Mecklenburg County
April 21, 2015
@ 3:00 p.m.
Agenda
Building-Development
Commission
1.
Minutes Approved
2.
BDC Member Issues
3.
Public Attendee Issues
4.
Field Reorg Concept Presentation…………..………….…JNB/Jeff Griffin/Steve Pearson
5.
Charlotte Water Development Services Fee Review………………….............Carl Wilson
6.
AE-GC Builder Task Force Recommendations Discussion (cont.)…………..……J. Bartl
7.
Code Interpretation Qtrly. Newsletter 1st Addition Format Review……………...……CAs
8.
Quarterly Reports
a. Code Compliance Report…………………………...…...……………….G. Mullis
b. Technical Advisory Board………………………………………….....L. McSwain
c. Commercial Plan Review…………………………………..……………C. Walker
9.
Quarterly BDC Bulletin Exercise……………………………………………..…….J. Bartl
10.
Department Statistics and Initiatives Report….…...…………………………..……J. Bartl
a. March Statistics Report
b. Status Report on Various Department Initiatives
c. Other
d. Manager/CA Added Comments
11.
Adjournment
The next BDC Meeting is scheduled for 3:00 p.m., May 19th, 2015.
Please mark your calendars.
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Minutes of March 3, 2015 Meeting
Jonathan Bahr opened the Building-Development Commission (BDC) meeting at 3:06 p.m. on Tuesday,
March 3, 2015.
Present:
Jonathan Bahr, Rob Belisle, Tom Brasse, Melanie Coyne, Bernice Cutler, Travis Haston, Hal
Hester, Rodney Kiser and John Taylor
Absent:
Chad Askew and Ben Simpson
1. MINUTES APPROVED
Travis Haston made the motion to approve the BDC Meeting Minutes from the January 20th meeting;
seconded by Hal Hester. The motion passed unanimously.
2. BDC MEMBER ISSUES
John Taylor asked why the inconsistencies when the RTAP submittal process and the inconsistencies
when requiring a letter of authorization. Patrick Granson shared that a letter of authorization is required
when there is a change of contractor, after Plan Review, which is usually owner driven (or if the RTAP
requires a charge to account). John shared that he is fine with the letter but ran into an issue that caught a
team member off guard and delayed getting the RTAP submitted. It was the first time they were asked to
provide a letter of authorization. Jim Bartl reiterated it varies from project to project. Patrick Granson
will review this issue with staff to ensure consistency.
Jonathan Bahr asked if both RTAPS involved an architect.
John shared the architect was submitting the RTAP.
3. PUBLIC ATTENDEE ISSUES
No public attendee issues.
4. AE-GC-BUILDER TASK FORCE REPORT REVIEW
Jim Bartl reviewed the AE-GC-Builder Task Force report with BDC Members in detail; first describing
the report’s organization. The full report can be viewed at this link. View and download the report.
The Task Force held meetings in January and February focusing primarily on review of the Final Report
and “Best Practice” summaries. E-copies of the Task Force Final Report were sent to all BDC members
on February 10th. The Task Force work is now complete and Jim described the BDC assigned action
items, reviewed the prioritization chart as well as the timeline on the action items.
a) Comment on proceeding with recommendations covered by Part 2 of the Final Report
b) Discuss “Best Practice” accountability measures, both for code officials and design/construction.
c) Meck-SI Report item #18 on maintaining SI performance standards.
d) Notes on Consistency, Part 5.5
e) Subcommittee assignment on topic #17, high pass rate contractor rewards
f) Subcommittee assignment on topic #18, inspection trip time allocations
g) Discuss customer service concerns on RTAP’s in addition to those addressed in topic 8 report
h) Provide direction to Department on training responsibility and limits; Final Report item 5.8
Tom Brasse asked if there had been any progress combining the City/County process systems and
spending money on a new consolidated system. Jim Bartl explained that you can’t buy a system like this
one ‘off the shelf’ as well as time required would be intense.
5. BEST PRACTICE PROPOSAL REVIEW
Patrick Granson reviewed the AE process and how the plans examiners do their work.
