July 21, 2015
@ 3:00 p.m.
Minutes Approved
BDC Member Issues
Public Attendee Issues
CSC Development Update…...………………….…S. Hollingsworth/S. Broome-Edwards
CCTF Report and Project Closing……………………...…...….......M. Sellers/T. Rowland
Subcommittee on RTAP & “Best Practice” Report/Project Closing…...........…P. Granson
Mega Multifamily Inspection Team Launch Status……….................D. Gieser/A. Herring
Quarterly Reports a.
Commercial Plan Review………………………………...………...……C. Walker b.
Code Compliance Report…………………………...…...……………..…G. Mullis c.
Consistency Team Report……………………………………...............T. Rowland d.
Code Interpretation Quarterly Newsletter…………………....Code Administrators e.
Technical Advisory Board………………………..……………...……L. McSwain
Quarterly BDC Bulletin Exercise……………………..…………..…P. Granson/D. Gieser
Department Statistics and Initiatives Report….…...……………………………P. Granson a.
March Statistics Report b.
Status Report on Various Department Initiatives c.
Other d.
Manager/CA Added Comments
Adjournment
The next BDC Meeting is scheduled for 3:00 p.m., August 18, 2015.
Please mark your calendars.

Jonathan Bahr opened the Building-Development Commission (BDC) meeting at 3:06 p.m. on Tuesday,
June 16, 2015.
Present: Jonathan Bahr, Rob Belisle, Tom Brasse, Melanie Coyne, Travis Haston, Hal Hester, Rodney
Kiser, John Taylor and Wanda Towler
Absent: Chad Askew, Bernice Cutler and Scott Shelton
Note: Italics indicate Department’s progress on various topics not reviewed in the June 16 BDC meeting.
Travis Haston made the motion to approve the BDC Meeting Minutes from the May 19th meeting; seconded by Melanie Coyne. The motion passed unanimously.
Melanie Coyne discussed SB324 (passed in house as HB255).
TB : Not a fan, suggest coming up with alternative language. The CCTF has done a great job making recommendations to the group. I’d be happy to carry those back with any specific added suggestions.
MC : Would it be appropriate for the BDC?
JB : It is within the BDC role and responsibility to comment on items going to the Building Code
Council.
WT : How would we communicate this with the board of county commissioners?
JB : The Department has already conveyed to the MO that we are adamantly opposed to this for a list of reasons.
JBahr : Have we seen this statement from the Department to the County Manager and the BOCC?
JB : It has been an internal dialogue between myself, the LUESA Director and Leslie Johnson the
Assistant County Manager.
TH : Is this going to get pushed forward to vote for 1-2 family affecting inspection performance on residential and commercial as well?
MC : It is possible, yet it may never go through.
JBahr : Do you have a BDC direction to the state or is it best to go through the CM and the BOCC?
JB : It makes sense to make the BOCC earn their position \ connected to one of the big associations pushing this in Raleigh, to convey this really doesn’t work well.
JBahr : We would like to do something. Can you guys write it up based on your conversations with the CM and let us review it?
TB : Perhaps we suggest a modification to the existing bill to minimize effort for those pushing THE bill, more closely reflecting what we are trying to do.
WT : Does this have a geographical tinge to it?
TB : Driven by the state HBA, they’ve taken and ran with it not specifically for any one jurisdiction, apparently some the smaller jurisdictions have been asking for something of this nature and I’m not sure it’s because of Mecklenburg County.
JBahr : Is this something you can email to all members, Melanie?
MC : Yes, I will email to all BDC Members.
TH : Can you explain the first bill; project with seal can’t expect to pass?

