City of Columbia
Growth and Development Review Process
February, 2008
By Ron Darden, MTAS Municipal Management Consultant
Introduction
This Report will review the city’s growth and development review process
including engineering, planning and zoning, and building and property maintenance
inspection. As the city has grown, policies, procedures, facilities, organizations and
staffing levels have been put in place to meet the increasing needs of the city. This report
is an outsider’s look at these areas, along with recommendations for improvement.
The department directors and staff were very cooperative in providing
information and data for this report.
Engineering
The engineering department is responsible for design and review standards for
new residential and commercial buildings, traffic studies, traffic signalization studies,
developing a street paving list, storm water reviews, street construction standards,
subdivision development standards, and the enforcement of building and property
maintenance codes, and public facility construction and maintenance of public facilities;
all important to the growth and development of a growing city.
The staff includes:
Director Jim Fuller, P.E., City Engineer
Assistant Director Armond Harris II, P.E.
Civil Engineer Associate David Klutsenbaker
Civil Engineering Technician (currently vacant)
Engineering Intern Glenn Harper
Administrative Secretary Donna Morris
The Director reports to the city manager.
A frequent complaint by builders, architects, engineers, and developers in many
cities is that building permits, site plans, and grading and storm water reviews require too
much time. They state that time is money and a slow review cost them money. It
appears that engineering reviews for the most part in the city are prompt; that follow up
on design deficiencies are followed up with applicants; and pre review meetings are
provided to explain development standards and requirements. Much delay is associated
with the requirement for re-submittals, inadequate design and applicant’s failure to pick
up approved documents once the review is completed.
1
The department maintains a log book that records the date a design is submitted;
the date that additional submittals are received; and the date that the applicant picks up
the completed design review. The log does not indicate the date that the review was
completed. Staff reports that they sometimes get behind on drainage reviews, primarily
because of inadequate design submittals and the time required for re-submittals. They
also state that staffing is inadequate. The engineering department does not use private
engineering consultants to assist with reviews.
Recommendation: (a) Record the date the review is completed in the log book
in addition to the date that the plan design is picked up at the office. (b) The city may
want to re evaluate design review fees it charges developers in an effort to reduce time
related costs to builders and developers and authorize the engineering department to
employee private engineering consultants for review of drainage when backlogs of
reviews are encountered. The increased design review fees may be insignificant in
comparison to delay costs. (c) Conduct an annual survey of architects, engineers,
builders and developers to identify satisfaction levels, problems, and recommended
solutions. With their participation, they may be more likely to buy into the city’s
development review procedures. It will, at the very least, let them know that their
concerns are being looked at.
The city’s engineering department does not conduct water and wastewater design
reviews for water and wastewater extensions and construction. The wastewater
department uses private engineering consultants for wastewater design and construction
reviews and the CPWS conducts independent reviews of water system extensions.
Recommendation: Require the city’s water and wastewater departments to
submit all plans for the extension and construction of all utilities to the engineering
department for review and approval. The actual design services for utilities could remain
with the water and wastewater departments and private consulting engineers. The time
for required reviews could be significantly reduced and the city’s development standards
review could be more centralized.
The city’s planning commission allows for phased development and construction
of subdivisions with required bonds posted guaranteeing the cost of completing streets
and drainage. The bond amount is determined by the engineering department and it does
not include provisions for water and wastewater construction. It is reported that the water
and wastewater systems establish required bonds for new construction within their
respective departments. It is reported that some of the older bonds still in place may not
be sufficient.
Recommendation: Review the adequacy of bonds.
In addition to engineering duties, the engineering director supervises the building
official, public building construction and public facility maintenance. An executive
secretary housed in the building official’s office handles the day to day administration of
public property maintenance and reports to the engineering director. The executive
2
secretary also assists with administrative requirements for building code and property
maintenance code enforcement.
Recommendation: The city code indicates that the building inspection group is a
city department. The present organization with the building official reporting to the city
engineer is not conductive to good management practices. It is recommended:




Remove the building department from engineering and let it function as a city
department.
Remove public facility maintenance from engineering and assign to public works.
Remove the executive secretary from engineering and re assign to the building
department.
Re develop the organization structure for public works to accommodate the
additional duties.
The GIS staff person does not work under the direction of the city engineer. The
city’s engineer does not have readily access to all water, wastewater, natural gas,
telecommunication, electric, and structure maps for overlays beneficial for reviews,
public health and safety. It is important that the GIS staff person’s work be closely
coordinated with the city engineer in developing maps, drawings, and other documents.
It appears that every department and agency has its own GIS services.
Recommendation: Assign the GIS staff person to engineering and consolidate
GIS services and mapping for all departments. The MIS department should continue to
provide computer support to GIS.
The city does not regulate the construction of signs. Since signs are classified as
structures in the building codes and often involve extensive foundations, electrical and
mechanical systems, and structural members, and exposure to wind loads and seismic
conditions, a building permit should be required and standards should be enforced.
Recommendation: Require sign construction permits for signs over 16 square
feet (or some other dimension) that are permanently affixed to structures or to the ground.
Assign the inspection permitting responsibility to the building official.
Typically building reviews do not go to the planning commission for review.
MTAS concurs with this procedure since it expedites the review process and the staff is
capable of performing the technical design review.
The engineering department prepares the annual paving list that includes
recommendations for street paving. Since street paving usually represents a significant
expenditure and professional judgment is required in evaluating the conditions of
pavement and street drainage, MTAS concurs with this practice.
3
The department’s communication equipment is satisfactory and adequate training
opportunities are provided. The city pays for professional license fees required. The
staff reports that the city manager and the council are supportive of their efforts.
Planning and Zoning
The municipal planning commission is made up of seven (7) members including
the mayor and one member of the council appointed by the council. Staff reports that the
planning commission is generally supportive of staff recommendations.
The planning staff consists of:
Planning Director David Holdenfield
Assistant Director Paul Keltner
Administrative Secretary Wendy Crumley
Planning Assistant Carl Rowland
Grants Coordinator Bobbie Gallup
Recommendation: Re assign the grants coordinator to another department or
division. Her office is currently in the finance department.
The planning director supports the planning commission, architectural board,
historic zoning board, and the board of zoning appeals, and reports to the city manager.
He supervises the grants coordinator, who is presently located in the finance department.
The director is also the zoning administrator and determines correct zoning on all
applications for permits.
The board of zoning appeals heard 36 appeals during the past 12 months. It is
reported that they follow a strict interpretation of the requirements for variances to the
zoning ordinance.
The planning department enforces the provisions of the sign ordinance; however,
sign permits for new construction are not required by the city. It is doubtful that the
planning staff has much power for enforcing the sign ordinance.
Recommendation: Require sign permits for signs over 16 square feet (or some
other dimension) that are affixed to structures or are permanently attached to the ground.
Require the property maintenance inspectors to enforce sign maintenance requirements.
The city participated in the development of the 20-year growth plan required by
Public Chapter 1101. The city’s planning commission lacks the power to enforce
development standards within the city’s urban growth area. PC 1101 requires county
approval to control zoning and development in order to enforce city development
standards within the city’s urban growth area. The city will have to deal with any
4
substandard development that may occur within the urban growth area, including the cost
of improving any substandard construction, in the future.
Recommendation: Seek or support legislative changes to PC 1101 that would
allow the city to control growth and development in the city’s urban growth area.
The city’s engineering department conducts design reviews for drainage and street
construction associated with commercial building and subdivisions. Staff reports that the
reviews often require more than normal periods of time for review; however, the planning
commission meets required plat review time periods established by state law. All
commercial buildings are not required to go before the planning commission for review.