AE-Plan Review best practice session was held and included representatives from the local AE design
community in January. Attending were 15 AE’s all actively participating in the discussion. The
Department boiled all the comments made into a set of best practices proposed for both plans
examiner’s review of permit documents, as well as AE’s submitting to the Department. On January
13th a draft summary was submitted to all attendees, along with the meeting notes. Receiving no
BDC Meeting
March 3, 2015
Page 2 of 4
suggestions to revise; the Department distributed to all Task Force members, Wednesday, January
21st then reviewed with the full Task Force on February 5th.
Gene Morton reviewed the GC process describing that two Inspector-contractor best practice sessions
were held in January with 11 industry members attending in aggregate. The Department boiled down
all comments made into a set of best practices proposed for inspectors reviewing construction in the
field, as well as contractors requesting inspections. On Wednesday, January 21st a draft summary
was submitted to all attendees, along with meeting notes. Receiving no suggestions to revise; the
Department distributed to all Task Force members on Thursday, January 29th then reviewed with the
full Task Force on February 5th. Both Best Practice summaries and meeting notes are included in the
Task Force Final Report Appendix item.
Melanie Coyne shared that getting people to adhere will be challenging. A basic understanding and
positive connection on criteria is important. Jim Bartl shared that holding brown bag lunch training
sessions to introduce and promote responsibilities as well as initiatives.
Bernice Cutler asked about the RTAP priority inspection process and if this is a priority moving
forward in the department. (approved in plan review and not approved in field). Patrick shared this is
a new process that Jeff Griffin and Gary Mullis have been working on and is addressed in topic
number eight as needing more attention.
Tom Brasse shared that more consistency with guidelines and thresholds should be established on
that side as well.
Travis Haston asked if there is a reason not to implement the pass rate incentive rewards on
inspection scheduling since there isn’t anything now that gives a scheduling advantage, doing the
same thing w/ AEs in plan review. Jim Bartl described the high failure rate program history. Which
has led to our pass rate goals today.
Bernice Cutler asked in best practice is contractor large project ‘as requested’ in red for a reason. Jim
Bartl described 3.1.4 Best Practice – Contractors and that this was a change requested by the task
force in the final meeting.
Jim Bartl asked the board to advance the technology for Meck-SI
Tom Brasse asked where is the committee on collaboration of the city/county portal.
Jim shared that this is a committee put together by the county and city manager leadership to address
quick wins. The technology issue is not part of the quick wins. This group has agreed to a monthly
schedule. Tom asked is there a parallel system? Nan Peterson described the governance committee
that will make the technology decisions and the committee has not been created yet.
Rob Belisle asked if the final Gartner report is out there and has it been accepted by City council yet?
Jim Bartl shared what we have today is an executive summary that has been previously presented to
all. To my knowledge there is not a final report on the street at this time.
Travis Haston and Rob Belisle shared they are fine pushing the SI Tech changes through. Since this
requires no formal motion and no board members object; the department will go ahead with the tech
changes.
Announcements made by Jim Bartl are that Joe Weathers retired Friday 2-27-15. Gary Mullis is now
the new Electrical Code Administrator. Gene Morton announced his retirement beginning March
BDC Meeting
March 3, 2015
Page 3 of 4
31st. We are working diligently to fill Gene’s position.
Below are the January 2015 monthly statistics submitted to all members on February 16, 2015:
Permit Revenue



January permit (only) rev - $1,550,736, compares to December permit rev - $1,512,231
Fy15 budget projected monthly permit rev = $1,716,109; so Dec is $216.4k below projection
YTD permit rev = $12,297,260, is above projection ($12,012,760) by $284.5k or 2.87%.
Construction Value of Permits Issued


January total - $391,339,768, compares to December total - $326,300,737
YTD at 1/31/15 of $3,045,758,759; 35.54% above Fy14 constr value permitted at 1/31/14 of
$2.247M
Permits Issued:

Dec
Jan
3 Month Trend
3872
3893
4784/3879/3872/3893
Residential
3237
2471
2835/2226/3237/2471
Commercial
461
363
546/387/461/363
Other (Fire/Zone)
7570
6727
8165/6492/7570/6727
Total
Changes (Nov-Dec); Residential same; commercial down 23.7%; total down 11.14%
Inspection Activity: inspections performed

Insp.
