Prince William County 2004 Building Development SEA Report

Transcription

1 BACKGROUND Mission: As a division of Public Works, Building Development contributes to Public Works overall mission to improve the safety, quality of life, and environment for the present and future generations. Building Development provides engineering review and inspection services for building construction and building code compliance. Resources: The Building Inspections Division is fully fee supported. FY 25 Adopted Budget: $6,995,382 FY 25 Authorized Staffing: Projected FY 25 Key Service Levels Per Adopted Budget: Plan Reviews 11,2 Permits Issued 45, Construction Inspections 215, Building Code Complaints 8 Court Cases 4 SUMMARY OF SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FISCAL YEARS 1999 THROUGH 24 Fee Supported Change in The following table lists some of the notable program results for the Building Development service area. A page reference to a more detailed discussion of each summarized item is also provided in the table. Spending Per Capita Not Applicable Efficiency The cost per building permit issued increased 37 percent from 1999 to 24 as the County added resources to improve customer service and the size and complexity of structures increased. (page 52) Prince William had a lower cost per building permit issued than Chesterfield and a higher cost than Fairfax. (page 53) Explosive growth in the number of inspections has resulted in the number of annual inspections per inspector exceeding the standard even though additional inspectors were added. The 25 adopted budget adds 4 additional building inspectors. (page 54) Results Nonresidential and residential first submission plans were reviewed far more quickly in 24 than in (page 59) In 24, Prince William s time to review first submission plans was substantially less than Fairfax s. (page 61) Since 1999 between 93 and 95 percent of inspections were performed on the day requested. (page 63) 41

2 Fee Supported Change in Building Development Program Performance Initiatives: Mobile data terminals were provided to building inspectors, increasing inspection efficiency and increasing the number of inspections that inspectors are able to complete. The mobile data terminals combined with other business practice efficiencies has resulted in an increase to the Prince William County standard from a range of 3,3 to 3,8 to a range of 3,7 to 4,4 annual inspections per inspector. To further reduce plan review times, Building Development is creating a walk through program for tenant layout plan review. Building Development implemented the Residential e-permitting System in 23, and approximately 26% of all permits are issued over the internet through the system. The Occupancy Permit Evaluation Pilot Program was initiated in 23. The program allowed certain Change of Use by tenants to be approved through safety inspection in lieu of plan review process. Future Building Development SEA Information Improvements: Plan review times are currently reported for first plan review, however, plans may go through multiple reviews before final approval. Future SEA Reports will include plan review times from first plan submission to final approval. Although there is a direct correlation between the increase in permits issued and the increase in inspections conducted, fluctuations in the overall rejection rate can affect the total number of inspections. Future SEA Reports will include rejection rate data. Communities Surveyed: Surveys were sent to three jurisdictions: Chesterfield, Fairfax, and Loudoun Counties. Chesterfield County is the closest to Prince William in population size of any Virginia jurisdiction. Chesterfield is within the Richmond, VA metropolitan area. Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William County are located in Northern Virginia within the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Survey responses were received from Chesterfield and Fairfax County Building Development programs. 42

3 (Adjusted For Inflation) Purpose: To provide an indicator of the relative level of spending on Building Development services. This is not an efficiency measure since it does not consider the output generated for the level of spending. Indirect expenditures are determined annually through a study conducted by an outside consultant. In the study the consultant allocates the cost of certain internal services such as County Attorney services and finance services to the various County agencies that received those services during the year. are adjusted for inflation to maintain comparability between years. Fiscal Year 25, the current budget year, is used as the base year for inflation adjustments. $1,, $9,, $8,, $7,, $6,, $5,, $4,, $3,, $2,, $1,, $ Indirect Direct $3,72,821 Building Development Adjusted for Inflation to 24 $659,897 $625,89 $553,649 $529,928 $8,19,465 $6,765,853 $4,98,523 $5,112,987 $4,771,279 $756,6 $958,718 Fee Supported Change in Trend: Between 1999 and 24 direct Building Development expenditures, adjusted for inflation, grew by 117 percent. Between 1999 and 24 Building Development indirect expenditures, adjusted for inflation, grew by 81 percent. Actual FY 21 expenditures were greater than FY 2 and FY 22 due to spending for MTrack and Permit Plan enhancements. The FY 23 adopted budget added 8.5 FTEs, provided additional space for the inspections branch, and provided for maintenance and hardware refreshment for the Mtrack and the interactive voice (IVR) applications. MTtrack provides inspectors with a hand held computer in the field for entering inspection results and obtaining data from the Tidemark Permit Plan system. The IVR system enables citizens and builders to obtain plan review status and to schedule and obtain status information on inspections. The FY 24 adopted budget added 1 FTEs and provided additional funding for increased IT infrastructure and ongoing internal services. 43

