HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0615 CC REG ITEM 11S nnnA 11.
MOORPARK, CAIIFOTTE.
City Counc Meeting
of ' 199 y
AGENDA REPORT ACTION:
CITY OF MOORPARK
i ♦ .
TO: The Honorable City Council iyC/
FROM: Jaime R. Aguilera, Director of Community Development'`
DATE: May 27, 1994 (CC meeting of 6/1/94 )
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE IN-HOUSE BUILDING
INSPECTION AND PERMIT SERVICES
Per the City Manager's direction the following report is a
feasibility study prepared to consider the possibilities of the
City of Moorpark providing it's own Building & Safety Inspection
and Permit Services.
Process:
While conducting this feasibility study, I considered the
supervision, public access, and interoffice coordination and
communication. I analyzed three different approaches to the issue:
1. Maintaining our existing contract with Charles Abbott &
Associates (or another private contractor) ;
2 . Contracting with the County of Ventura;
3 . Creating our own Building and Safety Division within the
Community Development Department.
In the process of the investigation I met with Mr. Bill Windroth,
Ventura County Building Official in order to discuss a possible
contractual arrangement with the County Building Department.
Analysis:
As a result of my meeting and the review of the County's proposal,
I came to the conclusion that both Abbott and the County proposals
were similar. However, for the purposes of this report they will
be treated separately. The chart on Page 7 was compiled to show
the comparison of each of the factors considered.
An analysis of the chart will provide the reader with information
which leads to the conclusion that the City's proposal is the most
viable. Given the conclusion that the City's proposal is most
desirable an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages yields
the following:
i ZOORPAPK, CALIFOR^"A
4 o S, (di () City Cou (Welling
of l5 199Y C:\94AMJ\B&S.CON
ACTIO • 10:41 am
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 2
Advantages:
The City proposal will cost less to operate; for example, it will
provide more inspection time, it will reduce the customer's
processing trips to other locations, and provide a one -stop permit
location which will enhance customer service and meet State
requirements. The City will receive greater revenue to defray the
existing overhead of the Community Development Department. Special
projects will be handled by staff at no additional cost and direct
supervision will result in greater coordination and implementation
of City policies and direction. The remaining portion of the
revenue will be held in reserve to defray Building and Safety costs
during those periods when the revenue does not cover the costs of
operation.
Disadvantages:
The City proposal requires that major project plan checking will
need to be conducted by a contract consultant. There will be a one
time expenditure required for office furniture computer hardware
and software as well as a vehicle. During extended periods of very
low revenue from Building and Safety operations (less than $8,500
monthly average) this function will need to draw upon reserves set
aside for this purpose). The need for supervision by the Director
will require a reduction of time on his part spent on planning
issues (time needed to supervise building and safety by Director
increases to 10 percent from current 5 percent) . The proposal will
also result in more varied dutces for the Assistant Planner
(counter person), the Code Enforcement Officer and the department
secretary.
It is expected that the Assistant Planner will cover the counter
for the Building Inspector during those hours that he /she is in the
field. The Code Enforcement Officer will provide coverage in the
absence of the Assistant Planner. The Assistant Planner and the
Secretary will be able to answer non- technical questions and issue
Building Permits once the Inspector has authorized them to do so.
They will also issue Building Permits for minor work such as water
heater replacement.
The Secretary will also assist: the Inspector in logging -in
inspections, keeping files, collecting fees, tracking permits,
making appointments, etc. This will result in an increased demand
on the Assistant Planner's time of about 1.5 hours a day and 3.0
hours a day for the Secretary. Both can accommodate the change by
shifting some responsibilities to the Associate Planner, the Code
Enforcement Officer, and the Department Administrative Secretary.
A: \B &S.CON
10:57 am
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 3
Specifically the Associate Planner will assume all lot line
adjustment projects, or in her absence a Senior Planner, and a
higher percentage of research duties, the Administrative Secretary
would assume responsibility for the biweekly department report and
other typing duties, and one Code Enforcement Officer would be
required to reduce his time spent cn code enforcement by 5 percent
(two hours per week).
Fiscal Analysis:
Staff reviewed the Building Permit revenues from October 1992
through October 1993. The gross income from Plan Check fees was
$123,883. The gross income from miscellaneous fees was $25,953.
The gross income from Inspection fees were $402,001.
It is expected that Building Permi revenues in the future will be
higher as the economy moves out of the recession.
