The URL can be used to link to this page

97-128! - ' �°. 9 � � Counca7 F'ile # � `I —1 �-S' yE�'. i Green Sheet # 35564 0 rr�rea a R�'erred To Committe� Date i z 3 4 S 6 � s WF�REAS, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protecflon (LIEP) has worked closely with the Trades and labor Assembly and the Carpenters and Lathing and Plaster Unions to create a new position which would provide needed assistance on plaster/lathing projects throughout the city as well as support for general building inspection; and WF�REAS, funding for this new position will come from permit fees which are in excess of previous estimates due to record construction activity; and, 9 WHEREAS, The Mayor, pursuant to Section 10.07.1 of the City Charter dces certify that there are io available for appropriation revenues in excess of those esflmated in the 1997 Building Inspection and ii Design Fund; and iz i3 �a is 16 17 WHEREAS, The Mayor recommends the following changes to the 1997 budget: ia FINANCING PLAN: i9 Building Inspection and Design zo Operations New - General zt GL 320-33351-2800 Pemuts 22 All Other �nd Revenue v za u zb 5PENDING PLAN: z� Building Inspection and Design za Operations New - General zs GL 320-33351-01 l i�11 Time Permanettt so GL 32033351-0222 Telephone-NWB Monthly Charges s� GL 32033351-0223 Telephone-Long Distance sz GL 320-33351-0224 Telephone-Moves & Changes 33 GL 32Q-33351-0229 Other - Communications sa GL 320-33351-0235 Type II- Regular ($4lWk Day & as GL 320-33351-0242 Duplicating - All Processes 36 GL 320-33351-0256 Registration Fces - I.ocal s� GL 320-33351-0290 Central Service Cost ss GL 320-33351-4356 Safety Supplies 39 GL 320-33351-0359 Other - Spec Matl & Supplies Current Amended Budget Change Budget $2,616,581 $ 14,704 $2 745-24- _4 745__ 3,361,824 14,704 3,376,528 1,&98,b26 18,305 400 1,000 10,360 64,574 3,13Q 9,878 104,221 7,912 4,882 36,550 265 10 30 355 2,155 25 500 2,839 275 50 1,935,176 18,57a 410 1,030 10,715 66,729 3,155 10,378 1Q7,060 8,187 4,932 ��-�ag ao 41 42 as GL 320-33351-0361 Office Accessories $ aa GL 320-33351-0368 Office Suppfies-Purchasing Sto as GL 320-33351-0438 Fringe Benefits for Trades av GL 320-33351-0439 Fringe Benefits a7 GL 320-33351-0548 Contingency: Council Action Req as GL 320-33351-0815 Desk, Chairs or Tables a9 GL 320-33351-0857 Data Processing Hardware so GL 320-33351-0858 Telephone Equipment Purchases si All (?ther Fund 5pending sz 53 54 Cunent Budget 900 6,305 242,317 561,218 50,000 0 1b,000 1,200 3C��596 Change 75 $ 25 10,965 6,580 (50,000) 455 3,200 350 � Amended Budget 975 6,33Q 253,282 567,798 0 455 19,200 1,550 ��Q�,596 3,361,824 14,704 3,376,528 ss FiJRTHER RFSOLVED, that the $50,000, placed in City Council Coniingency 32033351-0548, is se hereby released to provide funding as nceded and that the City Council approves these changes to the s� 1997 budget. Approved by Budget Office Joseph M. Reid, Director �: � �,•j�,.• � Requested by Department of: License, Insoecfion & Environmentai Protection Adopted by Council: Date . \ � ��19`l Adop ' n Cerlified by Council Secretary By: Approved y Ma r: Date z/ �y 2 B �, ��= B ��,��o� �u�cor Form Approved by City Attorney By: �9.riwcct ✓� ��(.,.�ti G Appmved by Mayor for Submission to Council B �� ,t,�eP� OF LIEP KESSLER 2b6Ai12 rut�¢rtR Q1YATlOptBY �'� BIDOETl1iBCllR <�Bt _ �/( 1LlYQt(qlAS�'fAN�1 OF SIGNATURE PAGES ( CLIP ALL LOCATTONS ;rm add a new hyl�id inspection po�tion -BuOdinglLathing/Pfasterinspector N_ 35564 �� .. C r— = - 1 � °"`°�: --' y q ➢QLGL6T.SFRYK'ffi06[ awe¢mnoow.ms+ox+ _.rnasav�oam�o� i.tta.woupawdfamc�srwatcedimduacaouaafadasdepu�mwK c�ww.ar� _ YES NO n_scMV _ 2 Hn 1�i6 paiadfum ew bccn a�' emPtq`xT _oaiwcraouxt _ Y6S NO s�meoarsa,xxeouriw.oew�crn�er s, n«s �Li. pd.owG�m pwne a et� noc mnw0y pmuvsd br mr umeotcar �r�r� ypS NO (F.SnINO fII Y!i �6nfPn OY NOttrt!!A!N 1LLII1Ra'L IO D.roMlheR.) umxi ercoe`rx esus oeromvraiv twno. wx we� weQS �rY ie Of6ce oCLIEP has worked closely with the Ttades and I.aborAasanbly and tfie Carpenkrs and Lathing snd Piasior Unions create a new position which would provide nceded assistance on ptasterilathing projxts tluoughout the City as well as support r general building inspection. Fnnding for this new position w7t come from pem�it fees which are in excess of prerious estimates e to tawrd construction activity. this new pasidon will pmvide ueodo8 assisFance on glesterJtathinS P��.I�. �d will also pmvide additional support for generet ; inspection. See atteched analysis and report on the trends in building conshucfion activity ova the last 5 years. for inspecfion func6on. �f�ro�i��w P.�'�w`��'�'�9"',`z'o; U•v"':.sii k'":.� �4 ��1 _._-� �v�� he City wautd be wiUwut expertise for plazter and tathing inspecdons and wo�td have a difficu@ tima kceping up with the record ork Iosd resulGng from record conskuc6on activity. �,uw�mrrocsu�eawcr�av ,�64 7�4.OQ carmeveHVeumce�n:mc�.earei �� no �,cso�mce Per mit FeesJCouncil Con6aencv ..c�m„��n,mm 320-33351-28DQ & 320-33351-0548 W. QII�OFMAi W N: Q�RI.�QlI SoY[ PaV ewW 011k� IF1�tt5Y�.oM1 nw� .WKa) a.v.0 �� -�� CTTY OF SAIN'P PAUL INTERDEPART'MENTAL MEMORANDUM Januarg 13, 1497 To: Joe Reid, Budget Director Bruce Engelbrekt, Budget Analyst Fr: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director �" Re: Addition of Building/Plaster Inspection FTE LIEP is proposing the addition of a new hybrid inspection position for a BuildingfLathinglPlaster inspector. We have worked closely with the Mayor's Office, Dick Anfang from Trades and Labor, _- and the Carpenter's and Plaster's unions since 1995 to develop a new position which would provide needed assistance on plasterllathing projects throughout the City as well as addirional support for general building inspection. Recently both unions agreed on the minimum qualifications and the test for this new position. Approval of this new position would represant the first hybrid, or cross