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 2 of 11
MC : Read the following:
JBahr : How do you think that will affect the department?
TH : How do you view it as a department now?
JB : We commented that we don’t think it is a good idea for a couple of reasons it doesn’t define what a component is and the A/E compliance with the code and the specs. We have to accept that regardless if it is correct or not. No way to catch something at odds or any prediction of a pass and
3 rd
point environment in which BOCC works assuming A/E’s will always be up to speed on the code.
Even though the BCC has no training component.
JBahr : Asked Melanie to email to all board members.
MC : We have no idea when or if this will go into effect.
TH
: This goes against everything we’ve discussed for several months.
TB
: It’s a significant problem to call when you have fixed it.
No public attendee issues.

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 3 of 11
Jim discussed LUESA’s final budget proposal as shown in the above slide including a transfer of HR position.
JBahr : Does the HR position reduce another value?
JB : In the past it’s not unusual for OMB to charge us for these positions including CMGC.
TB : Is this a one-time allocation or a repeat and does it roll up into LUESA overhead after this year?
JB : It is an allocation for this year and no it shows up in 4000 accounts as separate line item.
WT : This total in the presentation tonight is the same as when the board strong held the budget?
JB : Yes. To make it work we must balance revenue with expense and you will see slightly higher permit range.
Jim began the discussion describing previous meetings held and topics discussed saying that The BDC’s
March 3, April 21 and May 19 meetings reviewed the Gartner/AE-GC-Builder Task Force recommendations in detail. Action on all of them is now proceeding, specifically; the Code Compliance Task Force reconvened on topics 17 & 18, holding meetings on May 11, May 26 and June 10; BDC RTAP-best practice subcommittee is addressing those topics, plus startup detail for the Mega Multi-Family Inspections team, holding meetings on May 20, June 3 and June 17. In their May meeting, the BDC discussed training strategy, specifically
Department responsibilities & limits and industry responsibilities. The Department also updated the BDC on progress on all TF action items and related ongoing work assignments. The summary slide on all was sent to
BDC members on May 20. The last TF Final Report topic the BDC has remaining to discuss itself is Final
Report Part 5-item 5.5 from “Notes on Consistency”. You have the final report made up of five parts.

Item 1 - intro; discusses the current concern and the Department’s work on consistency since 1997.

Item 2 - policy; focusing on consistency between office and field, dates to 1999 and 2002, rev 2013.

Item 3 - meeting note excerpt; from Task Force 9/25/2014 discussion on consistency.

Item 4 - tool box; review of tools customers have to use if they incur a consistency issue, including, the policy, consistency meetings and PM/CEM assistance.

Item 5 - making it all work; summarizes action items the Department and BDC can do to improve consistency identifying five different things. Department training; ongoing, Customer awareness; ongoing; Customers knowing plan review is not 100%; ongoing; Code defect language changes; goes into tech production July 1 and Expand BDC member association responsibilities; today’s topic.