Considering the low revenue picture, the City's position is still
favorable. The chart will indicate that the City's direct and
indirect cost for providing an in -house inspector position would
be $69,992 yet the City revenue would be $551,837.
Personnel Options:
In order to avoid hiring consultants to replace our Building
Inspector when he /she is on leave or to supplement our Building
Inspection personnel, the City could consider the use of Code
Enforcement personnel by providinc:, appropriate cross training.
By keeping our personnel costs in i;ouse we would greatly reduce our
costs for consultant services which not only cost more than our
employees, but may not, provide as 'community sensitive" service as
our own employees.
The $481,845 ($551,837 less $69,(-92) remaining would be used to
offset current overhead which is not being totally defrayed and
provide for Plan Check Services, specialized inspection, Building
Official Consultation, backup serv''ce.; (sick leave, vacation, etc.)
and peak demand deputy inspector.
It may also be advantageous for the City to build -in to the
Inspector's time one -half hour of overtime per day in order to
lessen the impact on current employees and provide longer counter
coverage.
A: \B &S.CON
10:57 am
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 4
Current Carryover Amount:
The October 1993 monthly billing from Abbott and Associates shows
a carryover amount of $155,285. As of the March 1994 billing the
carryover amount is $173,304.77. This amount will be used to pay
Abbott for finishing of inspections under way at the time the
transition takes place. However, it is possible that the City may
agree to split some of the inspection responsibility with Abbott.
In such a case the City would receive a portion of the carryover
amount.
Office Hours:
Currently the Contract Inspector is in the field 4 hours a day and
available in the office for consultation with the public 4 hours a
week for a total of 24 hours per week. It is expected that the
City Inspector would use the same amount of field hours, but that
the office consultation hours would expand between five and ten
hours per week with the remainder of the time spent on Plan Check.
This will provide for an average of up to two hours per day for
assistance to the public by the inspector. A regular schedule for
office hours would be displayed with some of this time set aside
for appointments to optimize the c:'ity's customer service
objectives.
Consultation With Other Cities:
Staff has also contacted the cities of Lancaster and Santa Clarita
who converted from contract Building Inspection services to in-
house services. The purpose for having contacted these cities was
to ascertain if these entities experienced any problems in the
transition. Both cities indicated that they were happy with the
transition, that they saved money, and that service to customers
has improved.
It was their recommendation that we plan on an overlap period in
which our inspector would work at our contractor's office for two
to four weeks.
Storage of Records & Pertinent
The voluminous amount of Building and Safety records could require
that an additional storage space be acquired (either rented or
purchased). It is expected that all records will be placed on
optical disk by the City Clerk's )ffice within twelve to eighteen
months.
A: \B &S.CON
10:57 am
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 5
This process could, and probably should, be accelerated by
contracting with a company who specializes in entering all records
onto optical disk.
F.ST2MATED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 94/95
Conclusion:
One can conclude from the above Ana_Lysis that the City operated
Building and Safety program will provide a similar or higher level
of quality customer service, will be more cost efficient, and will
produce a higher level of reveni.e which can be used to offset
related Department of Community D -ve opment costs.
Recommendation:
1. If the Council concurs with the report staff should be directed
to:
1Note: $50.00 per hour is estimated for the rate charged by a consulting firm, it may be possible to
hire an individual on a contractual basis for less thar this rate.
A: \BBS.CON
10:57 am
$10,000.00
Software and software training.
$
5,000.00
Computer and two prin+ers (one dedicated to building
permits).
$
2,500.00
Contract for Optical Disk Input
$
10,000.00
Furniture and new off..ce space..
$
102,461.00
Inspector salary and then related personnel.
$
12,000.00
New Vehicle
Pager - Yearly Cost
Misc. Expenses
$ 150.00
$ 500.00
$
4,340.00
Overtime
$
24,100.00
Other (telephone, xer)x, printed forms, supplies, etc.)
$
58,101.00
Consultant Plan Check Services
$6500.
Building Inspector Du.-ing Planned /Unplanned Absences @
130 hours per year @ $50 /hr..
Sub Total - Operat..i.nc Costs
Revenue
Grand Total
$235,652.00
$ 299,040.00
$63,388.00
Conclusion:
One can conclude from the above Ana_Lysis that the City operated
Building and Safety program will provide a similar or higher level
of quality customer service, will be more cost efficient, and will
produce a higher level of reveni.e which can be used to offset
related Department of Community D -ve opment costs.