trained, trade inspection position in the City. New resources for buiiding and plasterllathing inspections aze critically needed due to the dramatic increase in construction and inspections in 1995 and 1996. I have attached an analysis of inspectional data, prepared by John Conway and Greg Johnson, on the extent of the increase in workload of our building inspection staff. The data clearly justifies the need for this new position, and verifies that there e�sts a substantiai backlog of inspections, that is increasing in spite of our efforts to work smarter and more efficiently. I have also attached the Council Resolution prepared by the Office of Human Resources, which creates the position with the grade at the same 1eve1 as the building inspectors. Funding for this new hybrid position wiil come from permit fees which are in excess of previous estimates due to record construction activity. T realize that LIEP must demonstrate the availability of these additional funds. To that end I am asking 7anet Odalen and Lori Lee from Accounting, to meet with me and budget staffto analyze the year end revenue reports as soon as they are available. In the meantime please let me know if you have any questions regarding this proposal. c: Janet �dalen Lori Lee 7an Gasteriand 7ohn Conway Greg 7ohnson �t`1-1 �-�' Building Inspection Section Activity Synopsis 1991-1996 Greg 7ohnson Building Inspector ��t -��.� � Table I-A Construction Permit Histary 1990 through 1996 Const. Per Cent Value of Per Cent Permit Per YEAR Permits of Permits of Fees Cent of Issued Change Issued Change Collected Change 1990 21,383 $258,94Q,738 I991 20,741 -3°l0 $288,345,925 +11°l0 $1,928,453 1492 22,151 +7% $235,714,400 -18°!0 $2,125,404 +10% 1993 22,722 +3% $237,906,835 +1% $2,107,974 -1% 1994 24,090 +6°/u $275,121,170 +16% $2,374,876 +11°/u 1995 23,421 -3°l0 $336,66Q106 +22% $2,848,43Q +18°10 1996 26,273 +12% $396,289,229 +18°/a $3,457,Q57 +23°10 1991 1996 Table I-B Permit History Comparison in Real Dollars 1991 vs.1996 pfI'ID7tS Issued 20,741 26,273 % +27% PCT'Illlt Valuations $288,940,738 $396,289,229 % +79% °lo +37% Permit Fees $1,928,453 $3,457,057 Table I-C 1940 Permit Valuation vs. 1996 Permit Valuation (1996 Adjusted for 3% Annual Inflation) 1990 $258,940,740 199b $330,097,$00 +27% cl�-ia-� E Table II-A 1996 Building Canstruction Inspection Section Comparisons* Total Bldg. Elec. Mech. Plumbing Warm Air Pertnits 25,897 7,918 8,940 3,713 2,130 2,550 Issued 31% 35% 14% 8% 10% Valuation 385.00 264.5 54.87 25.20 12.34 22.98 in Millions $ 70°l0 14% 7% 3% 6°!0 Permit 3.3 1.75 .566 .389 312 .282 Fees in 1llilliuns $ 53% 17% 12% 9°l0 9% Inspections 51,754 19,996 16,095 6,102 4,3$0 5,181 3&% 31% 12% 8°!0 10% Staff 29 7 9 5 4 4 24.1% 31.0% 17.2°l0 13.8% 13.8°l0 F'igures Uo not inctude elevator or fire suppression i�ees, vatuations, stait5ng or mspe<nons. Table II-B Averaged Building Construction Inspection Section Comparisons* Total Bldg. Elec. Mech. Piumbing Warm Permits Issued 1990-1995 Valuations in Miilions � 1990-1995 Permit Fees in Millions $ 1991-1995 Inspections 1990-1995 22,47b 293.14 2.437 52,950 6,402 28% 202.5 69°la 1.230 50% 20,265 38°la 8,294 37% 33.72 12% .492 20% 1b,282 31°!0 Air 3,546 1,932 2,270 lb% 9% 10% 17.77 10.46 18.74 6% 4% 6 .253 .216 .208 10°!0 9°10 9% 6,26b 5,407 4,929 12°!0 10°fo 4°/a �� _��.8' 3 Table III-A Building Inspection Section History 1991-1996* YEAR 1990 1491 1992 1993 1994 1945 1996 AYG 1996 thru 1995 vs. Avg Permits 5,283 5,651 6,071 6,043 b,928 6,812 7,918 6,402 +24°to Issued Valuation 176.4 2003 147.1 161.2 186.7 230.7 269.5 202.5 +33°l0 in Millions of $ PermitFees .996 .481 1.007 1.159 1.414 1.75 1.225 +43% in Millions of S 1.260 I.38 1.08 +28% Inspections 17,834 23,009 23,11Q 2Q,304 21,569 19,364 19,996 2Q265 -1% Staff 9 9 9 4 7 7 7 � Permits Issued 587 618 675 671 990 973 1,131 840 +35% perInspector Permit Valuation 19.6 22.3 16.3 119 26.7 33.0 38.5 26.8 +44°to per Inspector in Millions of $ Inspections per 1,982 2,551 2,568 2,256 3,081 2,766 2,857 2,628 +9°/a Inspector * Staf'fing figures do not reflect the building inspector assigned to the vacant building program, at[hough the Senior Building Inspector has supervisory cesponsibilty for [he prograzn. Stucco figures aze included. Italicicized figures represent an estimation of fee income without the July t995 irtcrease using a 29% average increase in building permit fees. Year Permits Issued Permits Finalized ifferenceiBacklog Table III-B Permit Through-Put 1993-1996* 1993 1994 1995 6043 .' : b812 5,196 �t3.� 5,458 970 5,460 1,352 1996 7918 b,749 1,169 mit through-put represents the annual cumulative wark-luad backlog 6y comparing the quantity of permits issued to the quantity of �.its receiving finai disposition. `�`1-1�-g � Table IV 1996 Building Inspection Section Activity Versus Weighted Averagesx (1995 Figures Ignored) YEAR I 1990 1 1991 I 1992 1 1993 ( 1994 Permits Issued 5,283 5,651 6,071 6,043 6,928 Valuation 176.4 2003 147.1 161.2 186.7 in Miilions of $ Permit Fees .996 .981 1.007 1.159 in Millions of $ Inspections 17,834 23,009 23,110 20,304 21,569 Staff 9 9 9 9 7 Permits Issued 587 618 675 671 990 perInspector Permit 19.6 22.3 16.3 17.9 26.7 Valuation per Inspector in Miliions of $ Inspections ger I 1,982 I 2,55? I 2,568 I 2,256 I 3,081 Inspector 1996 w.AVC 1946 vs. Avg 7,918 5,992 +32% 269.5 1743 +55% . � 1.75 1.036 +69°/a 1.38 Y.036 +33% 19�996 21�165 -5°/a 7 1,131 708 +60% 38.5 20.6 +87% 2,857 � 2,489 � +15% -- - _ _ __ ___ __-_ itaffing figures do not reflect the building inspector assigned to the vacant building program, although the Senior Bui(ding Inspector has pervisory responsibility for the progaam. Stucco figures are included. Italicized figures represent an estimation of fee income thout the July increase using a 29% average increase in 6uitding permit fees. �� -� �-� Building Saction Inspection Time & Activity Analysis 1993-1996� (Travel Times Not