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 4 of 11
David Gieser joined us on June 1 st . He’s a practicing architect, licensed in three (3) states with over
25 years experience. David is a graduate from NC State and most recently worked as a principal of the Perkins+Will firm in Charlotte. We feel very fortunate to have him on our team.
Jim discussed notes on consistency expanding the BDC member association responsibilities. As discussed, this applies to BDC reps and their related associations; the public representatives are not directly involved in this. The BDC, not Department, will decide which issues merit distribution to their association membership.
Frequency of occurrence will be up to the BDC, but probably no more frequently than monthly. You will probably only use this on “hot issue” or significant topics. It is likely the Quarterly Bulletin will recapture the notices and link to detailed web postings but, again, that’s up to the BDC. If the BDC concurs, ideally we would like to conclude this discussion with a formal motion of support, however you choose to word it. Since this requires a change to the Building-Development Ordinance (BDO), next step is to discuss with Marvin
Bethune and write RFBA language which we bring back to you. Probably returning to you in August, with final action by BOCC perhaps in September. Difference in wording; TF request changing wording in 2 nd to last bullet from “auditable” to “verifiable”. That is reflected in Part 2 of the TF report and overrides the final version of Notes on Consistency, which was completed prior to the final report. Department is happy to work details on that as well as other details on how the gears turn on this with interested BDC members, while we work out the BDC language with Marvin. Details could include; describing how BDC agrees on a topic, listing steps on how the customer notification is developed and distributed to BDC members & their associations, outline of verification steps. Heart of the issue; BDC member association responsibility to push key information down to members. The Department produces a large volume of information on code compliance issues, including data on most frequent defects in plan review and inspections, consistency topic resolution, code interpretations, service streams available and process changes. Effectively connecting this information to customer is a challenge on which the BDC can greatly aid the Department and customers.
While there is an assumption that BDC member organizations identified in the Building-Development
Ordinance (Section 107.1.1) would actively work to pass this information along to their members that has not always been the case. In brief, the report suggests adding to Section 107.1.5
of the Building-Development
Ordinance to a) require BDC member Associations to convey information from the Department to their members; b) BDC will identify such information, c) vehicle for conveying will be verifiable; d) BDC member association failing to follow through on this assignment will forfeit their BDC seat.
WT : There is nothing in there that would prohibit someone from the department coming to explain specifics?
JB : No there is not and the Department regularly attends association meetings.
TB : Is there going to be a clear identification of the information to be sent to associations?
JB : Yes, we will probably handle this as a low tech version of our quarterly report. Again, these are details that will need to be worked out into a policy that works.
TH : Do you have to be a customer to subscribe to Notify Me?
JB
: No you don’t.
WT : Do you want a formal vote?
JB : Yes we are looking for a formal action.
Travis Haston made the motion; seconded by Wanda Towler; for the Department to meet with Marvin Bethune to address a formal policy. The motion passed unanimously.
Jim went on to say that the Department will develop a draft policy on how this will work and then review draft with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 5 of 11
Last fall the county attorney asked us to survey all BDC association issues addressed were the merger of the HVAC and plumbing contractors association and the Mecklenburg General Contractors Association no longer exists. ABC Carolinas Chapter indicated an interest in stepping up to the latter role. On June
12, the BDC Chair and Vice-Chair met with the ABC President, discussing the BDC and BDC member’s work; all concurred ABC is a good match for the GC membership seat. Through July we’ll draft and bring to you in August, a draft RFBA to the BDC proposing two changes in section 107.1.1 proposing to change MP trade representation to the Charlotte Plumbing, Heating & Cooling Contractors Association; with 2 seats; 1 held by a primarily mechanical contractor and 1 held by a primarily plumbing contractor.
The second change will be to replace Mecklenburg General Contractors Association with ABC Carolina
Chapter. This concludes the follow up work on the Dec 2014 survey of BDC Member Associations requested by M Bethune.
RB : Is the AGC irritated that ABC is on it?
JB : When approached, the ABC umbrella approach was very professional office structure, in trying to find a replacement, ABC was both.
JT
: I’d like to meet with Travis and find out what was discussed.
JB
: Meeting dates changed and John couldn’t make it.
TB : What about RBC getting a seat on the BDC?
JB : Melanie Coyne is nominated by RBIC.
Jim asked all BDC Members to confirm their summer schedule with Rebecca so she knows if/when a quorum is unavailable.
David Gieser began the progress report stating that this is a three part update including program description/details, launch status and public info. On June 29 th
12 team members will be assigned to mega projects. We are still working on a strategy to assign inspection requests. Selected training is underway and started May 30 th
. Will be complete before June 29 th
. For the public information and customer notification, the CEMs are reviewing customer notification steps and timing, where projects are assigned to new inspectors.
Steve Pearson shared we are scheduled for June 29 th
launch. Maps displayed on wall indicates division of teams. 1 manager 2 inspection supervisors and 12 field inspectors. Interviews set up for next week (June
24 th ). Balance of inspection team will follow after inspectors are in place. Building Inspectors selected are Adrian Parsons, Steve Lineberger, Gene Murphy and Steve Mattingly. Electrical, Scott Kale, Bob
Hartman, Raymond Steed and Billy Steed. Mechanical John Freeman and Jeff Rosmon. Plumbing
Sheldon Nussbaum and Randy Phillips. These 12 inspectors will start June 29 th. Currently working with inspection team training. Holding training sessions for Building inspectors assigned to this team.
Training is being held in office and in the field. Some of the topics include plans reviewed in the office,
Type III and Type V construction issues, provisions for podium buildings and R2 buildings, etc. Third action item is inspection request assignments. How are the inspection requests going to get to the individual inspectors. Currently compiling a list on existing high rise buildings, most buildings will be tagged in the Posse system by address. Meeting with staff tomorrow morning to determine status of any project that requires a handoff. IT staff has made provisions to capture necessary information on these jobs permitted so proper inspection assignments can be made.
TH : Can you explain why you only have 1 mechanical/plumbing in the north end of Mecklenburg
County vs. division on the electrical?
SP : Basically it’s the number of inspectors we have and work volume.
TH : Nothing to do with the duration of the inspection?
DG : No this is work volume based.