Recommendation:
1. If the Council concurs with the report staff should be directed
to:
1Note: $50.00 per hour is estimated for the rate charged by a consulting firm, it may be possible to
hire an individual on a contractual basis for less thar this rate.
A: \BBS.CON
10:57 am
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 6
a. Begin recruitment for a Senior Building Inspector position
at a salary range 18 (range 18 $41,114.58 - $49,994.10 [or
$1,581.93 - $1,922.85 multiplied by 26 weeks and divided by
12 months]) . ($69,992 includes an estimated 40 percent
benefit package.)
b. Initiate a transition plan to be presented to the Council
for approval.
C. Initiate a Request for Proposals for a contractor to begin
the process of imputing al1 building records into optical
disk.
d. Create a budget for the Bui Lding and Safety Division of the
Community Development Department to be presented to the
Council for approval.
e. Create a time table for implementation to be presented to
the City Council for approval.
f. Secure quotes for plan checking, backup inspector,
consultation services frog County of Ventura and private
contractors.
Attachments:
1. Table showing Building Department revenues since the Charles
Abbott & Associates contract was approved.
2. A list of major pending perm=its.
A: \BBS.CON
10:57 am
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 7
i may..
Criteria Abbott & Associates Proposal Ventura County Proposal City of Moorpark Proposal
Estimated Annual Cost $343,032
2$70- 80,000 3$102,461
Staff Provided One full -time Counter Technician. One Counter Technician half -time. One full time Building 4Inspector.
One Inspector as needed. One Inspector as needed. One Plan One part time Counter Technician.
One Plan Checker as needed. I Checker as needed.
Location
Counter Technician and Inspector will
work out of their office at 111A
Poindexter Avenue.
I Counter Technician would work out of
City Halt and the Inspector & Plan
Checker would work out of the East
Valley office.
Counter Technician, and Inspector /Plan
Checker would work out of City Hall.
The location at City Hall is a better
This proposal combines the best features
Customer Service
Due to their location, customers are
different offices.
method than the Abbott proposal,
of the other 2 proposals; it is located
required to visit 2
however the use of a counter
at City Hall and it has a full complement
This causes an undue hardship on
is that
technician for four hours does not
of staff available to assist customers.
clients. The positive aspect
located on the
provide for full coverage and the
the inspector is also
issue is
site and therefore the range of
information this person can
information that may be given is much
limited.
I
larger.
—
—
-
j
j Yes. part-time.
Yes, full time.
na ? nd Nn
related materials.
+ -- --
I
j Not quantirled but estimated to be a
Estimated r; he 837;150. Start UP Costs
Cost to the Sty f
,.__
��. None
i minimal one time expenditure.
desk, phone, etc.
By the Community Development
By Community Development Director,
Supervision
'� orrrn� ,o, p,P�* rPrror
5% his time required
1 Director. Approximately 5% of his
i approximately of his time to
and
Approximately _f
review charges and resolve disputes
time required to review charges and
supervise, make code interpretations
make
to
1 resolve disputes.
resolve disputes.
i
2. This estimate from the County is probably very low. The County man -hour costs are very similar to Abbott & Associates costs. Therefore,
it would be expected that the actual County costs would range between $300,000 and $350,000.
3. Certified Building Inspector at a Range 18 (Senior Planner level) with 40% benefit package, ($69,992); 10% of Director's salary and
fringe benefits for administration ($9,289); 37.5% of Secretary's salary and fringe benefits ($13,257); 19% of Assistant Planner's salary and fringe
benefits ($9,923). All salaries calculated at Step "E".
4. This person is already on payroll.
A: \B &S.CON
10:57 am
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 8
Criteria
Abbott & Associates Proposal
$ 29,544 Plan Check Fee
Ventura County ProPosat
$ 29,544 Plan Check Fee
city of Moorpark Pr t
$ 65,785 Plan Check
402,001 Inspection Fee
Expected net City revenue given a
early permit gross revenue of
82,592 Inspection
82,592 Inspection Fee
25,953 Misc. Fee
25,953 Misc. Fee
$551,837 including a Plan Check
25,953 Misc. Fee
fee of $123,883 and a Building
$343,032 Total
$ 343,032 Total
$491,134 Total
Permit (Inspection fee) fee of
$402,001.
