Mecklenburg County
February 17, 2015
@ 3:00 p.m.
Agenda
Building-Development
Commission
1.
Minutes Approved
2.
BDC Member Issues
3.
Public Attendee Issues
4.
AE-GC-Builder Task Force Report / Best Practice……….….J.Bartl/G.Morton/P.Granson
5.
Adjournment
The next BDC Meeting is scheduled for 3:00 p.m., March 17th, 2015.
Please mark your calendars.
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Minutes of January 20, 2015 Meeting
Jonathan Bahr opened the Building-Development Commission (BDC) meeting at 3:07 p.m. on Tuesday,
January 20, 2015.
Present:
Jonathan Bahr, Rob Belisle, Tom Brasse, Melanie Coyne, Bernice Cutler, Travis Haston, Hal
Hester, Ed Horne, Ben Simpson and John Taylor
Absent:
Chad Askew
1. MINUTES APPROVED
Bernice Cutler made the motion to approve the BDC Meeting Minutes from the January 20th meeting;
seconded by Ed Horne. The motion passed unanimously.
2. BDC MEMBER ISSUES
Tom Brasse asked for an update on the County City collaborative to repair the holds process.
Jim Bartl replied that we are working on it and have a three (3) part strategy to address it.
Tom Brasse asked how many demo permits we have per month and is it broken out by residential and
commercial?
Patrick Granson stated that this is difficult to break out; although we can break it out by UCC codes.
There is total demo and renovation demo. The total demo is what you look for.
Jonathan Bahr asked how this information is beneficial.
Tom Brasse shared that it allows him to see how many projects are being built on areas that had a
structure previously.
3. PUBLIC ATTENDEE ISSUES
No public attendee issues.
4. BDC BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE WORK
Jim Bartl discussed the upcoming budget subcommittee work and the memo in draft that will be
distributed to budget members. The Department has tentatively planned these meetings for Friday, Feb.
6th, Wednesday, Feb. 25th and Friday March 13th with meetings lasting 2-3 hours. The March 17th BDC
meeting will be entirely made up of the budget presentation. Jim stated last year’s volunteers as Jonathan
Bahr, Elliot Mann, John Taylor, Travis Haston and Bernice Cutler/Chad Askew then asked for volunteers
for the FY16 budget subcommittee work. Volunteers included Jonathan Bahr, Travis Haston, Tom
Brasse, John Taylor (problem w/ the 26th but can attend all others). Bernice Cutler suggested
collaborating with Chad Askew and tag teaming the subcommittee meetings since she is only available to
attend the 2nd budget subcommittee meeting being held on Wed. Feb. 25th. Bernice to contact Chad
Askew then get back to JNB if this works. Jonathan Bahr asked that JNB contact Jon Morris to see if he
would be interested in participating on this budget subcommittee. Ed Horne suggested that previous BDC
member Wanda Towler did a great job on the budget subcommittee in the past.
5. UPDATE STATUS OF HYBRID COLLABORATIVE DELIVERY TEAM
Howard Grindstaff presented an update status on the Hybrid Collaborative Delivery Team. Team initiatives
include the web page on Meckpermit.com that went live on Friday, Jan. 16th, have finalized the internal policy
and procedures manual, Plan Submittal Guidelines Document and the HCDT BIM/IPD Process Flow Chart.
Currently benchmarking the use of Surface pro with data connected through an IPhone 6 which includes data
use and compatibility; ease of accessing BIM models on intranet G: drive and the use of BIM software on
surface cloud account for transferring Models. Project updates include the VA Care Center with the
completion of footings foundations with exterior skin 50% complete. The interior build out has begun on all
levels in all phases, rough-in inspections are taking place on the basement and level 1, Plan review is ongoing
as changes occur. The estimated completion date is December 2015. The Davidson College Martin Science
Building has footings complete, the foundation structural elements are being erected. Most of the underground
trade work has been completed. The interior build out review of model is underway with an estimated
completion date June 2017. Davidson College New Athletic Building (Baker Arena) currently has footings
complete and under slab trade work is complete. Slab on grade is 60% complete with structural steel erection
BDC Meeting
January 20, 2015
Page 2 of 8
to begin end of January. Plan review is 100% complete and estimated completion date is November 2015.
Currently our open positions include one (1) BIM Navigator Position; this opening to post January 21, 2015.