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 6 of 11
TB : Mega Multifamily for mega project and multifamily projects correct?
SP : Yes that is correct. 5 or more stories on multifamily. High rise 75 feet or taller.
RB : Section 107.1 & 2; How many buildings in Charlotte use voluntary inspections, not special inspections but voluntary inspections. Building code says any authorized code enforcement official. Are you going to allow that or just for pre-walk through?
SP : We have to meet the requirements.
TH : Why do you fail it? When it comes up as a non-billable failure, why do you fail it?
JG : On subgrade verifications we have to fail to hold open the inspection.
JT : When do you plan to send out an email blast through Notify Me on this?
SP : Shannon has additional information on this.
TB : The program requirements talking about CEM managing the workforce for the contractors, and you are going to want a single point of contact at the contractor level to help manage their workload.
Wouldn’t you want to give them your single point of contact for scheduling inspections?
SP : We give the contractors latitude in managing their own schedule.
TB : Would there be a condition when the CEM would not be in the loop and schedule on behalf not knowing what the inspector’s outlook schedule is and not be in sync?
SP : We hope not. Should be reported back to the management team. This will have to happen to be successful.
JB : In tomorrow’s meeting we will focus on 1.3 in Part 2. Still in draft and there have been a lot of dialogue among all. It takes 90 days to become familiar with requirements beginning in October.
TH : When a customer manually applies for an inspection request can it be through email or other?
JG : Will still have to be through the system.
Shannon Clubb gave a brief review of the public information strategy. We are not asking the customer to do anything different at this point. Changes are all on our side of the fence. Still have some important work to be done including the PDQs. We have at our disposal meckpermit.com, monthly newsletter, notify me and will be offering brown bag sessions for all.
Jeff Griffin gave a brief presentation on why the iPad is valuable to an inspector. Currently discussing use of technology in the field. Jeff projected his iPad and reviewed all loaded applications accessible by inspectors. Specs we benchmarked were size, weight, easy of mobility, durability, cost, connectivity, processor speed, ability to access and read electronic drawings. Technology improvements begin July 1.
The Notes App has been very useful with the use of a microphone recording on job site. You actually have codes and can search/research code sections, can bookmark, highlight and mark-up quickly then email to the customer. Face time is very beneficial can call inspector in field and show issues on screen in real-time. Pictures are converted to .pdf and beneficial for investigating problems in the next version.
Jim began to describe that the pilot was approved by both NC B Arch and NC BELS in March-April,
2013. Purpose of the pilot; provide both Boards with input on how their current Board rules may need revision in order to support AE’s working collaboratively in BIM. CHS & Meck are required to submit status reports to both Boards every 6 months. A copy of the CHS-Meck 4 th
semi-annual report was emailed to you on June 8. Observations to date BIM-IPD should improve the HSW by solving regulatory problems in model, before construction. BIM-IPD promotes correct construction the 1 st
time, reducing change orders from lack of coordination or construction errors. BIM-IPD should reduce patient jeopardy from occupied environments, minimizing infection risk. BIM-IPD use of a “big room setting” on RFI resolution, promotes cross discipline team communication, increases problem solving and avoids later