208,805 Net to the City
$208,805 Net to the City 6iity
$491,134 Net to the City
Other personnel costs rn city not
Any use of personnel beyond the
Any use of personnel beyond the
The only extra cost may involve overtime
the employee will be
quantified.
contract is a chargeable cost.
contract is a chargeable cost.
costs otherwise
available for any special assignments as
time allows.
0-
-0-
A one time expenditure of $20,000 should
Other capital costs to the City.
be made in order to computerize the
operations. This cost will be shared by
the planning department since the
software may be utilized by both and will
5 Revenue from October 1992 through October 1993 was used as a base year. It is expected that future annual revenues will be higher. The amount
of $551,837 includes $25,953 in miscellaneous fees.
6. Although the County of Ventura estimate does not agree with these figures, the County of Ventura hourly rates are similar to Abbott's; therefore,
staff believes that these are more accurate than the County of Ventura's estimate.
7. This assumes that of the total amount collected for plan check ($123,883) approximately 30% ($37,165) will be credited directly to the City for
plan check services rendered by our Inspector. Of the remaining $86,718, 66% will be paid out to a consulting firm for plan check services, the City will
keep $28,617 to cover our administrative costs. Therefore, the total City net revenue from the plan check fee will be $65,782.
A: \B &S.CON
10:57 am
The Honorable City Council
May 27, 1994
Page 9
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL
TO PROVIDE BUILDING & SAFETY INSPECTION
AND PLAN CHECKING SERVICES
Staff is aware of the City Council's goal to provide Moorpark's
citizens with the highest quality of services. This goal,
unfortunately, is sometimes tempered by the fiscal limitations that
most cities face.
In light of this, Staff has prepared the following information for
the City Council and City Manager's consideration. I believe that
the result of implementing this proposal will be to heighten
customer service and coincidentall,,, create an appreciable monetary
gain for the City.
The Community Development Department proposes that the City hire a
qualified (certified) Building :Inspector at the same salary range
as a Senior Planner. The cost for such a person including benefits
will be $69,992 per year. The Building Inspector would be directly
supervised by the Director of Community Development. Technical
assistance would be provided by the International Conference of
Building Officials (I.C.B.O.) at art annual membership fee of
$65.00. Other organizations such its i.A.P.M.O. would provide
similar services for a similar membershij fee.
The Building Inspector would provide Plan Checking services for
minor permits such as pools, spas, room additions, re- roofing,
electrical, etc. This would trans.-late into a 100% fee recovery for
the City (approximately 8$37,165 innual.ly). It is proposed that
major plan checking services be provided by a consultant at a flat
rate of 66% of the plan check fee. This would result in a net
additional revenue to the City of $23,617 annually. Any special
inspections would be charged to the applicant on a time and
materials basis. The positive effect of having a plan checker, and
building inspector and building per -mil, issuing capability in -house
include quicker turn around t.im(- and i1i one stop location for
information and permits issuance. Although the inspector will have
certain office hours the City w it l actually .increase his
availability at no increase in cios f-om four hours a day to eight
hours a day.
The Community Development Depart.meiit secretary would be utilized to
provide clerical and counter assist.an-E�to the Building Inspector.
8. Based on October 1992 through October 1993 Reve ue
A: \B &S.CON
10:57 am
The Honorable city Council
May 27, 1994
Page 10
The secretary could also issue building permits, and calculate fees
utilizing the computer software from Sierra Incorporated.
The software and hardware can be purchased at a cost of under
$10,000 and includes training. The software will be used for
permit issuance, fee calculations, inspection monitoring, report
writing, and permit tracking. The ,,oftware also contains programs
for the purpose of tracking applications and creating a historical
application entitlement data base for planning purposes. The
software is geo -based and will -therefore allow for compatibility
with future geo -based programs for both di.-visions.
There may be times when there may be more work than a single
inspector can accommodate. In such cases the Building Official
(Director of Community Development) may hire Deputy Building
Inspectors, as needed. This will provide the flexibility of having
a larger Staff only when needed. The cost for the Deputy Building
Inspector would be borne by regular permit fees. Whenever possible
a Code Enforcement Officer will be crass trained to provide basic
inspection and plan check services �iuri.ng i.11.nesses, vacation, etc.
As needed a deputy inspector will retained to provide all of the
duties of the regular inspector. Code Enforcement Officer and
Assistant Planner staff will he ross-- trained to handle routine
matters.
I estimate that it will be possibl- tc hire the Inspector and make
all necessary arrangements within 1 2 - ? month period.
A: \B &S.CON
10:57 am