Division. This is crucial to enable engineering and
technical staff to more efficiently function and perform their duties.
5. The Division should make greater use of the plan check consultants until the
plan check backlog is eliminated.
Comment: There is a backlog of plans waiting to be checked. For the 12-month pe-
riod of August 2006 — July 2007, on average 4.5 more applications per month were
Page 27
City of San Bernardino
received compared to permits issued. With the reorganization and staffing changes
proposed by this report along with the other efficiencies proposed by staff or the con-
sultant, and with the possible slowing of the economy, it would make sense for the
City to negotiate with its existing plan check consultants, or, in the alterative, nego-
tiate with other consultants to provide plan check services until the backlog of plans
has been eliminated. This usually is the main purpose of contract plan check consult-
ants — being used for peaks in work load, avoiding an unnecessary expansion and
contraction of staff as work load changes.
6. The Department should revisit expanding the role of the Building and Safety Di-
vision to perform plan check of applications for small single-family infill pro-
jects.
Comment: The Building and Safety Division of the Development Services Depart-
ment has an excellent reputation of being well organized and performing its work on
time, without losing plans submitted for review. In 2004 presumably in order to re-
lieve the workload in the Public Works Division certain on-site plan check work re-
lated to small single-family infill projects were transferred from Public Works to
Building and Safety. The remainder of the transfer of this plan check responsibility
was never implemented. It would be appropriate to revisit this transfer to, again, re-
lieve Public Works of some of than workload.
7. Division management needs to train, set expectations and hold staff accountable
for meeting these expectations to ensure that the current plan check tracking
system,or any revisions or replacements to that system,are followed.
Comment: As is pointed out in this report, the current tracking system is not uni-
formly being followed, and Division management needs to ensure that it is properly
followed by setting performance expectations and following up on these expectations.
8. The Department should evaluate options to the Permits Plus software system to
determine if there is a more user-friendly and useful system for the plan check
process.
Comment: Jurisdictions which are using the Permits Plus program are examining
other software options for their permit tracking/fee calculation systems. San Bemar-
dino might also want to evaluate whether these newer systems that might be more ef-
fective,perhaps even joining another city or cities in this review.
9. If the Department continues to use and expand the Permits Plus software system
in the Public Works Division, however, a sufficient staff commitment should be
made for its proper implementation.
Comment: Difficulty in implementing the Permits Plus system for engineering and
plan check applications is found not only in San Berardino, but in other large local
government jurisdictions in the Inland Empire. Where its implementation has been
successful, including in the City's Building and Safety Division, it has been where
there has been sufficient staff commitment to apply the program to specific local ap-
plications and to train affected staff in these applications.
Page 28
City of San Bernardino
10. The City Engineer should provide proper direction and oversight to City engi-
neering and technical staff to:
• Determine and record the time required to process each permit application
from date of submittal to issuance of a permit;
• Set goals and standards based on available staff and consultant resources for
the time required to process first, second, third and subsequent plan checks so
the development community will have processing time frames on which they
can rely;
• Ensure that the goals are met by City staff and consultants, including expedi-
tious recheck of consultant plan check review; and
• As a sidebar,proper field investigations should be performed where necessary
in the plan check process and in reviewing and designing construction project.
Comment: Other local jurisdictions surveyed by the consultant provide time frames
for plan checking various types of development applications. Even the City requires
time frames for plan check review by its consultants. The City Engineer needs to have
an adequate database from which to evaluate the work of staff and consultants, and
then set goals and standards for the staff and consultants to meet. Developers need to
have some idea of how low a review will take, whether it is two weeks, three months,
or some other period of time. The City Engineer should then hold staff and consult-
ants accountable to ensure that the goals and standards are met, including the recheck
of consultant work without an undo delay in that review.
11. The Departments monthly report should be reviewed with city management to
make certain that it provides desired information, and that it is accurate and
correct.
Comment: Monthly reports, if they are to be useful to the Mayor, City Council, and
city manager, need to be correct and accurate. As indicated earlier in the report there
were mistakes in reporting data related to plan check activities. If desired by city
management, it should reveal more information in the report such as the productivity
of staff and consultants in conducting plan checks.
12. The City should evaluate potentially changing its development fee structure
based on a flat rate rather than on the project's value.
Comment: The City has received complaints about the equity of processing fees
based on a project's estimated value. It is difficult if not impossible to develop any
processing fee structure that is equitable. However, the other jurisdictions surveyed as
part of this report either have some form of flat rate fee structure, or are recommend-
ing changing to a flat rate structure. As long as the fees reflect some measure of work
to review submitted plans, and enough revenues are collected to cover the cost of the
plan check process so it is not subsidized by the general taxpayer, a flat rate structure
normally is less controversial and is easier to implement, administer and understand.
Page 29
City of San Bernardino
This report was not charged with analyzing the fee structure in any detail, however,
based on the practice of other jurisdictions in San Bernardino's market area, the con-
sultant suggests that the City evaluate changing its processing fees to a flat rate struc-
ture.
I
Page 30