Req.
Dec
Jan
Insp.
Perf.
Dec
Jan
%
Change
Bldg.
6532
6205
Bldg.
6327
6131
-3.1%
Elec.
7198
6866
Elec.
7275
6747
-7.26%
Mech.
4163
3879
Mech.
4313
3742
-13.24%
Plbg.
3092
3091
Plbg.
3119
2923
-6.28%
Total
20,985
20,041
Total
21,034
19,543
-7.1%
Changes (Nov-Dec); all trades down 3-13%; Insp performed were 97.5% of insp requested
Inspection Activity: inspections response time (new IRT report)

Total % After 24
Hrs. Late
Total % After
48 Hrs. Late
Average Resp. in
Days
Insp.
Resp.
Time
Dec
Jan
Dec
Jan
Dec
Jan
Dec
Jan
Bldg.
81.9
81.6
96.7
94.3
99.5
97.5
1.24
1.36
Elec.
59.9
65.5
93.1
92.8
99.4
99.1
1.47
1.68
Mech.
44.9
73.8
74.1
95.5
94.5
99.5
1.87
1.31
Plbg.
67.6
72.0
96.7
91.2
99.5
98.9
1.37
1.37
Total
64.6
73.1
90.8
93.5
98.5
99.0
1.47
1.46
OnTime %
Per the BDC Performance Goal agreement (7/20/2010), the goal range is 85-90%, so the IRT
report indicates the January average is currently 16.9% below the goal range.
Inspection Pass Rates for January, 2015:
OVERALL MONTHLY AV’G @ 81.47% in November, compared to 81.63 in December
BDC Meeting
March 3, 2015
Page 4 of 4
December – 77.36%
Elec: December – 77.77%
January – 77.38%
January – 77.11%
Mech:
December – 84.61%
Plbg: December – 90.59%
January – 85.28%
January – 90.71%
Bldg & Plbg almost same; Mech up .7%; Plbg up .6%
Overall average down <1/2% from last month, and above 75-80% goal range
Bldg:


On Schedule and CTAC numbers for January, 2015
CTAC:
 75 first reviews, compared to 78 in December.
 Projects approval rate (pass/fail) – 64%
 CTAC was 32% of OnSch (*) first review volume (75/75+144 = 219) = 34.25%
*CTAC as a % of OnSch is based on the total of only scheduled and Express projects
On Schedule:
 November, 13: 207 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–95.87% all trades, 94% B/E/M/P only
 December, 13: 157 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–96% all trades, 92.5% B/E/M/P only
 January, 14: 252 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–92.38% all trades, 94% B/E/M/P only
 February, 14: 199 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–85% all trades, 95.25% B/E/M/P only
 March, 14: 195 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–97.38% all trades, 95% B/E/M/P only
 April, 14: 242 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–94% all trades, 90.5% B/E/M/P only
 May, 14: 223 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–97.63% all trades, 96% B/E/M/P only
 June, 14: 241 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–94% all trades, 95% B/E/M/P only
 July, 14: 203 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–90.4% all trades, 96% B/E/M/P only
 August, 14: 248 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–85.75% all trades, 96% B/E/M/P only
 September, 14: 189 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–92% all trades, 94.75%B/E/M/P only
 October, 14: 239 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–95% all trades, 94%B/E/M/P only
 November, 14: 194 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–95.6% all trades, 95.25% on B/E/M/P
only
 December, 14: 203 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–95.25% all trades, 94.25% on B/E/M/P
only
 January, 15: 185 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–92.88% all trades, 93.5% on B/E/M/P only
Booking Lead Times
o On Schedule Projects: for reporting chart posted on line, on February 2, 2015, showed
o 1-2 hr projects; at 2-5 work days booking lead, except MP-6, and CFD 9 work days
o 3-4 hr projects; at 2-5 work days lead, except bldg.-6, MP-6, elec-9, and CFD-9 work days
o 5-8 hr projects; at 3-5 days, except bldg.-6, elec-11, MP-13 and CFD-9 work days
o CTAC plan review turnaround time; BEMP at 3 work days, and all others at 1 day.