Included) Inspection Hours 1943-1996 22,229 Percentage of total hours fi0% Average Annuai Hours Office & Education Hours 1993-1996 Percentage of Total Hours Average Annual Hours Total Office, Education, & Tnspec6on Hours 1493-1946 Average Annual Hours Average Annual Inspection Hours per Inspector Average Annual O& E hours per Inspector Average Annual Hours per Inspector Average Annual Inspections Average Individnal Inspection Time in Hours 1997 Projected InspectioniHours Analysis 1997 Projected Building Section Inspections Multiplied by Average Individual Inspection Time Anticipated Inspecrion Time in Hours Anticipated Office & Education Time (6,307 x 401b0) Total Anticipated Inspector Hours Total Anticipated Hours (1Q,512) divided by Total Average Inspector Hours (1,303) = Inspectors Required 5,557 14,287 40% 3,572 36,S1b `� 9,129 793 510 1,303 20,265 .27 23,U00 .27 6,307 4,205 10,512 8.07 q�1 -1�-8' Table VI Ratio of Inspections Made to Permits Issued Annually Secfion 1990-1994 Average 1995 1996 Building 21,165/5,992=3.53 19,364/6,812=2.84 19,99617,918=2.5 Electrical 15,171/8,326 =1.82 17,39218,261 = 2.1 16,09518,940=1.8 PVIechanicat b,518/3,5$9 =1.82 6,013/3,503 =1.7 6,102/3,713=1.6 Ptumbing 5,771/1,759 = 3.28 5,04312,105 = 2.40 4,380(2,130=2.0 Warm Air 4,42912,211 = 2.23 4,624/2,328 =1.49 5,181l2,550=2.0 �1`l -\�-g 1946 Updated Conclusions The Senior Buiiding Inspectar remains the only senior trade inspector responsible for an inspection azea. This is attributabie to understaffing in the Building Inspection Section. Contrary to management's claim, it is imprudent to use the Senior Building Inspector as an area inspector. The administrative and supervisory responsibilities of the posirion}ustify freeing the Building Sanior from field inspecuon work. Gertainty, in light of frequent staff complaints regazding the availabiity of the Senior for use as an`expert on dury', customer service as weil as employee direction would be enhanced. By using the 23,000 EstimatedJPromised Inspection Figure from the 1997 Activity Performance Plan and staff performance averages for the last four years, it is possible to project a shortfall in staffing of 1.07 buiiding inspectors. This again assuxnes, since it is based on recent averages, ttiat the Senior Building Inspector is maintaining an inspection area. Realistically, the section is short fully 2 inspectors. This is evidenced when comparing 1996 section gerfornlance versus the weighted average section performance from 1990-1994. In 1996, the inspectors individually performed 15% more inspections than the average even though the section as a whole performed -- 5% less inspections than the average. The disparity reflects the loss of 2 inspection positions in 1993 and indicates that the section hasn't been able to cover that loss. This is also indicated by the fact that for the 2nd consecutive yeaz the section was issued over 1,000 permits more than it was able to finalize, generating a backlog of roughiy 14% per annum. Permit fees also mandate the need for stafF increases. Although the building section only accounts for 24% of the trade inspection staff, building pemuts in 1996 generated 53% of the department's permit fees. In addition, 1996 building permit fees were up 69% compared to the average of 1991-1994, generating an additional $714,Q00. of revenue, far more than adequate to pay the additional cost of two more building inspectors. Genera{ Notes Averaged figw'es include ihe pldest information available from in-house annual reports through the year 1995. Weighted averages do not include the year 1995 in a� attempt to control evident skewing. Some information wasn't recorded before 1993 but the charts indicate whether earlier information was available for averaging. The position of the code compliance inspector was not considered as part of revenue or of staff since, for the most part it operates independentty of the section as a whole. Elevator Inspection was not evaluated. ! - ' �°. 9 � � Counca7 F'ile # � `I —1 �-S' yE�'. i Green Sheet # 35564 0 rr�rea a R�'erred To Committe� Date i z 3 4 S 6 � s WF�REAS, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protecflon (LIEP) has worked closely with the Trades and labor Assembly and the Carpenters and Lathing and Plaster Unions to create a new position which would provide needed assistance on plaster/lathing projects throughout the city as well as support for general building inspection; and WF�REAS, funding for this new position will come from permit fees which are in excess of previous estimates due to record construction activity; and, 9 WHEREAS, The Mayor, pursuant to Section 10.07.1 of the City Charter dces certify that there are io available for appropriation revenues in excess of those esflmated in the 1997 Building Inspection and ii Design Fund; and iz i3 �a is 16 17 WHEREAS, The Mayor recommends the following changes to the 1997 budget: ia FINANCING PLAN: i9 Building Inspection and Design zo Operations New - General zt GL 320-33351-2800 Pemuts 22 All Other �nd Revenue v za u zb 5PENDING PLAN: z� Building Inspection and Design za Operations New - General zs GL 320-33351-01 l i�11 Time Permanettt so GL 32033351-0222 Telephone-NWB Monthly Charges s� GL 32033351-0223 Telephone-Long Distance sz GL 320-33351-0224 Telephone-Moves & Changes 33 GL 32Q-33351-0229 Other - Communications sa GL 320-33351-0235 Type II- Regular ($4lWk Day & as GL 320-33351-0242 Duplicating - All Processes 36 GL 320-33351-0256 Registration Fces - I.ocal s� GL 320-33351-0290 Central Service Cost ss GL 320-33351-4356 Safety Supplies 39 GL 320-33351-0359 Other - Spec Matl & Supplies Current Amended Budget Change Budget $2,616,581 $ 14,704 $2 745-24- _4 745__ 3,361,824 14,704 3,376,528 1,&98,b26 18,305 400 1,000 10,360 64,574 3,13Q 9,878 104,221 7,912 4,882 36,550 265 10 30 355 2,155 25 500 2,839 275 50 1,935,176 18,57a 410 1,030 10,715 66,729 3,155 10,378 