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 7 of 11 errors. Preconstruction meetings are a key tool in confirming AE seal use inside the BIM-IPD structure, with extensive discussion among PE/Arch, rest of owner’s team, and BIM model expert. Conclusions regarding Board rules; after two years, suggested the following points:
1.
Define BIM-IPD projects and provide a different set of seal use criteria.
2.
Digital seal/signature used on BIM-IPD documents confirming project development (phase completion information sets), affixed only to the work for which the licensee is responsible.
3.
Digital signature only used on other benchmark documents.
4.
Collaboration with other members of project team (PE’s, Arch, contractors, et al) encouraged.
5.
Professional review of other (non-PE) documents treated as shop drawings; reviewed for conformance with “sealed” information sets.
6.
Construction changes; licensee allowed to rely on others’ information in the model.
The original pilot was restricted to CHS projects in Mecklenburg County. Currently, anytime
Mecklenburg wants to add a non-CHS project, we formally propose same to both Boards. In July, 2014, we proposed and both Boards approved adding the VA Healthcare Center and Davidson New Academic
Building. Last week we began discussions on the next three projects requesting use of pilot on AE Seal use in BIM-IPD these include: Sealed Air, Westin Office Building and Crescent uptown mixed use.

May permit (only) rev - $2,215,884, compares to April permit (only) rev - $1,913.375,

Fy15 budget projected monthly permit rev = $1,716,109; so May is $500k above projection

YTD permit rev = $19,773,775 is above projection ($18,877,211) by $795.74k or 4.2%.

May total - $746,036,650, compares to April total - $657,276,419

YTD at 5/31/15 of $5,397,511,567; 49.8% above Fy14 constr value permitted at 5/31/14 of $3.6022B
Residential
Commercial
Other (Fire/Zone)
April
5417
2871
559
May
5447
2362
475
3 Month Trend
3987/4518/5417/5447
2327/2968/2871/2362
456/613/559/475
Total 8847 8284 /6770/8099/8847/8284

Changes (April-May); Residential up <1%; commercial down 17.8%; total down 6.4%
Insp.
Req.
April May
Insp.
Perf.
April May
%
Change
Bldg. 7114 7036
Elec. 7982 7682
Mech. 4018 4062
Plbg. 3475 3303
Bldg. 7041 7004
Elec. 7888 7772
Mech. 3991 4092
Plbg. 3406 3352
-<1%
-1.47%
+2.5%
-1.6%
Total 22,589 22,083 Total 22,326 22,220 -<1%

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 8 of 11

Changes (April-May); Mech up 2%+, B-E-P down ½ to 1.6%

Insp performed were 100.6% of insp requested
Insp.
Resp.
Time
OnTime %
Total % After 24
Hrs. Late
Total % After
48 Hrs. Late
Average Resp. in
Days
April May April May April May April May
Bldg. 79.5 74.9 95.8 94.2 99.2 98.6 1.25 1.32
Elec. 56.3 56.4 90.6 89.5 99.0 98.0 1.54 1.62
Mech. 81.3 80.8 98.3 96.2 99.5 98.7 1.21 1.24
Plbg. 80.2 70.9 98.3 95.9 99.7 99.5 1.21 1.34
Total 71.7 68.9 94.8 93.2 99.3 98.5 1.34 1.41

Per the BDC Performance Goal agreement (7/20/2010), the goal range is 85-90%, so the IRT report indicates the February average is currently 16.1% below the goal range.

Though below goal, E-M numbers are about same, and B-P numbers are down (plbg down a lot).
OVERALL MONTHLY AV’G @ 81.22% in May, compared to 81.56% in April
Bldg: April – 77.55%
May – 76.97%
Elec : April – 77.57%
May – 77.4%
Mech: April – 85.67%
May – 84.86%
Plbg: April – 90.07%
May – 90.2


Bldg, Elec & mec down <1%; Plbg up 1%+
Overall average up about 1/2% from last month, and above 75-80% goal range
CTAC:

126 first reviews, compared to 111 In April.