Four (4) HCDT Code Officials (previously approved and funded). We know there are large BIM-design/build
projects in the works that will double the HCD Team’s workload in the next 9-12 months. Consequently, we
requested & received permission from the LUESA Director to begin advertising and fill the 4 open HCDT
positions. The team is currently working with management to identify new HCDT projects to include
downtown high-rises, construction on area hospitals and construction at Charlotte Douglas Airport.
BC: Do you work off a schedule from the design team?
HG: The model is in the cloud, put in app with scoping letter approve at that time and move forward.
BC: Do they typically have semi-weekly meetings that you get invited to?
HG: VA yes, at one point in VA we went to RPA design once per week.
BS: What makes this process better? This process saves times because reviews are going on
simultaneously?
JB: The cycles have been replaced by validation documents and encourages continuous dialogue; not set
cycles.
BS: What’s negative?
HG: None. We have had nothing negative at all.
JT: I asked our teams about the Davidson projects. Our teams had a different experience. Have you
reached out to different contractors and owners what the experienced been so far on the pros/cons and
have you created a pro/con list?
HG: One of the owners of the VA contacted me after the topping out. He wanted to sit w/ me, put it
down on paper and take it across the country. He had never had a project move so swift, fast and the
collaboration was so good.
JT: What is going to be the outlook? Our involvement w/ BIM is that it is different w/ every project.
How is Building Standards going to incorporate it after going through the test pilots?
JB: We are assuming it is going to be different.
RB: What is the fee?
JB: Hourly on the plan review side and will come back to you on the inspection side once we have
assessed this.
HG: At every preliminary we give an estimate timeframe per trade.
BC: See strong benefit on inspection end and will go back and look at that?
HG: We are already seeing it.
RB: How are you identifying folks that can change direction and be open minded on procedures that can
be done?
JB: Hiring process having a strong understanding that this is different and doesn’t run the way typical
P&I processes work. It’s a hard agreement that is working well.
TB: Can’t see this on your iPad now?
HG: We can. You can give me rights to log into your cloud account.
Jim shared that if other questions, Howard will stay after the meeting to answer all your questions.
6. QUARTERLY REPORTS
Code Compliance Report
Joe Weathers provided the Code Compliance Report as listed below:
o Note; all of the Department quarterly reports we’re available in the drop box last week. You should
have received an e-mail around last Friday (Jan 16) from Rebecca advising of same.
o “Not ready”; Bldg – 6.98% (was 7.31%), Elec – 7.52% (was 8.54%), Mech – 6.71% (was 5.6%),
plbg – 7.93% (was 9.45%)
o Rough/finish % split varies, some up, some down
o Bldg; rough @ 36.81% (was 39.52%), finish @ 21.67% (was 19.63%)
o Elec; rough @ 23.29% (was 19.89%), finish @ 52.02% (was 53.52%)
o Mech; rough @ 29.49% (was 30.62%), finish @ 52% (was 58%)
BDC Meeting
January 20, 2015
Page 3 of 8
o
o Plbg; rough @ 26.01% (was 30.32), finish @ 41.25% (was 40.57%)
“Top 15” repeating topics; building at 87%, Electrical at 93%, Mech at 74% and Plbg at 87%
Technical Advisory Board Quarterly Report
Lon McSwain reported that The TAB held no meetings in the last quarter.
Consistency Team Report
Lon McSwain summarized the Consistency Team Report as listed below:
o Building: held three sets of meetings this quarter.
 Bldg-Residential: addressed a total of 17 questions. Contractor attendance averaged 7.5 at each
meeting.
 Bldg-Commercial: addressed a total of 24 questions. There were no contractor or AE attendees at
any of these meetings.
 Bldg December meeting: the regular meeting was replaced by the December 3 legal presentation,
followed by a presentation on Chapter 4 of the NC Energy code by an outside vender.
o Electrical: held two consistency meetings. In total, the October and November meetings addressed 30
topics, with 14 contractors attending the November meeting. The December meeting was conducted
by an outside vendor discussing Hazardous locations surrounding fuel dispensers and proper wiring
methods.
o Mechanical/Fuel Gas: there were two Mechanical/ Fuel Gas meetings, addressing 12 Mechanical
questions. Contractors attending included 4 in October and 7 in November. The December meeting
was cancelled due to the holiday.
o Plumbing: there were two Plumbing meetings, addressing 14 questions. Contractors attending
included 3 in October and 4 in November. The December meeting was cancelled due to the holiday.