1Q7,060 8,187 4,932 ��-�ag ao 41 42 as GL 320-33351-0361 Office Accessories $ aa GL 320-33351-0368 Office Suppfies-Purchasing Sto as GL 320-33351-0438 Fringe Benefits for Trades av GL 320-33351-0439 Fringe Benefits a7 GL 320-33351-0548 Contingency: Council Action Req as GL 320-33351-0815 Desk, Chairs or Tables a9 GL 320-33351-0857 Data Processing Hardware so GL 320-33351-0858 Telephone Equipment Purchases si All (?ther Fund 5pending sz 53 54 Cunent Budget 900 6,305 242,317 561,218 50,000 0 1b,000 1,200 3C��596 Change 75 $ 25 10,965 6,580 (50,000) 455 3,200 350 � Amended Budget 975 6,33Q 253,282 567,798 0 455 19,200 1,550 ��Q�,596 3,361,824 14,704 3,376,528 ss FiJRTHER RFSOLVED, that the $50,000, placed in City Council Coniingency 32033351-0548, is se hereby released to provide funding as nceded and that the City Council approves these changes to the s� 1997 budget. Approved by Budget Office Joseph M. Reid, Director �: � �,•j�,.• � Requested by Department of: License, Insoecfion & Environmentai Protection Adopted by Council: Date . \ � ��19`l Adop ' n Cerlified by Council Secretary By: Approved y Ma r: Date z/ �y 2 B �, ��= B ��,��o� �u�cor Form Approved by City Attorney By: �9.riwcct ✓� ��(.,.�ti G Appmved by Mayor for Submission to Council B �� ,t,�eP� OF LIEP KESSLER 2b6Ai12 rut�¢rtR Q1YATlOptBY �'� BIDOETl1iBCllR <�Bt _ �/( 1LlYQt(qlAS�'fAN�1 OF SIGNATURE PAGES ( CLIP ALL LOCATTONS ;rm add a new hyl�id inspection po�tion -BuOdinglLathing/Pfasterinspector N_ 35564 �� .. C r— = - 1 � °"`°�: --' y q ➢QLGL6T.SFRYK'ffi06[ awe¢mnoow.ms+ox+ _.rnasav�oam�o� i.tta.woupawdfamc�srwatcedimduacaouaafadasdepu�mwK c�ww.ar� _ YES NO n_scMV _ 2 Hn 1�i6 paiadfum ew bccn a�' emPtq`xT _oaiwcraouxt _ Y6S NO s�meoarsa,xxeouriw.oew�crn�er s, n«s �Li. pd.owG�m pwne a et� noc mnw0y pmuvsd br mr umeotcar �r�r� ypS NO (F.SnINO fII Y!i �6nfPn OY NOttrt!!A!N 1LLII1Ra'L IO D.roMlheR.) umxi ercoe`rx esus oeromvraiv twno. wx we� weQS �rY ie Of6ce oCLIEP has worked closely with the Ttades and I.aborAasanbly and tfie Carpenkrs and Lathing snd Piasior Unions create a new position which would provide nceded assistance on ptasterilathing projxts tluoughout the City as well as support r general building inspection. Fnnding for this new position w7t come from pem�it fees which are in excess of prerious estimates e to tawrd construction activity. this new pasidon will pmvide ueodo8 assisFance on glesterJtathinS P��.I�. �d will also pmvide additional support for generet ; inspection. See atteched analysis and report on the trends in building conshucfion activity ova the last 5 years. for inspecfion func6on. �f�ro�i��w P.�'�w`��'�'�9"',`z'o; U•v"':.sii k'":.� �4 ��1 _._-� �v�� he City wautd be wiUwut expertise for plazter and tathing inspecdons and wo�td have a difficu@ tima kceping up with the record ork Iosd resulGng from record conskuc6on activity. �,uw�mrrocsu�eawcr�av ,�64 7�4.OQ carmeveHVeumce�n:mc�.earei �� no �,cso�mce Per mit FeesJCouncil Con6aencv ..c�m„��n,mm 320-33351-28DQ & 320-33351-0548 W. QII�OFMAi W N: Q�RI.�QlI SoY[ PaV ewW 011k� IF1�tt5Y�.oM1 nw� .WKa) a.v.0 �� -�� CTTY OF SAIN'P PAUL INTERDEPART'MENTAL MEMORANDUM Januarg 13, 1497 To: Joe Reid, Budget Director Bruce Engelbrekt, Budget Analyst Fr: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director �" Re: Addition of Building/Plaster Inspection FTE LIEP is proposing the addition of a new hybrid inspection position for a BuildingfLathinglPlaster inspector. We have worked closely with the Mayor's Office, Dick Anfang from Trades and Labor, _- and the Carpenter's and Plaster's unions since 1995 to develop a new position which would provide needed assistance on plasterllathing projects throughout the City as well as addirional support for general building inspection. Recently both unions agreed on the minimum qualifications and the test for this new position. Approval of this new position would represant the first hybrid, or cross trained, trade inspection position in the City. New resources for buiiding and plasterllathing inspections aze critically needed due to the dramatic increase in construction and inspections in 1995 and 1996. I have attached an analysis of inspectional data, prepared by John Conway and Greg Johnson, on the extent of the increase in workload of our building inspection staff. The data clearly justifies the need for this new position, and verifies that there e�sts a substantiai backlog of inspections, that is increasing in spite of our efforts to work smarter and more efficiently. I have also attached the Council Resolution prepared by the Office of Human Resources, which creates the position with the grade at the same 1eve1 as the building inspectors. Funding for this new hybrid position wiil come from permit fees which are in excess of previous estimates due to record construction activity. T realize that LIEP must demonstrate the availability of these additional funds. To that end I am asking 7anet Odalen and Lori Lee from Accounting, to meet with me and budget staffto analyze the year end revenue reports as soon as they are available. In the meantime please let me know if you have any questions regarding this proposal. c: Janet �dalen Lori Lee 7an Gasteriand 7ohn Conway Greg 7ohnson �t`1-1 �-�' Building Inspection Section Activity Synopsis 1991-1996 Greg 7ohnson Building Inspector ��t -��.