HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1989-06-15 249
6/15/89
City Council, Adjourned Regular Meeting
2410 Larkspur Lane
Redding, California
June 15, 1989 12:38 p.m.
Mayor Carter called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Redding City
Council to order with the following Council Members present: Buffum,
Dahl, and Johannessen. Council Member Fulton was absent.
Also present were City of Redding staff, City Manager Christofferson,
City Attorney Hays, Planning and Community Development Director Perry,
Building Official Voges, and Secretary to the City Council Moscatello.
Also present were Kent Dagg, Tim Morrow, and Terri Watson of the
Shasta Builders Exchange, Bob Fountain of the Economic Development
Corporation of Shasta County, Gerry Benson of the Private Industry
Council, Dennis Praegitzer of American Propeller, Jerry Peters of
Peters Construction Company, Greg Dunbar of Dunbar Construction, Kevin
Mack of Mack Construction, Frank Sawyer of Sharrah, Dunlap &
Associates, Bob Harp and Larry Boisclaire of Pace Engineering, Jesse
Holland of Americor, Les Melburg of Nichols.Melburg.Rosetto, Robert
Ekin of Selvage, Heber, Nelson & Associates, Harry Eckelman of
Eckelman & Scarbrough, Inc., and Gary Mitchell of Gary Mitchell
Construction.
BUILDING DIVISION - CODES REVIEW TASK FORCE
(C-110 & A-050-250-030)
Kent Dagg, Executive Director of the Builder's Exchange, welcomed City
Council, City staff, and members of the Exchange. Mr. Dagg noted that
this study session is an outcome of the Report prepared by the Codes
Review Task Force and submitted to Council in April, 1989.
Planning and Community Development Director Perry stated that City
Manager Christofferson appointed an in-house team to develop responses
to the Report prepared by the Builder's Exchange. Mr. Perry submitted
to Council, and those present, responses to the suggestions in the
Report. He explained that the responses have not been reviewed by
Council or the City Manager. Mr. Perry conveyed that the Building
Division and staff welcome the input and want to work with the
Exchange.
In response to Recommendation #1 regarding scheduling of building
inspections, Mr. Perry stated that it is the Department's goal to
achieve a.m. and p.m. or, at least, same day inspections. He noted
that the contractor may request an a.m. or p.m. inspection, but staff
cannot guarantee that the request will be honored. Mr. Perry outlined
how the building inspector's time is scheduled and noted that the
inspectors are encouraged to call in and alert staff of their status.
Mayor Carter noted that, especially in light of City growth, more
inspectors are necessary and the question is, do we want to pay for
them. He asked when the last building inspector was hired.
Building Official Voges responded that the last inspector was hired
six months ago. Mr. Perry noted that the City has made a big
investment in the Building Department in the last four years.
Mr. Les Melburg noted that using firemen as inspectors was discussed,
and they may be able to make inspections relating to fire codes. Mr.
Voges responded that firemen are not trained to make inspections. Mr.
Perry stated that the Fire Department does not want to be involved in
inspections.
250
6/15/89
In response to a question, Mr. Voges stated that inspectors average
24.3 inspections per day, and if staff had to guarantee a.m. and p.m.
inspections, the process would not work.
Mr. Dunbar stated that the Building Department needs budget support.
Mr. Eckelman asked if inspectors are working overtime. Mr. Voges
replied, yes, two or three inspectors work overtime every night. Mr.
Perry pointed out that construction has become a year round operation.
In light of the amount of overtime inspectors are putting in, Mr.
Praegitzer said it may be cheaper to hire another inspector. Mr.
Christofferson conveyed that an additional plan checker and inspector
are proposed in the new budget.
Mr. Melburg pointed out that his office, Nichols, Melburg and Rosetto,
has two licensed inspectors, and they may be able to make inspections
in times of critical need. Mr. Dagg emphasized that time is a
critical element for contractors.
Mr. Dagg noted that the Report suggested placing radio units in
inspector's cars. He also stated that the Report suggested that a fee
increase for contractor's business licenses be implemented and the
increase over thirty dollars be designated to a special program within
the Building Department related to the construction industry.
Mr. Perry conveyed that there are only a few hundred contractors and
an increase in business license fees would only result in an extra
$2,000 to $4,000 per year.
Mr. Holland emphasized that time is a critical factor for some
inspections; and he conveyed that, if an approved private inspector
was available, he would be willing to pay for the inspection.
Mr. Voges asked if there would be a liability problem. City Attorney
Hays stated that the City has used inspectors from MTI. He noted that
there may be a conflict of interest if the inspector worked for the
City, as well as the contractor. Mayor Carter suggested that this
idea be looked into further.
Mr. Dunbar asked if there is any solution to the a.m./p.m. inspection
problem. Mr. Perry replied no, because one more inspector will not
solve the problem; although it might guarantee a one-day inspection.
Council Member Johannessen stated that the solution is more manpower.
He pointed out that more inspections are being made and inspectors
are checking for more details. He noted that some contractors are
building in ways which they always have, but are no longer up to code,
and they are now being called on those things during inspections.
Mr. Christofferson asked if the Builders Exchange could hold one-half
day seminars during the slow time of the year to update contractors on
new Codes. Mr. Dagg said the idea was discussed, but many of the
owner-builder contractors will not attend.