Site plans are required for over two (2) residential units and for commercial properties.
The planning staff files the final subdivision plat with the county register of
deeds. During the past twelve (12) months, fifty-six (56) minor subdivision plats and
twenty-nine (29) major subdivision plats were reviewed by the planning commission staff
and the planning commission. The planning staff level is reported to be adequate.
Most of the city’s planning documents and studies are in need of being updated.
Following is a list of planning documents and their date of update:
Land Use Plan -1968
Subdivision Regulations-1982
Transportation Plan-1990
Growth Plan-2001
Recommendation: Take immediate steps to update the above plans and studies.
While engineering is responsible for technical standards in the subdivision regulations,
the planning commission is responsible for updating and approving.
The city does not use a one-stop permitting procedure. Development proposals
and designs are reviewed by a screening committee consisting of various departments on
a monthly basis just prior to the planning commission meeting.
Recommendation: Develop a one-stop permitting procedure whereby an
applicant only has to go to one location for a permit. This will require the cooperation of
other city departments and agencies. Request that water and gas systems, as well as
wastewater participate in a one-stop permitting procedure. Organize a development
review committee that meets weekly and once the committee approves a commercial
permit or a subdivision review, let the project go as a permit or to the planning
commission for review and approval. Assign a staff person to guide each project through
the development process.
The city does not on a regular basis extend its boundaries to include the fringe
areas that are developing. Apparently the city only annexes upon request. Cities must
grow and expand the tax base for effective growth and development.
5
Homeowners and businesses often locate near the fringes of the city because of
the economic opportunities that the city provides. The city functions as a center for
commerce and industry. It serves as a cultural center and provides infrastructure and/or
operating programs for education, medical, commercial banks, libraries, professional
offices, courts, recreation, government offices, and other centers important to growth and
development of the city. The city serves as a retail center for the area and its economic
development programs provide job opportunities for the community. Residents who live
on the fringes of the city are, for the most part, already part of the city. It is important for
the growth and development of the city that the city’s fringe areas be included as part of
the city and it is important that they pay their proportional share of the cost of capital and
operating costs associated with city provided services. The city should make reasonable
efforts to broaden its tax base through annexation, just as it supports increased
development to broaden the tax base.
The city has identified potential areas of growth in its 20-year Growth Plan
developed in 2001. The city would be wise to identify areas within the city’s urban
growth area for the development of annexation studies to determine the feasibility of
annexation, rather than waiting for a petition for annexation.
Recommendation: Review the density of development in the fringe areas as well
as the potential for development within the urban growth area and conduct annexation
studies to determine the feasibility of annexation. Take the initiative to annex those areas
that are feasible. The city must recognize that there will be opposition to any proposed
annexation that is not requested. The courts have recognized the needs for cities to annex
and have supported reasonable plans of services required for annexation. MTAS can
assist in developing annexation studies at no cost to the city.
Section 18-104 of the municipal code states that “where a property owner desires
to connect to the sewer line outside the corporate limits, it shall be done after approval of
the board of the City of Columbia following a petition by the property owner for
annexation.” The next sentence states that the council may allow connection to the sewer
without annexation of the property. The policy appears to be contradictory.
Recommendation: Do not provide wastewater services to areas outside the city.
Seek legislation that allows the city to control development, especially the location and
construction of utilities, in the urban growth area. Remove the second sentence as above
stated.
The Cost of Residential Growth
Jim Rhody, in his Rutherford County Impact Study, The Public Cost of Growth,
of 1992, concluded that in a study of 100 new average priced homes in Rutherford
County that residential growth does not pay for itself. For each dollar of tax revenue
generated from residential growth, over three (3) dollars is required for roads, schools,
public safety and government buildings operating and capital costs. He points out that
6
developers will not participate in a residential development unless they can recoup their
expenses. Governments often participate in residential developments not knowing what