� � Table I-A Construction Permit Histary 1990 through 1996 Const. Per Cent Value of Per Cent Permit Per YEAR Permits of Permits of Fees Cent of Issued Change Issued Change Collected Change 1990 21,383 $258,94Q,738 I991 20,741 -3°l0 $288,345,925 +11°l0 $1,928,453 1492 22,151 +7% $235,714,400 -18°!0 $2,125,404 +10% 1993 22,722 +3% $237,906,835 +1% $2,107,974 -1% 1994 24,090 +6°/u $275,121,170 +16% $2,374,876 +11°/u 1995 23,421 -3°l0 $336,66Q106 +22% $2,848,43Q +18°10 1996 26,273 +12% $396,289,229 +18°/a $3,457,Q57 +23°10 1991 1996 Table I-B Permit History Comparison in Real Dollars 1991 vs.1996 pfI'ID7tS Issued 20,741 26,273 % +27% PCT'Illlt Valuations $288,940,738 $396,289,229 % +79% °lo +37% Permit Fees $1,928,453 $3,457,057 Table I-C 1940 Permit Valuation vs. 1996 Permit Valuation (1996 Adjusted for 3% Annual Inflation) 1990 $258,940,740 199b $330,097,$00 +27% cl�-ia-� E Table II-A 1996 Building Canstruction Inspection Section Comparisons* Total Bldg. Elec. Mech. Plumbing Warm Air Pertnits 25,897 7,918 8,940 3,713 2,130 2,550 Issued 31% 35% 14% 8% 10% Valuation 385.00 264.5 54.87 25.20 12.34 22.98 in Millions $ 70°l0 14% 7% 3% 6°!0 Permit 3.3 1.75 .566 .389 312 .282 Fees in 1llilliuns $ 53% 17% 12% 9°l0 9% Inspections 51,754 19,996 16,095 6,102 4,3$0 5,181 3&% 31% 12% 8°!0 10% Staff 29 7 9 5 4 4 24.1% 31.0% 17.2°l0 13.8% 13.8°l0 F'igures Uo not inctude elevator or fire suppression i�ees, vatuations, stait5ng or mspe<nons. Table II-B Averaged Building Construction Inspection Section Comparisons* Total Bldg. Elec. Mech. Piumbing Warm Permits Issued 1990-1995 Valuations in Miilions � 1990-1995 Permit Fees in Millions $ 1991-1995 Inspections 1990-1995 22,47b 293.14 2.437 52,950 6,402 28% 202.5 69°la 1.230 50% 20,265 38°la 8,294 37% 33.72 12% .492 20% 1b,282 31°!0 Air 3,546 1,932 2,270 lb% 9% 10% 17.77 10.46 18.74 6% 4% 6 .253 .216 .208 10°!0 9°10 9% 6,26b 5,407 4,929 12°!0 10°fo 4°/a �� _��.8' 3 Table III-A Building Inspection Section History 1991-1996* YEAR 1990 1491 1992 1993 1994 1945 1996 AYG 1996 thru 1995 vs. Avg Permits 5,283 5,651 6,071 6,043 b,928 6,812 7,918 6,402 +24°to Issued Valuation 176.4 2003 147.1 161.2 186.7 230.7 269.5 202.5 +33°l0 in Millions of $ PermitFees .996 .481 1.007 1.159 1.414 1.75 1.225 +43% in Millions of S 1.260 I.38 1.08 +28% Inspections 17,834 23,009 23,11Q 2Q,304 21,569 19,364 19,996 2Q265 -1% Staff 9 9 9 4 7 7 7 � Permits Issued 587 618 675 671 990 973 1,131 840 +35% perInspector Permit Valuation 19.6 22.3 16.3 119 26.7 33.0 38.5 26.8 +44°to per Inspector in Millions of $ Inspections per 1,982 2,551 2,568 2,256 3,081 2,766 2,857 2,628 +9°/a Inspector * Staf'fing figures do not reflect the building inspector assigned to the vacant building program, at[hough the Senior Building Inspector has supervisory cesponsibilty for [he prograzn. Stucco figures aze included. Italicicized figures represent an estimation of fee income without the July t995 irtcrease using a 29% average increase in building permit fees. Year Permits Issued Permits Finalized ifferenceiBacklog Table III-B Permit Through-Put 1993-1996* 1993 1994 1995 6043 .' : b812 5,196 �t3.� 5,458 970 5,460 1,352 1996 7918 b,749 1,169 mit through-put represents the annual cumulative wark-luad backlog 6y comparing the quantity of permits issued to the quantity of �.its receiving finai disposition. `�`1-1�-g � Table IV 1996 Building Inspection Section Activity Versus Weighted Averagesx (1995 Figures Ignored) YEAR I 1990 1 1991 I 1992 1 1993 ( 1994 Permits Issued 5,283 5,651 6,071 6,043 6,928 Valuation 176.4 2003 147.1 161.2 186.7 in Miilions of $ Permit Fees .996 .981 1.007 1.159 in Millions of $ Inspections 17,834 23,009 23,110 20,304 21,569 Staff 9 9 9 9 7 Permits Issued 587 618 675 671 990 perInspector Permit 19.6 22.3 16.3 17.9 26.7 Valuation per Inspector in Miliions of $ Inspections ger I 1,982 I 2,55? I 2,568 I 2,256 I 3,081 Inspector 1996 w.AVC 1946 vs. Avg 7,918 5,992 +32% 269.5 1743 +55% . � 1.75 1.036 +69°/a 1.38 Y.036 +33% 19�996 21�165 -5°/a 7 1,131 708 +60% 38.5 20.6 +87% 2,857 � 2,489 � +15% -- - _ _ __ ___ __-_ itaffing figures do not reflect the building inspector assigned to the vacant building program, although the Senior Bui(ding Inspector has pervisory responsibility for the progaam. Stucco figures are included. Italicized figures represent an estimation of fee income thout the July increase using a 29% average increase in 6uitding permit fees. �� -� �-� Building Saction Inspection Time & Activity Analysis 1993-1996� (Travel Times Not Included) Inspection Hours 1943-1996 22,229 Percentage of total hours fi0% Average Annuai Hours Office & Education Hours 1993-1996 Percentage of Total Hours Average Annual Hours Total Office, Education, & Tnspec6on Hours 1493-1946 Average Annual Hours Average Annual Inspection Hours per Inspector Average Annual O& E hours per Inspector Average Annual Hours per Inspector Average Annual Inspections Average Individnal Inspection Time in Hours 1997 Projected InspectioniHours Analysis 1997 Projected Building Section Inspections Multiplied by Average Individual Inspection Time Anticipated Inspecrion Time in Hours Anticipated Office & Education Time (6,307 x 401b0) Total Anticipated Inspector Hours Total Anticipated Hours (1Q,512) divided by Total Average Inspector Hours (1,303) = Inspectors Required 5,557 14,287 40% 3,572 36,S1b `� 9,129 793 510 1,303 20,265 .27 23,U00 .27 6,307 4,205 10,512 8.07 q�1 -1�-8' Table VI Ratio of Inspections Made to Permits Issued Annually Secfion 1990-1994 Average 1995 1996 Building 21,165/5,992=3.53 19,364/6,812=2.84 19,99617,918=2.5 Electrical 15,171/8,326 =1.82 17,39218,261 = 2.1 16,09518,940=1.8 PVIechanicat b,518/3,5$9 =1.82 6,013/3,503 =1.7 6,102/3,713=1.6 Ptumbing 5,771/1,759 = 3.28 5,04312,105 = 2.40 4,380(2,130=2.0 Warm Air 4,42912,211 = 2.23 4,624/2,328 =1.49 5,181l2,550=2.0 �1`l -\�-g 1946 Updated Conclusions The Senior Buiiding Inspectar remains the only senior trade inspector responsible for an inspection azea. This is attributabie to understaffing in the Building Inspection Section. Contrary to management's claim, it is imprudent to use the Senior Building Inspector as an area inspector. The administrative and supervisory responsibilities of the posirion}ustify freeing the Building Sanior from field inspecuon work. Gertainty, in light of frequent staff complaints regazding the availabiity of the Senior for use as an`expert on dury', customer service as weil as employee direction would be enhanced. By using the 23,000 