Projects approval rate (pass/fail) – 65%

CTAC was 36% of OnSch (*) first review volume (126/126+188 = 314) = 40.12%
*CTAC as a % of OnSch is based on the total of only scheduled and Express projects
On Schedule:

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

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 9 of 11

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


February, 15: 192 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–94.75% all trades, 96.5% on B/E/M/P only
March, 15: 210 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–95.1% all trades, 97.5% on B/E/M/P only

April, 15: 240 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–91.5% all trades, 96.75% on B/E/M/P only

May, 15: 238 -1st rev’w projects; on time/early–95% all trades, 94.75% on B/E/M/P only
Booking Lead Times o On Schedule Projects: for reporting chart posted on line , on June 1, 2015, showed o 1-2 hr projects; at 2 work days booking lead, except City Zon’g at 29 work days o 3-4 hr projects; at 2-4 work days lead, except City Zon’g at 29 work days o 5-8 hr projects; at 2-4 days, except bldg.-26, MP-10, Health-16 and City Zon’g-29 work days o CTAC plan review turnaround time; BEMP at 6 work days, and all others at 1 day. o Express Rev’w booking lead time; 20 work days for small projects, 28 work days for large projects
Note: Italics indicate Department’s progress on various topics not reviewed in the June 16 BDC meeting.
Summary of Action on TF Recommendations

BDC members requested a copy of meeting slide 15, summarizing all activity to date responding to
Gartner-TF recommendations.

Sent to BDC members on May 20.
Continued Work on Field Reorganization Proposal

The BDC requested assignment of the two topics to the RTAP-best practice subcomm, including; o Project readiness o Measuring program effectiveness

Continue detailed development of the reorganization proposal and report launch status to BDC in June.
BDC’s Direction on Training
 The BDC concurred that it is the Department’s responsibility to train both customers and staff on both the process and use of technology.

However, the primary responsibility for training customer learning the building code lies with the design and construction industry associations, with the following qualifying points added by BDC members; a)
First time customers are different and the Department should “step up a bit” in helping them. b) Contractor participation in preliminary code reviews is helpful, especially to promote discussions of constructability and code complaint details, and should be encouraged. c) Continue promoting consistency meeting agendas and contractor participation in same, especially to the commercial contractors

Offer industry opportunity to attend code training sessions offered by the Department
 Patrick, JNB and office PM’s are working on how best to address items ‘a’ & ‘b’ above. The Code
Administrators and Shannon will plug items ‘c’ & ‘d’ into our standard procedures.
BDC Direction on all Agency Umbrella/P&I Graphic

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 10 of 11

Conveyed to Dave Canaan and David Weekly that the BDC reviewed this topic and elects to revisit after
Gartner completes their current audit mapping the process.
Follow up Subcommittee Task Force Work

The Code Compliance Task Force reconvened on topics 17 & 18, holding meetings on May 11, May 26 and June 10.

BDC RTAP-best practice subcommittee is addressing those topics, plus startup detail for the Mega Multi-
Family Inspections team, holding meetings on May 20 and June 3.
Work continues on other action items as described in Parts 2 & Part 5 of TF Final Report, including;

#6- describe & promote customer liaison role

#10-check for P&I system input redundancy

#4-training on process & tech

#13-precon meetings; part of Meck-SI changes, and contractor “best practice”

#15-customer notification use

#16-code interp notification; quarterly newsletter; BDC member associations reminded of consistency meetings through BDC notification.

Item 5.2 – communication plan
Bundling customer notice on TF driven plan review changes

Managers will review the TF recommendations in detail, identifying everything that’s supposed to be in the (tentative) 7/1/15 activation bucket, especially where those impact plan review process. o Goal is to summarize a list, advise customers and make all of the changes effective at once
(7/1/15).
Electrical Plan Review Scope

The original assignment is complete and a re-draft of the electrical review scope document was reviewed with managers and plans examiner staff on May 14. We currently plan an effective date of July 1.

