Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30-Building and Safety - CIlO OF SAN BERNARDIt:1>> - REQU~T FOR COUNCIL AC~ON From: JAMES ROBBINS, SUPERINTENDENT Dept: BUILDING AND SAFETY Date: AUGUST 8, 1986 Subject: INSPECTION DEMANDS ON THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Synopsis of Previous Council action: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on August 4, 1986, the Superintendent of Building and Safety was directed to submit a staff report relating to inspection demands on the Building and Safety Department and how timely inspections can be executed. Recommended motion: A. Remove any hiring constraints on filling existing vacant positions. B. Approve recruitment and employment of one to three new General Building Inspectors in November or December. C. Approve recruitment and employment of one new General Building Inspector in April, 1987. D. Approve the employment of four temporary General Building Inspectors for a period of 30 days, with continued periods of 30 days if supplemental fees cover cost of administration of program. E. Approve the recruitment and employment of three, three year, limited term Code Compliance Officers and one Intermediate Typist Clerk. The Finance Director place $40,000 of reserves in the Building and Safety Department budget for implementation of the expanded and new programs. The Finance Director on January 2, 1987, place $168,000 of reserves in the Building and Safety Department budget for continued implementation of the expanded programs. ~/ _ Signature ,/ / I ~" .....-~ -' L --1-r( I -, /~ t\- /""/-'-l:;" . Contact person: James Rabbi ns Phone: 5274 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Varies, see above Source: C.D.B.G. Discretionary Funds. Rea~sessmen~Qf RevenJLes General Fund Finance: /al. c;' Jt" ~ ---- Council Notes: r.....l:~,. +. /...... 1.........._:..... ~y ell J+-~-...o......"U... l.r) .r...II.t...... Le."L' ..~ .,.. '~----l......-"",;.....1 J"''':iJ- 1\....._:...,... ..L ..aJ" Q-f ~h- l'.IL9G .. e ., ...:-. :, c.~. '"' I ~. ,.. &.....L1 .... ./"f.''''"'''- Agenda Item NO~ 75-0262 4- tIli CITCloF SAN BERNARDI'O - REQUEC' FOR COUNCIL AC'ON BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT There are five inspection areas of concern. New construction, code compliance, Certificate of Occupancy (C of 0), construction without permits, and open permits. 'Each area has both unique and similar characteristics. Current staff is primarily directed towards new construction and code compliance. C of 0, construction without permits, and open permits are handled whenever time is available. The official design of the Building and Safety Department is a Plan Check Engineer, one Plan Checker, one Senior Construction, one Senior Electrical, one Senior Plumbing, six General Building Inspectors, one Code Enforcement Officer, one Account Clerk II, and two Intermediate Typist Clerks. The revised budget reduces the six General Building Inspectors to five. The operating department has a Plan Check Engineer with a Plan Checker and a Plan Check/General Building Inspector; one Senior Plumbing Inspector, one Senior Elec- trical Inspector and one Senior Construction Inspector. Three General Building In- spectors do field inspections. There has been a vacancy for four months and it will continue through the fiscal year. The position could be filled in 2 weeks. The GDdeEnforcement Officer and one General Building Inspector work directly for the Superintendent. The two Intermediate Typist Clerks work the front counter and the Account Clerk also serves as secretary to the Superintendent. This then is the background as to why when the budget shows six general and three senior inspectors there is a false impression of how new construction inspection could be behind. Instead of nine inspectors, there are five trying to keep up with the load. As I have indicated, changes in office hours, counter hours, and pulling inspectors from other areas has helped, but not sufficiently to allow for quality inspections. The area of new construction has been the primary focus. We have approximately 300 residential, ten commercial and two industrial units come on line for inspections per month. Construction time is anywhere form 120 to 240 days, depending on the size and complexity of the project. The reality then is an average of 10-14 inspections for each of five inspectors. This uses the Senior Electrical and Senior Plumbing Inspec- tors as General Inspectors as well as responding to their special inspections. Other identified constraints include one inspector position remains unfilled. One in- spector had been assigned to Plan Check section. One inspector has been assigned to housing abatement and code