EstimatedJPromised Inspection Figure from the 1997 Activity Performance Plan and staff performance averages for the last four years, it is possible to project a shortfall in staffing of 1.07 buiiding inspectors. This again assuxnes, since it is based on recent averages, ttiat the Senior Building Inspector is maintaining an inspection area. Realistically, the section is short fully 2 inspectors. This is evidenced when comparing 1996 section gerfornlance versus the weighted average section performance from 1990-1994. In 1996, the inspectors individually performed 15% more inspections than the average even though the section as a whole performed -- 5% less inspections than the average. The disparity reflects the loss of 2 inspection positions in 1993 and indicates that the section hasn't been able to cover that loss. This is also indicated by the fact that for the 2nd consecutive yeaz the section was issued over 1,000 permits more than it was able to finalize, generating a backlog of roughiy 14% per annum. Permit fees also mandate the need for stafF increases. Although the building section only accounts for 24% of the trade inspection staff, building pemuts in 1996 generated 53% of the department's permit fees. In addition, 1996 building permit fees were up 69% compared to the average of 1991-1994, generating an additional $714,Q00. of revenue, far more than adequate to pay the additional cost of two more building inspectors. Genera{ Notes Averaged figw'es include ihe pldest information available from in-house annual reports through the year 1995. Weighted averages do not include the year 1995 in a� attempt to control evident skewing. Some information wasn't recorded before 1993 but the charts indicate whether earlier information was available for averaging. The position of the code compliance inspector was not considered as part of revenue or of staff since, for the most part it operates independentty of the section as a whole. Elevator Inspection was not evaluated. ! - ' �°. 9 � � Counca7 F'ile # � `I —1 �-S' yE�'. i Green Sheet # 35564 0 rr�rea a R�'erred To Committe� Date i z 3 4 S 6 � s WF�REAS, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protecflon (LIEP) has worked closely with the Trades and labor Assembly and the Carpenters and Lathing and Plaster Unions to create a new position which would provide needed assistance on plaster/lathing projects throughout the city as well as support for general building inspection; and WF�REAS, funding for this new position will come from permit fees which are in excess of previous estimates due to record construction activity; and, 9 WHEREAS, The Mayor, pursuant to Section 10.07.1 of the City Charter dces certify that there are io available for appropriation revenues in excess of those esflmated in the 1997 Building Inspection and ii Design Fund; and iz i3 �a is 16 17 WHEREAS, The Mayor recommends the following changes to the 1997 budget: ia FINANCING PLAN: i9 Building Inspection and Design zo Operations New - General zt GL 320-33351-2800 Pemuts 22 All Other �nd Revenue v za u zb 5PENDING PLAN: z� Building Inspection and Design za Operations New - General zs GL 320-33351-01 l i�11 Time Permanettt so GL 32033351-0222 Telephone-NWB Monthly Charges s� GL 32033351-0223 Telephone-Long Distance sz GL 320-33351-0224 Telephone-Moves & Changes 33 GL 32Q-33351-0229 Other - Communications sa GL 320-33351-0235 Type II- Regular ($4lWk Day & as GL 320-33351-0242 Duplicating - All Processes 36 GL 320-33351-0256 Registration Fces - I.ocal s� GL 320-33351-0290 Central Service Cost ss GL 320-33351-4356 Safety Supplies 39 GL 320-33351-0359 Other - Spec Matl & Supplies Current Amended Budget Change Budget $2,616,581 $ 14,704 $2 745-24- _4 745__ 3,361,824 14,704 3,376,528 1,&98,b26 18,305 400 1,000 10,360 64,574 3,13Q 9,878 104,221 7,912 4,882 36,550 265 10 30 355 2,155 25 500 2,839 275 50 1,935,176 18,57a 410 1,030 10,715 66,729 3,155 10,378 1Q7,060 8,187 4,932 ��-�ag ao 41 42 as GL 320-33351-0361 Office Accessories $ aa GL 320-33351-0368 Office Suppfies-Purchasing Sto as GL 320-33351-0438 Fringe Benefits for Trades av GL 320-33351-0439 Fringe Benefits a7 GL 320-33351-0548 Contingency: Council Action Req as GL 320-33351-0815 Desk, Chairs or Tables a9 GL 320-33351-0857 Data Processing Hardware so GL 320-33351-0858 Telephone Equipment Purchases si All (?ther Fund 5pending sz 53 54 Cunent Budget 900 6,305 242,317 561,218 50,000 0 1b,000 1,200 3C��596 Change 75 $ 25 10,965 6,580 (50,000) 455 3,200 350 � Amended Budget 975 6,33Q 253,282 567,798 0 455 19,200 1,550 ��Q�,596 3,361,824 14,704 3,376,528 ss FiJRTHER RFSOLVED, that the $50,000, placed in City Council Coniingency 32033351-0548, is se hereby released to provide funding as nceded and that the City Council approves these changes to the s� 1997 budget. Approved by Budget Office Joseph M. Reid, Director �: � �,•j�,.• � Requested by Department of: License, Insoecfion & Environmentai Protection Adopted by Council: Date . \ � ��19`l Adop ' n Cerlified by Council Secretary By: Approved y Ma r: Date z/ �y 2 B �, ��= B ��,��o� �u�cor Form Approved by City Attorney By: �9.riwcct ✓� ��(.,.�ti G Appmved by Mayor for Submission to Council B �� ,t,�eP� OF LIEP KESSLER 2b6Ai12 rut�¢rtR Q1YATlOptBY �'� BIDOETl1iBCllR <�Bt _ �/( 1LlYQt(qlAS�'fAN�1 OF SIGNATURE PAGES ( CLIP ALL LOCATTONS ;rm add a new hyl�id inspection po�tion -BuOdinglLathing/Pfasterinspector N_ 35564 �� .. C r— = - 1 � °"`°�: --' y q ➢QLGL6T.SFRYK'ffi06[ awe¢mnoow.ms+ox+ _.rnasav�oam�o� i.tta.woupawdfamc�srwatcedimduacaouaafadasdepu�mwK c�ww.ar� _ YES NO n_scMV _ 2 Hn 1�i6 paiadfum ew bccn a�' emPtq`xT _oaiwcraouxt _ Y6S NO s�meoarsa,xxeouriw.oew�crn�er s, n«s �Li. pd.owG�m pwne a et� noc mnw0y pmuvsd br mr umeotcar �r�r� ypS NO (F.SnINO fII Y!i �6nfPn OY NOttrt!!A!N 1LLII1Ra'L IO D.roMlheR.) umxi ercoe`rx esus oeromvraiv twno. wx we� weQS �rY ie Of6ce oCLIEP has worked closely with the Ttades and I.aborAasanbly and tfie Carpenkrs and Lathing snd Piasior Unions create a new position which would provide nceded assistance on ptasterilathing projxts tluoughout the City as well as support r general building inspection. Fnnding for this new position w7t come from pem�it fees which are in excess of prerious estimates e to tawrd construction activity. this new pasidon will pmvide ueodo8 assisFance on glesterJtathinS P��.I�. �d will also pmvide additional support for generet ; inspection. See atteched analysis and report on the trends in building conshucfion activity ova the last 5 years. for inspecfion func6on. �f�ro�i��w P.