Express Rev’w booking lead time; 11 work days for small projects, 16 work days for large projects
6. ADJOURNMENT
The March 3rd meeting of the Building Development Commission adjourned at 5:07 p.m. Next
meeting of the Building Development Commission scheduled for Tuesday, March 17, 2015.
INCREASE/DECREASE
Building Permit Revenue
Fiscal YTD
March 2015 Permit Revenue
= $1,75,987
FY15 Year-To-Date Permit Revenue = $15,644,516
1.3% above Projected YTD Permit Revenue
Building Permit Revenue
$25,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$15,644,516
$15,000,000.00
$13,892,529
$12,297,260
$10,746,524
$10,000,000.00
$9,234,293
$7,920,148
$5,910,480
$5,000,000.00
$3,794,721
$2,079,120
$0.00
Projected Revenue
Actual Revenue
Feb-11
1,038,733
Dec-11
Mar-15
Feb-15
Jan-15
Dec-14
Nov-14
Oct-14
Sep-14
Aug-14
Jul-14
Jun-14
May-14
Apr-14
Mar-14
Feb-14
Jan-14
Dec-13
Nov-13
Oct-13
Sep-13
Aug-13
Jul-13
Jun-13
May-13
Apr-13
Mar-13
Feb-13
1,314,146
1,285,337
1,751,987
1,595,269
1,550,736
1,512,231
2,009,668
2,115,759
2,079,120
1,901,786
1,715,601
1,683,122
1,693,065
1,982,761
1,850,839
1,655,765
1,549,193
1,960,638
1,822,539
1,681,309
1,610,116
1,975,965
1,913,729
1,735,610
1,575,334
1,642,508
1,550,206
1,636,152
1,461,628
Jan-13
Dec-12
1,642,006
1,477,828
1,437,356
1,200,325
1,422,721
1,528,107
Nov-12
Oct-12
Sep-12
Aug-12
Jul-12
Jun-12
1,435,293
1,361,488
1,443,556
1,535,978
2,000,000.00
May-12
Apr-12
Mar-12
Feb-12
1,155,078
1,034,529
Jan-12
1,308,747
1,324,688
1,171,784
1,039,734
1,434,551
1,291,868
1,182,380
Nov-11
Oct-11
Sep-11
Aug-11
Jul-11
Jun-11
May-11
Apr-11
1,053,631
1,024,208
1,500,000.00
Mar-11
806,942
836,225
Jan-11
1,063,264
961,032
898,073
854,523
Dec-10
0.00
821,110
500,000.00
Nov-10
Oct-10
Sep-10
Aug-10
Jul-10
Jun-10
1,141,393
995,293
904,248
1,000,000.00
May-10
Apr-10
Mar-10
PERMIT REVENUE
3-2009 thru 3-2015
2,500,000.00
March 2015 Total = $499,622,169
FY15 YTD Total = $3,994,198,498
FY14 YTD Total = $2,937,741,403
FY15 up 26.5% from this time FY14
Construction Valuation
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
Residential
Commercial
Total
FISCAL YEAR TO DATE PERMIT TOTALS
Permits Issued
Residential March FY15 = 38,973 FY14 = 35,598
Commercial March FY15 = 24,896 FY14 = 22,186
Total FY15 = 68,132 FY14 = 61,981
INCREASE/DECREASE
Residential up 11.8%
Commercial up 21.6%
Overall up 16.4%
10,000
8,767
8,324
1,000
0
Residential
Commercial
Total
2,968
4,518
2,327
3,987
3,893
2,471
3,872
3,237
2,226
2,835
3,879
4,490
2,758
2,855
4,171
3,219
2,959
3,014
4,784
5,379
5,242
5,563
3,970
2,000
6,770
6,727
6,492
.