their associated operating and capital costs will be or whether or not they will recoup
their expenses. They mistakenly assume that residential growth will pay for itself.
While the city does charge some impact fees, it may be beneficial to develop a method
for analyzing the governments cost, including county schools, associated with residential
development. The city’s tax revenues may cover reasonable increases in costs associated
with residential growth; however, if the growth is rapid, tax revenues may not keep up
with the cost of development. The city may need to seek additional adequate facilities
revenue or some other method to pay for the increased costs of residential development.
Some cities are of the opinion that the city cannot annex absent an updated Land Use
Plan and an updated zoning ordinance. MTAS consultants are not aware of any
requirements that the Land Use Plan and/or the zoning ordinance, or any other plan, be
updated as a condition for future annexations. The requirements for annexation are
outlined in state statutes and the city may annex into its urban growth area by ordinance
or referendum, regardless of outdated plans.
Miscellaneous Planning
The city charter requires three readings of an ordinance. An ordinance to approve a
planned unit development, a zoning change, and annexation could be expedited with
fewer readings. Public hearings can still be conducted even with one or two readings of
an ordinance.
Recommendation: Amend the city charter to provide for only two readings of an
ordinance. Some development issues that require ordinances could be acted upon more
readily.
Although the planning department does not have an operating procedures manual,
they do have excellent brochures explaining the development review process and
requirements and should be commended for their quality. All proposed annexations by
the council are reviewed by the planning commission as required by law. Staff reports
that adequate training is provided for the planning commission members and staff as
required by law.
A comparison of development fees for comparable cities is provided:
7
City Planing and Zoning Fees
Note: February 2006 Survey by MTAS Library
Alcoa
Preliminary Plat
Site Plan Review
Review
$100 $100 +$10 per lot
Final Plat
Review
$10 +$1 per lot
Landscape Plan BOZA Appeal
Zoning
Review
Application
Request
Included in site pl
$100
Brentwood
$100+$25 per lot
$100+$25 per lot
$100+$25 per lot
Included in site pl
Cookeville
Incld. In bldg. Permit
$200+$200 insp.
fee if requried
$65 if 2 lots or less
$100 for 2 lots or more
Bristol
0, set by council
$20+$3 per lot
$100+$25 per lot
0,set by council
Collierville
Less than 10 acres
$500+$50 per lot
$1,000
10+acres $1250+$40
per acre over 10
Franklin
$175+$.015/sf
non-residential+$10
per unit
Germantown Prel. & final $600
$100+$20/lot
Kingsport
$50 25 acres and less $1,000
25-49.9 acres $2,000
50-99.9 acres $3,000
100-199.9 acres $4,000
200 acres or more $5,000
$25 residential
$50 commercial
$100
$100
$500+$50 per lot
1 acress or less $200 residential
$150
1-10 acres $250
$3,000
$1,000
$100+$25/let
Included in site pl
$50 $500 except planned resident
and planned commercial
$100+$.015/sf commercial
and $10/ dwelling unit
$400 $75 residential
$100 non-res.
$150 use on appeal
0
$40
0
$175
$175
$300
$250
Included in site pl.
$100
Maryville
$100 0-1 acres
$150 1.01-10 acres
$200 10.01-20 acres
$250 20.1-50 acres
$399 50.01 or more
$10 1-2 lots
Included in site pl.
$10+$1 /lot 3-30 lts.
$20+$1/lot over 30 lts.
$100
Morristown
0,$100 after 3rd sub.
$250 $250/plat
$50/lot
$100/plat
$25/lot
0
$150
$50
$100+$25/let
0
$600 to $3,600
$0
$100+2 cents/sf bldg. $100_$10/let
0
0
$200-$500
LaVergne
Murfresboro
0
$200
$25
$100-3-10 lots
$200 11-30 lots
$300 31-50 lots
$400 over 50 lots
0
$200
0
$50
$100
0 $200+$50 admin.
$50 special exc.
$300+$20/lot
$300+$20/lot
Pplus request $300 Plus request $300
Johnson City $55-$250
Ordinance Amend.
Request
0
0
0
$50
$100
0
0
$200
$500
0
0
$100
$100
$50
Smyrna
$100_$.02/sf bldg
$100+$20/lot
Oak Ridge
$50 2 acres less
$100 over 2 acres
$100+$5/lot
$50+$2/lot
0
$50
Columbia
$20 residential
$75 commercial
$75 Industrial
$50+$5/lot
$200+$2/lot
over 30 lots
$75+$2/lot
Minor plat $25
0
$50 $150 1 acre or less
$225 over 1 acre-10 acres
$325 10-25 acres
$475 over 25 acres
$100
0
0
8
It appears from the above data that development fees in fast growing areas charge
higher fees than areas that are trying to increase growth.
Building and Property Maintenance
Scope of Review
This study reviews the organization and operation of the City of Columbia’s
building and property maintenance division. Each member of the building codes staff
was interviewed. The review does not include engineering, planning and GIS
departments, although some reference is made to engineering in terms of time required
for permit application reviews. The author relied on data and information provided by
the building codes staff and compensation data from previous studies. The interpretation
of the data is that of the author.
Adopted Codes
To provide for health, safety and aesthetic values, the city has adopted the
following codes:









International Building Code-Edition 2006
International Residential Code-Edition 2006
International Energy Conservation Code-Edition 2006
International Plumbing Code-Edition 2006
International Mechanical Code-Edition 2006
International Fuel Gas Code-Edition 2006
International Property Maintenance Code-Edition 2006
International Fire Code-Edition 2006
The National Electric Code
The city council has appointed a board of adjustments and appeals to hear appeals
of the chief building official. Since property maintenance violations are mostly heard in
city court, the court system effectively serves as the court of appeals.
Administration and Enforcement
The city has provided the following staff for the administration and enforcement
of the various adopted codes within the building codes division:




Chief building official---------------------------------1
Building and property maintenance inspectors-----2
Executive secretary-------------------------------------1
Secretary-------------------------------------------------1
9
The building codes division is a division of the city engineering department. The
engineering department provides drainage reviews and site plan reviews per city
requirements. The city’s fire department reviews provisions and requirements of the fire
code. The planning department reviews zoning requirements and issues sign permits and
monitors and enforces sign maintenance issues. Utility reviews are made by city utility
staff and the Columbia Utility Board.
In addition to these administrative and enforcement duties and responsibilities, the
building codes division is responsible for municipal building and property maintenance.
The chief building official reports directly to the city engineer. The executive secretary
also reports to the city engineer and provides direct support to building and property
maintenance.
The chief building official supervises the building inspectors and property
maintenance personnel and the secretaries. The chief building official enforces the
various enacted codes, issues permits, conducts plan reviews, issues notices of non
compliance, takes remedial actions required for compliance, resolves conflicts between
inspectors and builders, and coordinates required reviews by engineering, planning, fire
services, and utilities and performs other duties as required. As a division director, his
ability to coordinate with department directors is often somewhat limited in that issues
affecting his division are sometimes resolved without his participation.
The executive secretary is responsible for permit applications, issuing approved
permits, scheduling inspections, receiving complaints, responding to inquiries, preparing
pay records, and administration of the building maintenance program as well as other
assigned duties. The department secretary performs other duties and assists the executive
secretary.
The two building inspectors conduct plan reviews, approve permits and inspect
building, plumbing, mechanical, gas, and property maintenance. The inspectors notify
citizens of non compliance with property maintenance standards and initiate required
enforcement procedures. Approximately 43% of their time is devoted to property
maintenance issues.
Recommendations