�'�w`��'�'�9"',`z'o; U•v"':.sii k'":.� �4 ��1 _._-� �v�� he City wautd be wiUwut expertise for plazter and tathing inspecdons and wo�td have a difficu@ tima kceping up with the record ork Iosd resulGng from record conskuc6on activity. �,uw�mrrocsu�eawcr�av ,�64 7�4.OQ carmeveHVeumce�n:mc�.earei �� no �,cso�mce Per mit FeesJCouncil Con6aencv ..c�m„��n,mm 320-33351-28DQ & 320-33351-0548 W. QII�OFMAi W N: Q�RI.�QlI SoY[ PaV ewW 011k� IF1�tt5Y�.oM1 nw� .WKa) a.v.0 �� -�� CTTY OF SAIN'P PAUL INTERDEPART'MENTAL MEMORANDUM Januarg 13, 1497 To: Joe Reid, Budget Director Bruce Engelbrekt, Budget Analyst Fr: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director �" Re: Addition of Building/Plaster Inspection FTE LIEP is proposing the addition of a new hybrid inspection position for a BuildingfLathinglPlaster inspector. We have worked closely with the Mayor's Office, Dick Anfang from Trades and Labor, _- and the Carpenter's and Plaster's unions since 1995 to develop a new position which would provide needed assistance on plasterllathing projects throughout the City as well as addirional support for general building inspection. Recently both unions agreed on the minimum qualifications and the test for this new position. Approval of this new position would represant the first hybrid, or cross trained, trade inspection position in the City. New resources for buiiding and plasterllathing inspections aze critically needed due to the dramatic increase in construction and inspections in 1995 and 1996. I have attached an analysis of inspectional data, prepared by John Conway and Greg Johnson, on the extent of the increase in workload of our building inspection staff. The data clearly justifies the need for this new position, and verifies that there e�sts a substantiai backlog of inspections, that is increasing in spite of our efforts to work smarter and more efficiently. I have also attached the Council Resolution prepared by the Office of Human Resources, which creates the position with the grade at the same 1eve1 as the building inspectors. Funding for this new hybrid position wiil come from permit fees which are in excess of previous estimates due to record construction activity. T realize that LIEP must demonstrate the availability of these additional funds. To that end I am asking 7anet Odalen and Lori Lee from Accounting, to meet with me and budget staffto analyze the year end revenue reports as soon as they are available. In the meantime please let me know if you have any questions regarding this proposal. c: Janet �dalen Lori Lee 7an Gasteriand 7ohn Conway Greg 7ohnson �t`1-1 �-�' Building Inspection Section Activity Synopsis 1991-1996 Greg 7ohnson Building Inspector ��t -��.� � Table I-A Construction Permit Histary 1990 through 1996 Const. Per Cent Value of Per Cent Permit Per YEAR Permits of Permits of Fees Cent of Issued Change Issued Change Collected Change 1990 21,383 $258,94Q,738 I991 20,741 -3°l0 $288,345,925 +11°l0 $1,928,453 1492 22,151 +7% $235,714,400 -18°!0 $2,125,404 +10% 1993 22,722 +3% $237,906,835 +1% $2,107,974 -1% 1994 24,090 +6°/u $275,121,170 +16% $2,374,876 +11°/u 1995 23,421 -3°l0 $336,66Q106 +22% $2,848,43Q +18°10 1996 26,273 +12% $396,289,229 +18°/a $3,457,Q57 +23°10 1991 1996 Table I-B Permit History Comparison in Real Dollars 1991 vs.1996 pfI'ID7tS Issued 20,741 26,273 % +27% PCT'Illlt Valuations $288,940,738 $396,289,229 % +79% °lo +37% Permit Fees $1,928,453 $3,457,057 Table I-C 1940 Permit Valuation vs. 1996 Permit Valuation (1996 Adjusted for 3% Annual Inflation) 1990 $258,940,740 199b $330,097,$00 +27% cl�-ia-� E Table II-A 1996 Building Canstruction Inspection Section Comparisons* Total Bldg. Elec. Mech. Plumbing Warm Air Pertnits 25,897 7,918 8,940 3,713 2,130 2,550 Issued 31% 35% 14% 8% 10% Valuation 385.00 264.5 54.87 25.20 12.34 22.98 in Millions $ 70°l0 14% 7% 3% 6°!0 Permit 3.3 1.75 .566 .389 312 .282 Fees in 1llilliuns $ 53% 17% 12% 9°l0 9% Inspections 51,754 19,996 16,095 6,102 4,3$0 5,181 3&% 31% 12% 8°!0 10% Staff 29 7 9 5 4 4 24.1% 31.0% 17.2°l0 13.8% 13.8°l0 F'igures Uo not inctude elevator or fire suppression i�ees, vatuations, stait5ng or mspe<nons. Table II-B Averaged Building Construction Inspection Section Comparisons* Total Bldg. Elec. Mech. Piumbing Warm Permits Issued 1990-1995 Valuations in Miilions � 1990-1995 Permit Fees in Millions $ 1991-1995 Inspections 1990-1995 22,47b 293.14 2.437 52,950 6,402 28% 202.5 69°la 1.230 50% 20,265 38°la 8,294 37% 33.72 12% .492 20% 1b,282 31°!0 Air 3,546 1,932 2,270 lb% 9% 10% 17.77 10.46 18.74 6% 4% 6 .253 .216 .208 10°!0 9°10 9% 6,26b 5,407 4,929 12°!0 10°fo 4°/a �� _��.8' 3 Table III-A Building Inspection Section History 1991-1996* YEAR 1990 1491 1992 1993 1994 1945 1996 AYG 1996 thru 1995 vs. Avg Permits 5,283 5,651 6,071 6,043 b,928 6,812 7,918 6,402 +24°to Issued Valuation 176.4 2003 147.1 161.2 186.7 230.7 269.5 202.5 +33°l0 in Millions of $ PermitFees .996 .481 1.007 1.159 1.414 1.75 1.225 +43% in Millions of S 1.260 I.38 1.08 +28% Inspections 17,834 23,009 23,11Q 2Q,304 21,569 19,364 19,996 2Q265 -1% Staff 9 9 9 4 7 7 7 � Permits Issued 587 618 675 671 990 973 1,131 840 +35% perInspector Permit Valuation 19.6 22.3 16.3 119 26.7 33.0 38.5 26.8 +44°to per Inspector in Millions of $ Inspections per 1,982 2,551 2,568 2,256 3,081 2,766 2,857 2,628 +9°/a Inspector * Staf'fing figures do not reflect the building inspector assigned to the vacant building program, at[hough the Senior Building Inspector has supervisory cesponsibilty for [he prograzn. Stucco figures aze included. Italicicized figures represent an estimation of fee income without the July t995 irtcrease using a 29% average increase in building permit fees. Year Permits Issued Permits Finalized ifferenceiBacklog Table III-B Permit Through-Put 1993-1996* 1993 1994 1995 6043 .' : b812 5,196 �t3.