compliance. So, where three to five years ago there were six General Inspectors and three Senior Speciality Inspectors inspecting new construction, now there are three Senior Sepciality Inspectors and three General Inspectors performing that function. The inspector previously assigned to Plan Check has been filling in for inspectors on vacation. The vacant position exists. The General Inspector doing housing abatement and code compliance fills in on vacations, illness or overload, however, this then compounds the number of calls he has backed up. In the area of code compl iance there is one Code Enforcement Officer and one General Building Inspector (previously discussed). The Code Enforcement Officer is charged with enforcement of all building and zoning Codes. Additionally, he has been responding to animal control calls, health and sanitation calls, Mayor-Council concerns and MAC Group. - 1 - 75-0264 J JIW ... CI10 OF SAN BERNARDltY - REQU~T FOR COUNCIL ACOON STAFF REPORT The General Inspector is handling housing abatement, landlord-tenant problems, animal control calls, basic health and sanitation calls and Mayor-Council concerns. He has also been involved in the MAC Group and the Drug Task Force. Some of the calls received by these two are taken care of by a site visit. However, additional time is necessary for a check back to make sure the action was taken. More often, a call results in a file being created. This results in site visits, telephone calls and correspondence before gaining compliance. The minimum time on a housing abatement is 180 days and more often it is 210-240 days. Over the past few weeks the General Inspector has been pulled to do new construction general inspections to keep up on inspection requests. This results in further backlog of calls and "in process" projects in code compliance. As noted previously, there are two people responding to code compliance calls. They are behind in responding to calls due to the sheer volume of calls, the reassignment to fill in for other inspectors, the demands of other programs, and the paperwork necessary to insure the compliance desired. They are slowly losing ground. These positions are more in the public eye and accordingly feel the stress of not being able to clear all the concerns they receive. There is also the element of hazard due to not knowing what type of environment they are approaching when making a site call. Uniformed officers have been supportive and assisted when appropriate. Certificates of Occupancy are necessary in several situations; new construction of resi- dential, commercial and industrial buildings, change in ownership of apartments, com- mercial and industrial buildings vacant for over 180 days. New construction is cleared as it is completed. All others are done whenever they can be fitted in. This creates problems where the City Clerk's office will not issue a business license without a newly signed C of O. Building and Safety does not have time to do the inspection so the applicant is on hold, or does business without a permit. There are approximately 45 C of O's outstanding. Some we have attempted to inspect, only to find no entry. Others are being held for corrections and some just have not called for inspection. In terms of the total C of O's applied for each year, it is not a large number, but it is larger than it should be in terms of follow up and responsive- ness to the community. Construction without permits is a virus infecting the community. Commonly known as "bootlegs," owners, or in some cases tenants, add on rooms or convert existing patio covers or garages; plumb in new bathrooms or kitchens; rewire or add to existing elec- trical circuits; or build new structures. Theoretically, all these should be caught when the property sells, but that is often long after the change or alteration was made. It is against the law to make those changes without approval and permits. However, staff is so busy with new construction the only ones caught are those turned in through the complaint process. Construction without permits is a significant problem, however, the actual numbers are unknown. The publ ic' s perception is one of "putting one over" on the city, In a few instances people do not know they need permits to do the work. The results are poorly designed, improperly tied in additions, roofs that leak, improper installation of electrical with possible fire hazard. Improper plumbing resulting in backed up lines and/or odors. The overall effect is lowering property values rather than raising them as anticipated. - 2 - 75-0264 - " CI10 OF SAN BERNARDIt:9 - REQUE:jT FOR COUNCIL AC~N STAFF REPORT Open permits are those permits where a homeowner or contractor has come in and paid for a