Remove the building and property maintenance division from the engineering
department. The chief building official should report to the city manager or a
staff person who is in a position to coordinate activities of planning, zoning,
engineering, sign control and GIS.

Assign the executive secretary to the building codes division instead of the
engineering department and have her report directly to the chief building official.
The present reporting procedure is not conductive to effective management.
10

Reassign the supervision and administration of the building and property
maintenance program to another department that may be responsible for similar
activities.
Permit Applications and Reviews
Building Permit Applications

Building permit applications are made at the office of the chief building
official. Required reviews are routed to planning, engineering, fire services and
utilities. Once the chief building official completes his review and receives
approved reviews from other reviewers, the permit is issued. Most building code
departments experience delays in receiving review comments and approvals.
Although the author did not review planning, fire service and utility reviews, a
review of 79 engineering reviews revealed that review completion dates are not
included in the department’s log book.
No attempt was made to categorize delays caused by inadequate or incomplete
submittals of required data to engineers or whether or not the engineering department is
adequately staffed for such reviews. It is not uncommon for inadequate or incomplete
submittals to require additional time for the review process.
Recommendations

Establish time limits for engineering reviews once required submittals are
adequate.

Consider contracting engineering reviews to private consultants if necessary to
reduce the time required for review.

Consider city sponsored training for contractors, builders, architects, and
engineers who pull city permits to inform them of required submittal
requirements.

Expedite permit review by granting permits with minimal requirements with
instant application and issuance at the permit counter or on-line. Example: A
simple residential room addition or a commercial alteration with no change of
building use.
Sign Permits
Sign permits are issued by the planning department. The planning department
monitors zoning and sign maintenance issues. Sign construction often involves electrical,
structural, footings and foundations and such structures are required to be in compliance
with the city’s building code. The building codes apply to structures as well as buildings.
11
Recommendation

Require that all sign permits be issued by a certified building official.
Zoning Permits
Zoning permit fees are collected on the building permit application. The planning
division reviews the requirements for zoning. Unless a rezoning or variance is requested,
many cities allow the building official to issue a building permit upon his inspection and
interpretation of the approved zoning map.
Recommendation

Allow the chief building official to interpret the approved zoning map and issue
permits which do not involve a rezoning or an appeal without further planning
department review.
Inspections and Builder Communications
The building official is responsible for performing required inspections. Building
officials report that the city manager, the mayor, and the city council support enforcement
efforts.
Inspectors do not use inspection check off sheets. Builders often complain about
deficiencies that were not reported on previous inspections and they are subject to
correcting such deficiencies. With an inspection check off sheet, the cost for correcting
such deficiencies could be avoided or minimized.
Recommendation

Require inspectors to use inspection check off sheets.
Building inspectors are available in the office for two hours during the morning
and two hours in the afternoon for consultation with builders, architects, engineers and
permit holders. During other periods of time secretaries receive the communication and
relay the request or wait until the inspector is available. It is sometimes costly to builders
to wait for long periods of time to resolve an interpretation of code requirements. City
inspectors are furnished cell phones for communication purposes.
12
Recommendation

Require inspectors to be available at all times during their work period to respond
to specific builder questions relating to code requirements. Inspections should
continue to be scheduled by assigned office staff.
Building Code Inspection Enforcement and Appeals
Building inspectors are authorized to issue stop work orders when code
requirements are not met. Most inspection issues are resolved in consultation between
the inspector and the chief building official. Builders who disagree with the chief
building official’s interpretation of the code requirements may appeal directly to the
city’s board of adjustments and appeals. If a permit holder refuses to comply with the
chief building official or a decision of the appeals board, he may appeal the decision to
the appropriate court. When necessary, the city may request that a court enforce the
provisions of its building code.
Property Maintenance Enforcement
The building division staff enforces property maintenance codes. MTAS agrees
with the use of city court to enforce property maintenance issues. Building inspectors are
required to have a police officer issue a citation to city court for violations. The
procedure for removing junked automobiles in city court is effective. The procedure of
citing occupied property owners or tenants to city court for violating tall grass and weeds
is also effective. A non occupied property, where notification is a problem, requires the
city to take action to mow grass and weeds and upon non payment, place a lien on the
property for recovery of costs. The city should carefully monitor the liens and release
those that have been satisfied per the requirements of Tennessee law.
Recommendations

When action is taken to remove dilapidated structures, MTAS recommends that
the city proceed using the provisions of the state’s slum clearance law, which
grants an automatic lien to recover costs.

Request that the city judge hold an environmental court to hear property
maintenance issues and televise the sessions.

Authorize inspectors to issue citations to city court for violations of the property
maintenance codes. Request a police officer to arrest those who refuse the
citation.