� 5,458 970 5,460 1,352 1996 7918 b,749 1,169 mit through-put represents the annual cumulative wark-luad backlog 6y comparing the quantity of permits issued to the quantity of �.its receiving finai disposition. `�`1-1�-g � Table IV 1996 Building Inspection Section Activity Versus Weighted Averagesx (1995 Figures Ignored) YEAR I 1990 1 1991 I 1992 1 1993 ( 1994 Permits Issued 5,283 5,651 6,071 6,043 6,928 Valuation 176.4 2003 147.1 161.2 186.7 in Miilions of $ Permit Fees .996 .981 1.007 1.159 in Millions of $ Inspections 17,834 23,009 23,110 20,304 21,569 Staff 9 9 9 9 7 Permits Issued 587 618 675 671 990 perInspector Permit 19.6 22.3 16.3 17.9 26.7 Valuation per Inspector in Miliions of $ Inspections ger I 1,982 I 2,55? I 2,568 I 2,256 I 3,081 Inspector 1996 w.AVC 1946 vs. Avg 7,918 5,992 +32% 269.5 1743 +55% . � 1.75 1.036 +69°/a 1.38 Y.036 +33% 19�996 21�165 -5°/a 7 1,131 708 +60% 38.5 20.6 +87% 2,857 � 2,489 � +15% -- - _ _ __ ___ __-_ itaffing figures do not reflect the building inspector assigned to the vacant building program, although the Senior Bui(ding Inspector has pervisory responsibility for the progaam. Stucco figures are included. Italicized figures represent an estimation of fee income thout the July increase using a 29% average increase in 6uitding permit fees. �� -� �-� Building Saction Inspection Time & Activity Analysis 1993-1996� (Travel Times Not Included) Inspection Hours 1943-1996 22,229 Percentage of total hours fi0% Average Annuai Hours Office & Education Hours 1993-1996 Percentage of Total Hours Average Annual Hours Total Office, Education, & Tnspec6on Hours 1493-1946 Average Annual Hours Average Annual Inspection Hours per Inspector Average Annual O& E hours per Inspector Average Annual Hours per Inspector Average Annual Inspections Average Individnal Inspection Time in Hours 1997 Projected InspectioniHours Analysis 1997 Projected Building Section Inspections Multiplied by Average Individual Inspection Time Anticipated Inspecrion Time in Hours Anticipated Office & Education Time (6,307 x 401b0) Total Anticipated Inspector Hours Total Anticipated Hours (1Q,512) divided by Total Average Inspector Hours (1,303) = Inspectors Required 5,557 14,287 40% 3,572 36,S1b `� 9,129 793 510 1,303 20,265 .27 23,U00 .27 6,307 4,205 10,512 8.07 q�1 -1�-8' Table VI Ratio of Inspections Made to Permits Issued Annually Secfion 1990-1994 Average 1995 1996 Building 21,165/5,992=3.53 19,364/6,812=2.84 19,99617,918=2.5 Electrical 15,171/8,326 =1.82 17,39218,261 = 2.1 16,09518,940=1.8 PVIechanicat b,518/3,5$9 =1.82 6,013/3,503 =1.7 6,102/3,713=1.6 Ptumbing 5,771/1,759 = 3.28 5,04312,105 = 2.40 4,380(2,130=2.0 Warm Air 4,42912,211 = 2.23 4,624/2,328 =1.49 5,181l2,550=2.0 �1`l -\�-g 1946 Updated Conclusions The Senior Buiiding Inspectar remains the only senior trade inspector responsible for an inspection azea. This is attributabie to understaffing in the Building Inspection Section. Contrary to management's claim, it is imprudent to use the Senior Building Inspector as an area inspector. The administrative and supervisory responsibilities of the posirion}ustify freeing the Building Sanior from field inspecuon work. Gertainty, in light of frequent staff complaints regazding the availabiity of the Senior for use as an`expert on dury', customer service as weil as employee direction would be enhanced. By using the 23,000 EstimatedJPromised Inspection Figure from the 1997 Activity Performance Plan and staff performance averages for the last four years, it is possible to project a shortfall in staffing of 1.07 buiiding inspectors. This again assuxnes, since it is based on recent averages, ttiat the Senior Building Inspector is maintaining an inspection area. Realistically, the section is short fully 2 inspectors. This is evidenced when comparing 1996 section gerfornlance versus the weighted average section performance from 1990-1994. In 1996, the inspectors individually performed 15% more inspections than the average even though the section as a whole performed -- 5% less inspections than the average. The disparity reflects the loss of 2 inspection positions in 1993 and indicates that the section hasn't been able to cover that loss. This is also indicated by the fact that for the 2nd consecutive yeaz the section was issued over 1,000 permits more than it was able to finalize, generating a backlog of roughiy 14% per annum. Permit fees also mandate the need for stafF increases. Although the building section only accounts for 24% of the trade inspection staff, building pemuts in 1996 generated 53% of the department's permit fees. In addition, 1996 building permit fees were up 69% compared to the average of 1991-1994, generating an additional $714,Q00. of revenue, far more than adequate to pay the additional cost of two more building inspectors. Genera{ Notes Averaged figw'es include ihe pldest information available from in-house annual reports through the year 1995. Weighted averages do not include the year 1995 in a� attempt to control evident skewing. Some information wasn't recorded before 1993 but the charts indicate whether earlier information was available for averaging. The position of the code compliance inspector was not considered as part of revenue or of staff since, for the most part it operates independentty of the section as a whole. Elevator Inspection was not evaluated.