Commercial Plan Review Report
Part I: 65% of projects pass on 1st rev’w (down from 74%); 91% passed on 2nd rev’w (up from 81%)
o pass rates on 1st review by trade:
Bldg–75% (was 84%); Elec – 88% (was 89%); Mech – 85% (was 81%); Plbg – 82% (was 81%);
Part II: most common defects: examples
 Bldg: Appendix B, exit related (3), structural, UL assembly , energy summary, hardware,
 Elec: services/feeders, general, branch circuits, grounding & bonding, transformers, swimming pools,
class 1 locations
 Mech: eqpt location & installations, duct systems, exhaust, fresh air req’t, gas pipe size & inst’l, gas
eqpt installation
 Plbg: plbg syst inst’l, drainage piping, venting, minimum facilities, water distr piping & mat’ls, water
heater installation, traps
Part III: 1st use of “approved as noted” (AAN) at 34% by all trades on average (last quarter was 35%)
 biggest users; CFD (84%) and MCFM (78%)
 critical path users;
Bldg (30%, down from 32%), Elec (15%, up from 14%),
Mech (13%, down from 15%), Plbg (10%, down from 12%)
 So Bldg and M/P down 2%, Elec up a little.
Clarification on Commercial Plan Review Stats sent to members on February 10th, 2015.
The Commercial Plan Review numbers on individual discipline pass rates were double checked. The 1st
cycle pass rates read in the meeting were correct at: Building 75%, Electrical 88%, Mechanical 85%,
and Plumbing 82%. The projection also indicated the total average discipline pass rates for all
cycles. These were also correct at Building 84%, Electrical 86%, Mechanical 88%, and Plumbing 88%.
BDC Meeting
January 20, 2015
Page 4 of 8
7. QUARTERLY BDC BULLETIN EXERCISE
Previous bulletin topics:
January, 2013
IOS Commercial score of 1
BOCC approves 21 positions
April, 2013
Change of BDC leadership
Lien agent legislative change
July, 2013
Ft14 Code Enforcement budget
proposal
October, 2013
New BDC members
Racking permit process
discussions
Status of 12/4/2012
betterment
Economic data trends and
betterment proposal
Code interp search engine
goes live
Revisions to inspections auto
notification
Trends considered in Fy14
budget development
CTAC-EPS installation takes
Dept to 98% paperless
POSSE upgrade
announcement
Fy14 budget technology
enhancements
Owner-developer webpage
and “starting a small business”
webpage
BIM-IPD and future
Department challenges
January, 2014
April, 2014
Role of the BDC
CA web search engine
available
2014 CSS survey distribution
Customer Service Center
design project work
HCD Team concept
CSC design project
BDC discussion of BCC 6
year code cycle proposal
BDC Select Comm to meet
with industry
IRT Subcommittee
recommendation to add
inspector positions
July, 2014
Customer Service Center
Project status
Phased Occupancy Best
Practice Summary
October, 2014
AE-GC-Builder Task Force
startup and progress
MF Elec Service revised DOI
interpretation
Reminder on paperless review
process
Select Committee status and
following Task Force work
AE feedback tool Fy14 results
Overview of the Department’s
work
BDC Select Committee
completes assignment
January, 2015
Gartner Report Status
AE-GC-Builder Task Force
Recommendations
Best Practice Summaries
Hybrid Collaborative Delivery
(HCD) Team Progress
Looking Forward to the FY16
Budget Process
8. DEPARTMENT STATISTICS AND INITIATIVES REPORT
Permit Revenue:



December permit (only) rev - $1,512,231, compares to November permit rev - $1,314,145
Fy15 budget projected monthly permit rev = $1,716,109; so Dec is $204k below projection
YTD permit rev = $10,746,524, is above projection ($10,296,655) by $450k or 4.37%.
o Note: for comparison, December 2013 permit (only) revenue was $1,681,309
Construction Value of Permits Issued:

November total - $326,300,737, compares to November total - $295,546,037
BDC Meeting
January 20, 2015
Page 5 of 8

YTD at 12/31/14 of $2,654,418,991; 37% above Fy14 constr value permitted at 12/31/14 of $1.930M
Permits Issued:


Nov
Dec
3 Month Trend
3879
3872
4490/4784/3879/3872
Residential
2226
3237
2855/2835/2226/3237
Commercial
387
461
434/546/387/461
Other (Fire/Zone)
6492
7570
7779/8165/6492/7570
Total
Changes (Nov-Dec); Residential same; commercial up 45%; total up 16.6%
Note; after 6 months, SF new construction permits total 1637; up 8% from 1517 SF permits at 12/31/13
Inspection Activity: Inspections Performed:

Insp.
Req.