Do not charge a demolition fee for a dilapidated structure. The city should
remove as many obstacles to demolition as possible.
13
Number of Inspections and Cost and Revenue Analysis
During fiscal year 2006 the city issued 1702 permits including zoning permits.
Building permits issued
Plumbing permits
Mechanical permits
Gas permits
Zoning permits
Total issued permits
555
266
258
163
460
1702
Note: Residential mechanical and gas permits are included with the building
permit.
Using 235 work days per year, the division issued 7.24 permits per day.
Revenues from these permits totaled $321,624.50. Expenditures for the building code
and property maintenance division totaled $249,546.49. Revenue per permit was
$188.97 and expense per permit was $146.62.
The division conducted 1,991 building permit inspections and 1,497 property
maintenance inspections. 43% of inspections were for property maintenance issues.
Because of the way inspections are counted, cost per inspection could not accurately be
determined and are not presented. A framing, plumbing and mechanical inspection
performed on one inspection visit is recorded as one inspection. Approximately 4 to 5
site visits per day are not counted as inspections. It would be beneficial to compare the
costs per inspection for the city of Columbia with comparable cities.
The costs of permits in the city of Columbia are comparable to similar sized
cities.
Recommendations

When multiple code inspections are conducted on one visit, count an inspection
for each code inspected. All site visits should be counted as inspections, but not
as re-inspections.

Establish clear cost and revenue centers for building and codes and for property
maintenance in the city’s accounting system. This is necessary for cost
comparison purposes.
Computer Equipment and Software
The building division devotes considerable resources for issuing permits, tracking
the review and permitting process, issuing notices, recording inspections, maintaining
records, administration and responding to builder inquiries. For the most part, most of
the activities of the building codes division are performed manually. Consideration may
14
be in order to consider ways to provide the information more effectively and efficiently.
Delays amount to added costs for builders and the use of manual procedures and process
will only increase costs in the future. The city should consider upgrading software and
providing adequate computer equipment for the staff. MTAS recommends the following:
Recommendations

Provide inspectors with laptop computers capable of recording inspections, notes,
and comments into a building codes data base.

E-mail or fax review comments to builders, contractors, architects, and engineers
without waiting for the completion of the review. Time is money to builders and
there are no good reasons for waiting to inform them of compliance issues.

Install a voice recognition system that allows contractors and builders to schedule
inspections over the phone with an automated system.

Provide builders, architects, engineers, and contractors with access to permit
applications, review status, issuance status on demand via the Internet,
telephone/fax, or e-mail.
Staff Classification, Compensation and Facilities
Staff compensation should be addressed in the city’s pay classification plan.
Appendix 1 presents staff compensation in comparable sized cities. The building codes
staff classification needs to be updated. The secretaries should be classified as permit
technicians or permit specialists because that more accurately describes their jobs. Some
consideration needs to be given to compensate inspectors who attain additional inspection
classifications that are beneficial to the city.
Physical facilities for building codes and storage may be inadequate. The
conference table is in an open area and meetings often interrupt other office activities.
Recommendations

Consider relocating the building division to an area with more space and that is
more accessible to builders, architects, engineers, and permit holders.

Develop classifications for inspectors who have multiple certifications.

Re-classify division secretaries as permit technicians or permit specialists.
Customer Relations
Employees, who issue notices, write tickets, issue warnings, issue citations, testify
in court, and enforce code requirements are often viewed negatively by affected citizens.
15
Training and re-training in good public relations is often needed. Employees sometimes
become hardened and insensitive to complaints and need to be reminded how to better
respond to negative comments or actions.
Contractors, builders, architects, and engineers, who pull permits and strive to
comply with city regulations, often have ideas or suggestions for improving the code
process. They are more likely to “buy” into the city’s code enforcement program if they
are consulted about how they are treated and improvements needed.
Recommendations

Provide customer relations training for code enforcement staff.

Conduct annual satisfaction and suggestion surveys of builders, contractors,
architects, and engineers, who pull permits or oversee design and construction on
permitted work, requesting information relating to their level of satisfaction and
recommendations for improving the code enforcement program.
General
Facilities- The city’s facilities for engineering, planning, and building codes are
cramped and inadequate for the review of large drawings, maps, and plans. It is
recommended that the city look at the adequacy of facilities for these functions for the
future.
16
17