permit, then not called for inspections. The burden of calling for inspections is upon the applicant. Most of these are patio covers, water heaters and reroofs. Typically, we hear about them when the rains come and leaks occur or problems develop. This condition of open permits is better than construction without permits in that we know some change was to have occurred. We do not have liability because the burden is on the applicant to call for inspection. The problem is the permit is open, so our record is incomplete and an unsafe condition may exist. The issue of inspections is far broader than making timely inspections. Each of the five areas is separate yet interrelated with the others. Short and long term solu- tions for each are considered. In the area of new construction, alternatives include: Recommit all current inspectors to new construction. Hire additional personnel for short term or permanent employment. Contract for additional personnel through a third party. Continue current practice. A recommitment of all inspectors to new construction will relieve some of the overload. An average twelve call day would be reduced to eight, which would allow quality time. The negative side is this would eliminate housing abatement and landlord-tenant problem resolution. Additionally, the loss of the inspector in Plan Check would reduce the efficiency of that section in getting plans checked in a reasonable time. Additional personnel is always a concern. The financial commitment is long term. In a service department, such as Building and Safety, the concern of expenses exceeding revenues is usually a valid problem. That is not the case in this city. Building permit fees substantially exceed expenses. The constraints of Proposition Four, approved by the voters, require those funds collected for a service be spent in providing that service. At the same time, it is imprudent to spend for the sake of spending. Two aspects of this al ternative are the hiring of temporary or short term personnel for any of several purposes and hiring full time permanent personnel. Short term personnel can clear C of O's, open permits and respond to construction without permits. Depending on the training and experience, temporary personnel can be put on new construction. How- ever, the benefit of full time permanent employees is their continued employment and the need to do the job well because they will still be around after it is completed. A sec- ondary benefit is the training and experience of full time employees should be up to date on current codes and requirements. Another alternative is the hiring of a firm to supply inspectors on a regular or as needed basis. The primary benefits are two: one, all employment costs are borne by the firm and secondly, the people are available when you want them for the length of time necessary. The negative side is the service is expensive, the cost is approximately $45.$50 per hour. Additionally, there is a sense of loss of control, although the reality of control remains intact. The continuation of current practice would continue to reduce the number of inspectors each year, whi ch seems to increase the probl em of i nsuffi ci ent time to make quality i nspecti ons, It further reduces morale and hinders any attempts at recruitment of new personnel. - 3 . 75-0264 ... Cite OF SAN BERNARDIt? - REQUEOT FOR COUNCIL AC'O>>N STAFF REPORT In the area of code compliance, the basic discussion regarding new construction holds for this area also. The primary difference is the need for the special experience and training. The Code Enforcement Officer is familiar with all codes, with particular strength in health and safety, building, housing, and fire. The goal is to gain compliance, which mayor may not result in condemnation and/or court activity. A strength in a good code program is consistency, which means employees who are concerned both for individuals and for the city. The alternatives for code compliance include: Hire additional personnel. Transfer existing personnel. Continue current practice. Additional personnel, on a limited term of three years, would provide an incentive to accomplish the goal of gaining code compliance throughout the city. These persons would have the stability of full time work with a specific ending date. If other opportunities were available in the city work force, they would be considered. A second approach is transfer additional current employees to this area. A positive aspect is they already know the city and how to go about things. The disadvantage is their original jobs would have to be filled by temporary or permanent replacements, re~ sulting in the same conditions as with additional personnel. Continuing current practice will