Nov
Dec
Insp.
Perf.
Nov
Dec
%
Change
Bldg.
5944
6532
Bldg.
5872
6327
+7.75%
Elec.
6413
7198
Elec.
6376
7275
+14.1%
Mech.
3541
4163
Mech.
3437
4313
+25.5%
Plbg.
2865
3092
Plbg.
2835
3119
+10%
Total
18,673
20,985
Total
18,520
21,034
+13.57%
Changes (Nov-Dec); all trades down 23-25%; Insp performed were 100.2% 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
Nov
Dec
Nov
Dec
Nov
Dec
Nov
Dec
Bldg.
80.2
81.9
96.2
96.7
99.13
99.5
1.24
1.24
Elec.
61.3
59.9
94.1
93.1
99.2
99.4
1.45
1.47
Mech.
60.3
44.9
92.2
74.1
98.8
94.5
1.48
1.87
Plbg.
77.5
67.6
98.1
96.7
99.9
99.5
1.23
1.37
Total
69.6
64.6
95.0
90.8
99.2
98.5
1.35
1.47
OnTime %
Per the BDC Performance Goal agreement (7/20/2010), the goal range is 85-90%, so the IRT
report indicates the December average is currently 20.4% below the goal range.
Inspection Pass Rates for December, 2014:
OVERALL MONTHLY AV’G @ 81.63% in November, compared to 82% in November
Bldg:
November – 76.87%
Elec: November – 78.97%
December – 77.36%
December – 77.77%
BDC Meeting
January 20, 2015
Page 6 of 8
November – 86.04%
Plbg: November – 90.34%
December – 84.61%
December – 90.59%
Bldg and Plbg up <1/2%; Elec down 1%, Mech down 1.4%
Overall average down <1/2% from last month, and above 75-80% goal range
Mech:


OnSchedule and CTAC Numbers for December, 2014:
CTAC:
 78 first reviews, compared to 108 in November.
 Projects approval rate (pass/fail) – 64%
 CTAC was 32% of OnSch (*) first review volume (78/78+162 = 240) = 32.5%
*CTAC as a % of OnSch is based on the total of only scheduled and Express projects
OnSchedule:
 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
Booking Lead Times:
o On Schedule Projects: for reporting chart posted on line, on December 29, 2014, showed
o 1-2 hr projects; at 2 work days booking lead, except Health-4 and City Zoning - 6 work days
o 3-4 hr projects; at 2 work days lead, except Health-4 and City Zoning - 6 work days
o 5-8 hr projects; at 3-6 days, except Health at 9 work days
o CTAC plan review turnaround time; BEMP at 4 work days, and all others at 1 day.
o Express Rev’w booking lead time; 10 work days for small projects, 19 work days for large
projects
Status Report on Various Department Initiatives
Follow-up from BDC December Meeting
Discuss Gartner recommendations with AE-GC-Builder Task Force
In meeting #7 the Task Force reviewed the Gartner Executive Summary recommendations, in comparison to
the Task Force work on the 19 action items referred by the BDC. In meeting #8 the Task Force agreed to a
specific recommendations related to Gartner’s report, which will be included in the Task Force Final Report,
to be delivered to the BDC in their February meeting.
BDC Meeting
January 20, 2015
Page 7 of 8
Organize BDC Participation in “Best Practice” Discussions
Best Practice discussions held with the industry on Commercial inspections; Monday, January 5, with 5
construction industry attendees; on Residential inspections; Tuesday, January 6, with 6 construction industry
attendees; and on Commercial Plan Review; January 9, with 15 AE attendees. The plan moving forward to
confirm results of all three sessions includes meeting notes distributed to session attendees, along with a draft
of best practice summaries for both inspection requests (how the work is presented to the Department) and
inspections performed (how the inspector goes about their work). After incorporating any final comments, a
final drafts will be distributed to TF members before the January 22 and Feb 5 meetings. The final draft will
be incorporated in the Task Force Final Report and presented to the BDC in their February 17 meeting.