2,809
3,000
4,922
6,000
7,570
7,421
7,253
7,000
4,000
8,099
8,165
7,779
2,740
Number of Permits
8,000
5,000
9,109
9,088
9,000
Inspections Performed
INCREASE/DECREASE
March 2015 Inspections Performed up 20.3%
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Building
Elecrical
Mechanical
Plumbing
Total
March 2015 Pass Rates
Inspection Pass Rates
Building
Electrical
Mechanical
Plumbing
OVERALL:
100
Percent Passed
95
90
85
80
75
70
Building
Electrical
Mechanical
Plumbing
76.55%
76.76%
85.96%
89.35%
81.00%
IRT REPORT March 2015
Inspection Activity: Inspection Response Time (IRT Report)
Insp.
Resp.
Time
OnTime %
Feb.
Mar.
Total % After
24 Hrs. Late
Feb.
Mar.
Total % After
48 Hrs. Late
Feb.
Mar.
Average Resp. in
Days
Feb.
Mar.
Bldg.
75.6%
79.3%
92.0%
94.6%
97.9%
99.0%
1.34
1.27
Elec.
52.0%
57.6%
84.4%
91.9%
95.5%
99.0%
1.68
1.52
Mech.
65.4%
75.3%
91.1%
96.7%
98.3%
99.4%
1.45
1.28
Plbg.
57.5%
71.4%
87.7%
96.7%
98.4%
99.7%
1.56
1.31
Total
62.5%
69.7%
88.5%
94.3%
97.2%
99.2%
1.51
1.37
March 2015
CTAC First Reviews
122
129
136
120
118
118
128
116
108
92
78
75
64%
64%
84
CTAC
Approval Rate
83%
73%
68%
70%
72%
75%
67%
72%
75%
67%
73%
CTAC % of On-Sch. & Express
44%
45%
43%
45%
42%
40%
42%
40%
37%
32%
32%
34%
36%
March 2015
OnSchedule 1st Reviews
242
223
248
241
203
195
239
194
189
203
185
192
210
OnSchedule
OnTime/Early BEMP
98%
95.0%
95.0%
96.50%
96.0% 96.0% 96.0%
94.0%
95.0%
94.0% 93.5%
90.5% 90.5%
OnSchedule
OnTime/Early All Trades
97.4% 97.5% 97.6%
95.0%
94.0%
92.0%
90.4% 90.4%
95.6% 95.3%
94.8% 95.1%
92.9%
March 30, 2015
Plan Review Lead Times for OnSchedule Review
3/30/15
Electrical
Working Days
5
2
3/30/15
Building
Electrical
Working Days
5
2
3/30/15
Building
Electrical
15
3
Mech /
County Fire
Plumbing
County
Zoning
Backflow CMUD
Health
City Zoning
City Fire
2
2
2
6
2
County
Zoning
Backflow CMUD
Health
City Zoning
City Fire
2
2
4
9
2
County
Zoning
Backflow CMUD
Health
City Zoning
City Fire
3
5
4
13
3
1-2 hour Reviews
Building
4
2
3-4 hour Reviews
Mech /
County Fire
Plumbing
5
6
2
5-8 Hour Reviews
Mech /
County Fire
Plumbing
20
Working Days
20
Green: Booking Lead Times within 2 weeks
Yellow: Booking Lead Times within 3-4 weeks
Red: Booking Lead Times exceeds 4 weeks
3
(10 - 14 work days = The Goal)
(15 - 20 work days)
(21 work days or greater)
All booking lead times indicated are a snapshot in time on the date specified.
The actual booking lead time may vary on the day you submit the OnSchedule Application.
21
March 30, 2015
Express Review
Appointments are available for:
Small projects in 5 working days
Large projects in 15 working days
Appointments are typically determined by the furthest lead time.
For Example: If M/P is 11 days, the project's
appointment will be set at approximately 11 days.
Plan Review Lead Times for CTAC Review
B/E/M/P
County
Fire
County
Zoning
Health
City
Zoning
City Fire
3
1
1
1
1
1
CTAC Reviews
3/30/15
Working Days
Green: Review Turnaround Times are within CTAC goal of 5 days or less
Red: Review Turnaround Times exceed CTAC goal of 5 days or less
-