allow the situation to deteriorate. Calls for service will continue to build as a result of physical limitations of existing personnel. The alternatives for Certificates of Occupancy inspections include: Hire short term help. Hire a full time inspector. Continue current practices. The employment of short term personnel is suited to this project, a couple of weeks may clear the majority of the C of O's. The negative side is the load could rebuild. Addi- tional full time personnel would be appropriate only if used in other capacities. This is not a full time, long term responsibility. The current practice approach fails to resolve the problem. While the problem is not severe, it is sensitive and requires resolution. ' The alternatives for construction without permits include: Reassigning existing personnel. Hiring additional personnel. Continuing current practices. The reassignment of existing personnel leaves other areas within the department incapable of fulfilling their mission. In order to meet the goals of all areas in the department, additional personnel would need to be hired. ' At least one person could be kept busy responding to and identifying violators who have not taken out permits. This person should be a full time permanent employee. Earlier discussions set forth the advantages and disadvantages of hiring additional personnel. The current practice is to ignore the area unless it is brought to the attention of the department. This has resulted in various code violations and possible unsafe conditions. The city has also lost revenue from non-issuance of permits. 75-0264 - 4 - CITCoF SAN BERNARDIO - REQUEC1 FOR COUNCIL AC'())N STAFF REPORT The alternatives for open permit resolution include: Hire additional short term personnel. Hire additional permanent personnel. Continue current practice. Short term personnel could move through and relieve the backlog. Their short term status would allow for termination when the backlog was reduced. The negative side is the load could rebuild. The appropriateness of permanent employees has been discussed in other areas. In this area the assignment is not a full time responsibility. The current practice has been to ignore the problem. Those who call are inspected; no call, no inspection. This solution does not resolve the concern, it amplifies it. - 5 - 75-0264 L 'CI10 OF SAN BERNARDIO:>> - REQUI!OT FOR COUNCIL AC'Qt)N STAFF REPORT CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for reassignment of personnel. There is a need for additional personnel, both short term and permanent. By Area: New Construction: The General Inspector currently assigned to Plan Check should be reass1gned, 50% to new construction inspection. This will be done administratively. Three additional General Inspectors should be hired on a full time permanent basis; two through a new open recruitment with appointment in November or December, and one in March or April of next year through the same process, It is essential to bring qualified inspectors on board to; one, relieve the concentra- tion of numerous inspections; two, replace the loss of an inspector to housing abate- ment and 50% of one to Plan Check; and three, provide a base for Senior Inspector trainees. The hiring in November or December may not seem to address the immediacy of the problem, however, there is no indication that building will subside and also it is the quickest additional staff can be employed through the system. Code Compliance: The General Inspector currently assigned to this area should be rec- ognized as assigned to this area. The title should remain. Three additional persons on a three year limited term employment contract should be hired as Code Compliance Officers. To insure coordinated compliance, existing personnel in code enforcement in Fire, City Clerk and Public Services Departments should be reassigned to Code Compliance for a period of three years, with their departments continuing to financially support them. Calls currently directed to various departments would be cOllectively funneled to this area for handling. ' Certificates of Occupancy: This is a temporary overload that as the new General Build- ing Inspectors come on line, the Senior Construction Inspector could complete these. The reinspections on apartments and commercial buildings could be handled through the Code Compliance area since the General Building Inspectors can be a part of the group. Their efforts can be coordinated with other departmental staff reassigned to the area. Construction Without Permits: This area requires one new full time permanent person working with the additional people in Code Compliance. Much of Code Compliance is a result of this activity. This is a General Building