Consistency Data Report Follow-up on Defect Codes
This is a follow up to July 15 and Sept 16 meeting discussions with the BDC on the Consistency Data Report
work executed by the Department at the request of upper County Management. Topics to cover, identified in
JNB’s Sept 8 memo to BDC members, include develop common language among the individual trade defect
lists. The defect lists were initially developed in 1998 on a trade-by-trade basis with industry representatives;
consequently, the same topics may use different language in differing trades. An example of this is “not
ready” vs. “task requested is incomplete”. Another is “defect on previous list not corrected”. Develop
common criteria for the use of “too many defects to list”. Eliminate obsolete terms; such as “call clerk”,
replacing with direct connection to inspection failure information on the web. Develop new tools for paper
based sites; so that failure notes left on site are also auto entered into the project’s POSSE record. Eliminate
all code defect references to “other; further research required. In a meeting on November 3, items ‘’, ‘c’ and
‘e’ were resolved, as reported in the December Special Report to the BDC. The 2nd meeting to discuss item
“b” (“too many defects to list”) and ‘d’ is scheduled for Feb 3rd at 10-11:30am in Hoffman conference room.
AE-GC-Builder Task Force
The Task Force held meetings on December 18th and January 7th. Work is now focused on wrapping up the
Best Practice summaries and developing a final report. Task Force meetings scheduled in the next month
include:
Meeting #9; Thursday, January 22
 Topic #2 ; AE-plan review Best practice summary conclusions
 Continue review of final report
Meeting #10; Thursday, February 5
 Topic #2 ; GC-inspector Best practice summary conclusions
 Complete review of final report
 Wrap up all TF work
We would like to deliver this report to you in the February 17th meeting. The front end of the report
summarizes all the task force work and has 5 parts w/ 17 pages, the appendix is over 110 pages. Our goal is to
take the next 4 days to make the remaining changes then send the document to you on February 10th or 11th so
you will have a week to review prior to our next BDC meeting. The four items that will come out of this will
require recommendation on action by the BDC.
 #4 Training on services/mechanisms/staff roles
 #5.5 Consistency
 #17 Contractor priority based on pass rates
 #18 Inspection trip time allocation
Jim reiterated we would send e-copies on February 10th or 11th. He also asked if any members would like
paper copies. T. Brasse, T. Haston, B. Cutler, R. Belisle, R. Kiser
Updates on Other Department Initiatives in the Works
Customer Service Center (CSC) Design Project
Patrick Granson shared that an RFBA will go before BOCC in February. This pushes back our Phase I
regarding acquisition of technology and process consultant; the four added positions are part of Phase II.
Staffing to include a Senior Customer Liaison/CSC Manager, Sophia Hollingsworth started Jan. 5;
BDC Meeting
January 20, 2015
Page 8 of 8
currently orienting to our mission, processes, and customer base. Offering on training coordinator
position currently in the works. Acquisition of Phase I tech purchases and process consultant (to define
next steps & workflows) pending BOCC ok of RFBA. Also relates to Gartner report discussed in
December. Next steps include incorporating findings from Gartner report, as instructed by CM and
LUESA Director. Train manager and training coordinator; they will then spearhead work on developing
CSC Answer Book, processes and workflows and actual CSC startup. Purchase tech/hire tech &
workflows consultant. Phase 1 (all of above) to be in place by March 31; followed by hiring of remaining
two customer liaison positions. The design criteria frame of reference will be the 3 parts the BDC
accepted on 5/20/2014, including; design criteria grid, how the CSC might work, and supporting tech list.
Specific features included in the strategy are “tiered deployment” as requested by the CSC Focus Group.
Interim space plan, until plans for relocation to former Charlotte School of Law Building are finalized.
Ideally, this move will include a custom space for the CSC. CSC won’t replace PM-CEM’s ownership of
projects, problems and resources to solve them.
PM/CEM Support Pilot
Revising the draft responsibility list to include MCFM related issues. Managers and staff still working to
review/confirm; goals and expectations, duty list, and BDC streamlining pilot. Directors are studying staffing
strategies with HR and LUESA leadership, to initiate the pilot as soon as possible.
7.
MANAGER/CA ADDED COMMENTS
Chuck Walker shared that the local PENC chapter on 2-14th needs graders or proctors at the Cone Center
UNCC. Rob Belisle also shared they are looking for donations.
Melanie Coyne asked where we are in raising some of the salary levels.
JNB shared that the directors are currently working with Maia Setzer on this.
8. ADJOUNMENT
The January 20th meeting of the Building Development Commission adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Next
meeting of the Building Development Commission is scheduled for, Tuesday, February 17, 2015.