Continuing work; the Department is also studying how we might lessen the permitting requirements for small projects; we will bring that study to the BDC in the near future. The general purpose is to delete review for projects that qualify under certain parameters, so that time and costs are not excessive in the permitting process compared to the project overall costs.
An example of the proposal being discussed is; o Allowing no plan review on anything less than a defined construction value ($5K, 10k or 15K, pick one) on an individual trade permit. For electrical we could restrict this and not allow life safety systems, medical facilities or hazardous locations to use this bypass. This possible alternate would require that the contractor provide us with a definitive scope of work, a load calculation per the code and a fault current value for any equipment, signed and on their company letterhead.
Follow-up on the 2014 Service Delivery Enhancement Proposal
Hybrid Collaborative Delivery Team

The HCD Team is tentatively scheduled to deliver their next periodic update to the BDC in August, 2015
PM/CEM Support Pilot

The BDC paperless support redesign is complete.

The Directors have placed this on hold, pending the final launch strategy on the field reorganization proposal.
 Those decisions will be followed by a review of how best to support the PM’s in the office and CEM ’s in the field, which was the original goal of this pilot.
Jim shared that continued design work includes Phase II staffing. We’ve posted for interview and filling two customer liaison positions and 4 concierge positions. Assuming a posting date of May 1, this will

BDC Meeting
June 16, 2015
Page 11 of 11 likely run from May through end of August. Hiring is followed by 6-8 week training regimen on current process and supporting tech. Significant time has also been spent with Gensler working on the CSC 1 st floor layout in Suttle Ave. and Code Enforcement will be on the 2 nd
floor.
Jim discussed that the NC Building Code Council (BCC) met in Raleigh, NC on June 9. The BCC considered 6 new code change petitions, granting all of these petitions. The BCC held a public hearing on 16 code change petitions. The BCC took final action on 12 code change petitions, approving 10 and denying 2. Jim noted that the term of Lon McSwain, the building inspector representative on the BCC, expires on 7.1.15. We want to recognize Lon’s 6 years of service on the BCC in an environment that has become more and more challenging with each quarterly meeting. Thanks for your hard work on the
BCC.
No added comments from Managers or CAs.
TB : How about a seat for NAOP; anyone discussed this with you?
JB
: No one has, it’s up to the BDC to discuss those changes. In the past, the advocating entity talks to the Manager’s office on whether or not this makes sense.
The June 16th meeting of the Building Development Commission adjourned at 5:02 p.m. The next meeting of the Building Development Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, July 21st, 2015.

nd
4-1-15 through 6-30-15
PROJECT PASS RATE
Projects Passed on 1 st review: 71%
Last Quarter Pass Rate: 66%
Building:
Electrical:
Projects Passed on 2
85% (79% last quarter)
89% (87% last quarter)
Mechanical: 88% (85% last quarter)
Plumbing: 87% (85% last quarter) nd Review: 84%
Last Quarter Pass Rate: 80%
Building :
Structural Design
Exit Signs
Energy Summary
Mechanical : Fresh Air Requirements Plumbing :
Exhaust Systems
Equipment Location and Installation
Duct System Installation
Appendix B
Exit Requirements
MOST COMMON DEFECTS
Electrical : General
Service / Feeders
Fire/Smoke Damper Requirements
Branch Circuits
Grounding and Bonding
Emergency Systems
Water Distribution Piping and Materials
Installation of Plumbing Systems
Venting System Installation
Sanitary Drainage Piping and Materials
Installation of Traps and Interceptors
APPROVED AS NOTED (AAN) ALL TRADES: 35% (33% last quarter)
Largest Users: CFD 85%
MCFM 78%
Critical Path Users: Building
Electrical
34% (27% last quarter)
17% (16% last quarter)
Mechanical 11% (10% last quarter)
Plumbing 15% (10% last quarter)