Inspector position. O~en Permits: This area is best suited to short term temporary employees and new Gen- era Building Inspectors. With proper procedures, a significant number of open permits can be cleared each month. A short term 30-120 day employment period of several indi- viduals, along with the couple of weeks of each new inspector as they come on board, should clear the backlog. ' 75-0264 - 6 - CltO OF SAN BERNARDIO - REQUEC1 FOR COUNCIL AC"CPN STAFF REPORT ALTERNATIVES: A. Remove any hiring constraints on filling existing vacant positions. B. Approve recruitment and employment of one to three new General Building Inspectors in November or December. C. Approve recruitment and employment of one new General Building Inspector in April of 1987. D, Approve the employment of four temporary General Building Inspectors for a period of 30 days, with continued periods of 30 days if supplemental fees cover cost of administration of program. E. Approve the recruitment and employment of three, three year, limited term Code Compliance Officers and one Intermediate Typist Clerk. F. Approve retention of private sector inspection business at $47 per hour. G. Direct staff to provide additional information and bring back to meeting of September 8. H. Maintain current practices. 75-0264 - 7 - - UJ ...t1 .. CI'C OF SAN BERNARD'CP - REQU~T FOR COUNCIL ACOON STAFF REPORT IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES A lterna ti ve Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Equipment Outlay Total (7 months) A 27,171 0 0 27,171 B 19,019-57,057 2,156-6,470 7,917-24,000 29,092-87,527 C 8,151 0 0 8,151 D 16,000 0 0 16,000 E 71,485 10,170 12,100 93,755 F 52,640 each 0 0 52,640-157,920 (l) (3) G 2,538 100 0 2,638 H 4,611 + Undetermined 0 4,611 + undetermined undetermined 75.0264 - 8 - cn:v OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUeST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ I . (') REV!SED' "'II ---,--\ .,' .."", F'om: ~Ar~::s ROBB HIS, SUPERI NTENDENT Subject: INSPECTION DEMANDS ON THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Oept: 3UILD!NG AND SAFETY Date: AUGUST 14, 1986 Synopsis of Previous Council action: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on August 4, 1986, the Superintendent of Building and Safety was directed to submit a staff report relating to inspection demands on the Building and Safety Department and how timely inspections can .be executed. Recommen':led motion: A. Remoye any hiring constraints on filling existing vacant position. ($27,171) B. Approve recruitment and employment of one to tr.ree new General Building Inspectors in November or December. ($24,592-$73,827) , " C. Approve recruitment and employment of one new General Building Inspector in April, 1987. ($8,151) D. Approve the employment of four temporary General Building Inspectors for a period of 30 days, with continued periods of 30 days if supplemental fees cover cost of . administration of program. ($16,000) E. Approve the recruitment and employment of three, three year, limited term Code Compliance Officers and one Intermediate Typist Clerk. ($89,255) The Finance Director place $43,171 of reserves in the Building and Safety Department budget for implementation of the expanded and new programs. (Items A and. D) The Finance Director on January 2,1987, place $171,233 of reserves in the Building and .Safety Department budget for continued imPlement~t'on of th~e xpanded programs. ( Items B, C and E) ,. ~ ~ Signature Contact person: James Robbins Phone: 5274 ~ Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Varies. see above Source: C.D.B.G. Discretionarv Funds. Reassessment of Revenues General Fund Finance: Council Notes: ... 75.0262 Agenda Item No 30 4. - -~ - ,?'tc) OF SAN BERNARDOO - REQUIt5T FOR COUNCIL Ac:"ON STAFF REPORT REVISED FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION AL,ERNATIVES IN DOLLARS . A 1 terna ti ve Personnel Costs * Services & Supplies Equipment Outlay Total (7 months) A 27,171 0 0 27,171 B 19,019-57,057 2,156-6,470 7,917-24,000 29,092-87,527 B - Alt. 3,417-10,300 24,592-73.B27 C 8,151 0 0 8,151 D 16,000 0 0 16,000 E 71 ,485 10,170 12,100 93,755 E - Alt. 7,600 89,255 F 52,640 0 0 52,640-157,920 (1 ) (3) G 2,538 100 ,~ . 0 2,638 ; 4,611 + Undetermined 0 ., 4,611 + H ~. -' undetermi ned undetermi ned _/ * Includes salaries and fringes B. By reworking 3 police cars @ an estimated cost of $2,000 per unit. the total is reduced to $24,592-$73,827. E. By reworking 1 police car @ an estimated cost of $2,000, the total is reduced to $89,255. G. This represents the estimated staff time and material in dollars to bring this i tern back. H. This represents the estimated time in dollars spent thus far for work done. . 75-Q264