INCREASE/DECREASE
Building Permit Revenue
Fiscal YTD
January 2015 Permit Revenue
= $1,550,736
FY15 Year-To-Date Permit Revenue = $12,297,260
2.87% above Projected YTD Permit Revenue
Building Permit Revenue
$25,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$12,297,260.00
$10,746,524.00
$10,000,000.00
9,234,293.00
7,920,148.00
5,910,480.00
$5,000,000.00
3,794,721.00
2,079,120.00
$0.00
Projected Revenue
Actual Revenue
836,225
Dec-10
Feb-11
1,038,733
Dec-11
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
1,550,736
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
821,110
Jan-11
1,063,264
961,032
898,073
854,523
1,141,393
995,293
Nov-10
Oct-10
Sep-10
Aug-10
Jul-10
Jun-10
May-10
Apr-10
1,000,000.00
904,248
746,607
Mar-10
745,827
0.00
Jan-10
500,000.00
Feb-10
PERMIT REVENUE
1-2009 thru 1-2015
2,500,000.00
INCREASE/DECREASE
January 2015 Total = $391,339,768
FY15 YTD Total = $3,045,758,759
FY14 YTD Total = $2,247,863,976
FY15 up 35.54% 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 December FY15 = 30,468 FY14 = 28,401
Commercial December FY15 = 19,601 FY14 = 17,233
Total FY15 = 53,263 FY14 = 48,858
INCREASE/DECREASE
Residential sm 0.01%
Commercial up 23.7%
Overall up 11.4%
10,000
8,767
8,324
6,492
1,000
0
Residential
Commercial
Total
2,471
3,893
3,872
3,237
2,226
2,835
2,855
3,879
4,490
4,171
2,000
2,758
3,219
2,959
3,014
2,809
2,740
.
4,784
5,379
5,242
5,563
4,922
3,970
3,227
3,960
5,870
2,213
3,000
6,727
6,644
6,000
7,570
7,421
7,253
7,000
4,000
8,165
7,779
2,264
Number of Permits
8,000
5,000
9,109
9,088
9,000
Inspections Performed
INCREASE/DECREASE
January 2015 Inspections Performed dn 7.1%
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Building
Electrical
Mechanical
Plumbing
Total Trade Inspections
IRT REPORT January 2015
Inspection Activity: Inspection Response Time (IRT Report)
Insp.
Resp.
Time
OnTime %
Dec.
Jan.
Total % After
24 Hrs. Late
Dec.
Jan.
Total % After
48 Hrs. Late
Dec.
Jan.
Average Resp. in
Days
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%
98.6%
1.47
1.46
January 2015 Pass Rates
Inspection Pass Rates
Building
Electrical
Mechanical
Plumbing
OVERALL:
100
Percent Passed
95
90
85
80
75
70
Building
Electrical
Mechanical
Plumbing
77.38%
77.11%
85.28%
90.71%
81.41%
January 2015
CTAC First Reviews
122
117
129
136
120
118
118
128
108
92
83
78
75
64%
64%
CTAC Approval Rate
83%
71%
72%
73%
68%
70%
72%
75%
67%
72%
75%
CTAC % of On-Sch. & Express
44%
45%
43%
45%
42%
40%
35%
40%
37%
35%
32%
32%
34%
January 2015
OnSchedule 1st Reviews
252
242
199
248
241
223
203
195
239
189
194
203
95.6%
95.3%
185
OnTime/Early All Trades
97.4%
97.5% 97.63%
95.0%
94.00%
92.9%
92.4%
92.00%
90.38% 90.38%
90.4%
OnTime/Early BEMP
95.0%
94.0%
95.0%
90.5%
96.0%
96.0%
96.0%
94.0%
95.0%
94.0%
93.5%
90.5%
85.0%
Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14
Jul-14
Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15
February 2, 2015
Plan Review Lead Times for OnSchedule Review
2/2/15
Electrical
Working Days
5
4
2/2/15
Building
Electrical
Working Days
6
9
2/2/15
Building
Electrical
6
11
Mech /
County Fire
Plumbing
County
Zoning
Backflow CMUD
Health
City Zoning
City Fire
2
4
2
5
9
County
Zoning
Backflow CMUD
Health
City Zoning
City Fire
2
4
2
5
9
County
Zoning
Backflow CMUD
Health
City Zoning
City Fire
3
4
3
5
9
1-2 hour Reviews
Building
6
3
3-4 hour Reviews
Mech /
County Fire
Plumbing
6
3
5-8 Hour Reviews
Mech /
County Fire
Plumbing
Working Days
13
Green: Booking Lead Times within 2 weeks
Yellow: Booking Lead Times within 3-4 weeks
Red: Booking Lead Times exceeds 4 weeks
4
(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.
February 2, 2015
Express Review
Appointments are available for:
Small projects in 11 working days
Large projects in 16 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
2/2/15
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
-