April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015
Mecklenburg County Code Enforcement Department
Qtr
Job Not Ready Present
Previous
D
Roughs
Finals
Present
Previous
D
Present
Previous
D
Repeat %
Building
5.89%
6.62%
DOWN .12%
33.90%
35.16%
DOWN 0.04%
20.21%
22.48%
Down 1.03
95.95%
Electrical
7.13%
7.57%
Down .06%
21.42%
23.50%
Down .10%
50.39%
51.13%
DOWN .89%
99.65%
Mechanical
6.13%
6.51
down .2%
30.45%
26.56
Up .13%
52.19%
54.91%
Down 0.05%
99.45%
Plumbing
8.88%
8.43%
Up .05%
27.99%
24.79%
DOWN .11%
35.47%
41.88%
Down .18%
99.55%

INCREASE/DECREASE
June 2015 Permit Revenue = $2,417,992
FY15 Year-To-Date Permit Revenue = $22,191,767
7.2% above Projected YTD Permit Revenue
$25,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$2,079,120
$3,794,721
$5,910,480
$7,920,148
$9,234,293
$10,746,524
$12,297,260
$13,892,529
$15,644,516
$0.00
$17,557,891
$19,773,775
$22,191,767
Projected Revenue Actual Revenue

3,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
500,000.00
0.00
PERMIT REVENUE
6-2009 thru 6-2015

$800,000,000
$700,000,000
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
June 2015 Total = $696,331,355
FY15 YTD Total = $6,093,842,922
FY14 YTD Total = $3,994,701,357
FY15 up 52.5% from this time FY14
Residential Commercial Total

INCREASE/DECREASE
Residential up -
Commercial up -
Overall up -
14.29%
18.64%
14.16%
FISCAL YEAR TO DATE PERMIT TOTALS
Residential June FY15 = 56,192 FY14 = 51,325
Commercial June FY15 = 33,032 FY14 = 30,968
Total FY15 = 94,913 FY14 = 88,160
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
8,767
9,109
7,421
7,779
8,165
.
6,492
7,570
6,727 6,770
8,099
8,847
8,284
9,650
Residential Commercial Total

Increase/Decrease 6.91%

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing
June 2015 Pass Rates
Building 76.64%
Electrical 79.07%
Mechanical 84.9%
Plumbing 88.59%
OVERALL: 81.38%

CTAC Total # of Projects Reviewed June 2015

Percentage of CTAC of OnSchedule and Express June 2015

OnSchedule 1st Reviews June 2015

On Time/Early All Trades June 2015

On Time/Early BEMP June 2015

6/29/15
June 29, 2015
Plan Review Lead Times for OnSchedule Review
Building Electrical
Mech /
Plumbing
County Fire
County
Zoning
Backflow -
CMUD
Health City Zoning City Fire
Working Days 3 2 12 2 2 4 3 3 2
6/29/15 Building Electrical
Mech /
Plumbing
County Fire
County
Zoning
Backflow -
CMUD
Health City Zoning City Fire
5
Working Days 3 2 12 2 2 4 3 4 2
6/29/15 Building Electrical
Mech /
Plumbing
County Fire
County
Zoning
Backflow -
CMUD
Health City Zoning City Fire
20
Working Days 17 7 21
Green: Booking Lead Times within 2 weeks
Yellow: Booking Lead Times within 3-4 weeks
Red: Booking Lead Times exceeds 4 weeks
7 3 4 10
(10 - 14 work days = The Goal)
(15 - 20 work days)
(21 work days or greater)
25
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.
3 21

June 29, 2015
Appointments are available for:
Small projects in 21 working days
Large projects in 26 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.
6/29/15
Plan Review Lead Times for CTAC Review
B/E/M/P
County
Fire
County
Zoning
Health
City
Zoning
City Fire
Working Days 7 1 1 1 1 1
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
-