Council Member Buffum suggested that owner-builders be separated into
a tougher plan check area in order to help alleviate reinspection
problems and the inspection team be increased.
Council Member Johannessen noted that the problem is that many owner-
builders cannot read the blueprints.
251
6/15/89
In response to the recommendation for the City to accept less than
complete plans for checking, Mr. Voges pointed out that sometimes
problems do not arise until the entire set of plans are reviewed.
Mr. Sawyer concurred and said it is not efficient for the plan checker
to point out deficiencies when a complete set of plans are not
available.
Mr. Peters stated that with the addition of one more inspector, only
the status quo will be maintained because of growth. He emphasized
that the contractors need help to run their businesses better. He
added that their work loads have increased because more details are
required. Mr. Peters reiterated that the contractors are asking for
better service, not the status quo.
Mr. Peters emphasized that the contractors are not opposed to paying
for a service, but they want value for their money.
Mr. Holland stated that the City either needs more inspectors or the
number of inspections should be reduced. He added that contractors
need continuing education, information about the Uniform Building
Code, and any additional requirements the City of Redding is
enforcing.
Mr. Melburg suggested that if plans keep coming back for checking, the
City could impose a charge. He also said one solution to the problem
of repeat inspections is to charge more money for reinspections. Mr.
Voges stated that current procedure allows the inspector to go to the
inspection site twice and then there is a $30 charge.
Mr. Holland suggested that the Builders Exchange help contractors get
ready for their first inspection. He also suggested that a policy and
procedures memo explicitly stating the rules be available to the
public.
Mr. Perry indicated that imposing fines causes public relations
problems.
Mr. Voges suggested that the Builders Exchange put together a program
for owner builders. Mr. Perry stated that the Builders Exchange
publishes a bulletin that reaches about one-third of the contractors.
Mr. Benson suggested that an incentive plan be established for
owner/builders to complete a class prior to construction of their
building. He noted that they could receive credit against their cost.
Mr. Dagg recalled that the Report recommended that plan checking be
done in-house, and he conveyed that the Builders Exchange feels very
strongly about this. He added that to accomplish this goal, three
plan checkers should be hired.
Mr. Perry stated that he prefers contracting for plan check services
because it is not necessary to hire as many people. He noted that if
building activity decreases, it is not necessary to carry as many
people. Mr. Perry indicated that the turnaround time for private plan
checking is very good.
Council Member Johannessen stated that this is a valid problem. He
pointed out that outside plan checks may come back with less of an
explanation than is necessary. With in-house plan checking, it is
possible to meet with the plan checker, discuss what the problem is,
and correct it right there.
252
6/15/89
Mr. Boisclaire stated that the problem is not with private plan
checking, the problem is having more personnel available to help the
owner/builders.
Mr. Christofferson stated that the question is how much is Council
willing to fund for additional personnel. He said the Building
Department has a 97% recovery rate. He noted that the Exchange has
stated that they are willing to pay more for service, and if Council
wants additional personnel, fees can be increased. Mr. Christofferson
indicated that the draft budget had requested more personnel, but
staff was unable to balance the budget, and some positions were
removed.
Mr. Praegitzer pointed out that City Hall has a space problem and
there is little room to put additional personnel. Mr. Praegitzer
noted, however, that the City should be ahead of the curve of building
activity. He added that if additional personnel are employed, and
building activity decreases, staff could be laid off. He pointed out
that if the City is ahead of the building curve, the contractors will
be ahead, the contractors will work more efficiently, and the price of
houses will go down.
Council Member Johannessen noted that it is difficult for the City to
lay employees off once they are hired. Council Buffum concurred.
Mayor Carter asked if private business could do inspections on a part
time basis. Council Member Dahl suggested that contracting for part-
time inspectors be placed on the agenda for the next meeting with the
Builders Exchange. He concurred that additional inspectors and plan
checkers are necessary to keep up with City growth.
Mr. Dagg pointed out that $90,000 in fees goes to the plan checker in
Paradise, and this would pay for another City plan checker.
Mr. Christofferson reiterated that another inspector will be hired,
but the workload just increases. He added that if the building curve
goes up, plans will be sent to Paradise. He said there will probably
always be free board work.
Mr. Praegitzer noted that when the private plan checker costs rise to
$90,000, another plan checker should be hired.
Mr. Dagg stated that it would be appropriate to have another study
session after Council has completed work on the budget. He added that
the Builders Exchange will review Mr. Perry's responses to the
Report's recommendations. Mr. Dagg reiterated that the comment he
hears most from Building Exchange members is that a plan check
department is necessary. He added that two plan checkers and more
inspectors should be hired. Mr. Dagg said he would like to review
this with Mr. Voges.
Mr. Peters stated that whether or not it is difficult to lay an
employee off should not be a factor. He said if the Building
Department is busy, more employees should be hired.
Council Member Dahl pointed out that when the last plan checker was
hired, it was Council's hope that plans would not have to be sent to
Paradise, but that did not happen. He added that Council is also
trying to control the budget.
Mr. Dagg thanked Council for meeting with the Builder's Exchange.
Mayor Carter stated that Council is trying to resolve the issues.
253
6/15/89
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, at the hour of 2:00 p.m., Mayor
Carter declared the meeting adjourned to 5:15 p.m., June 20, 1989, at
the City Hall Conference Room located at 760 Parkview Avenue, to hold
a closed session.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Assistant City Clerk