4 Direct Building Development by Jurisdiction Purpose: To provide information on the relative size of operations at the comparison jurisdictions. Direct Building Development By Jurisdiction Adjusted For Inflation to 24 Fee Supported Change in $14,, $12,, $1,, $8,, $6,, $4,, $2,, $ Fairfax Loudoun Prince William Chesterfield Loudoun was unable to respond to our survey for 1999, 2, 23 and 24. Direct Adjusted for Inflation FY 1999 FY 2 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 Chesterfield $3,495,58 $3,637,999 $3,751,71 $3,795,422 $3,947,197 $4,234,926 Prince William $3,72,821 $4,98,523 $5,112,987 $4,771,279 $6,765,853 $8,19,465 Loudoun Not Available Not Available Not Available $8,95,7 Not Available Not Available Fairfax $11,836,599 $11,962,615 $11,955,293 $12,114,564 $12,355,359 $11,896,524 Compared to Other Jurisdictions: Prince William spent less on Building Development between 1999 and 24 than Fairfax but more than Chesterfield. In 22 Prince William spent less on Building Development services than Loudoun County. The level of Building Development expenditures is directly dependent on the amount of development activity in the community. 52 provides the average Building Development Program cost per Building Permit Issued. For purposes of comparability between jurisdictions, this chart does not include indirect costs charged to the Building Development Division. The other jurisdictions do not collect indirect costs as part of a formal process. However, in the other jurisdictions, revenue in excess of direct expenditures is retained by the General Fund. 44

5 Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of Building Development staffing provided between years and between jurisdictions. All permanent and permanent part-time employees are included. Permanent part-time employees are reported as full time equivalents. Temporary and contractual employees are not counted. FY 1999 To FY Fee Supported Change in Trend: Building Development authorized staffing grew by 61 percent between 1999 and 24. Positions were added each year to address rapid growth in workload and to improve customer service. 52 provides information on the number of building permits issued per authorized employee. 45

6 Authorized Positions by Jurisdiction Purpose: To provide information on the relative size of operations at the comparison jurisdictions. Fee Supported Change in Building Development Authorized Positions By Jurisdiction Fairfax Prince William Loudoun Chesterfield Fairfax Loudoun Prince William Chesterfield FY 1999 FY 2 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 Authorized Positions FY 1999 FY 2 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 Prince William Loudoun Not Available Not Available Not Available Chesterfield Fairfax Compared to Other Jurisdictions: In 24 Prince William had fewer authorized positions than Fairfax and more than Chesterfield. 46

7 Percent of Total Fee Supported Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the degree to which Building Development services are self-supporting. Total Building Development expenditures include both direct and indirect expenditures. 14% 12% 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % 127% Percent of Total Fee Supported FY 1999 to FY % 12% 13% 113% 15% Fee Supported Change in Revenue $4,583,24 $4,997,813 $6,214,93 $6,491,318 $8,9,372 $9,119,466 Total Direct & Indirect Exp. $3,65,545 $4,59,97 $5,194,64 $4,99,594 $7,98,494 $8,71,621 Net Revenue Over $977,479 $938,716 $1,2,29 $1,5,724 $91,878 $48,845 Amount Carried Over $886,567 $1,11,278 $2,278,265 $3,797,18 $3,979,458 $2,328,548 Note: Values are not inflation adjusted Trend: In each of the six years building development expenditures have been fully fee supported. The percentage of total expenditures fee supported ranged between 12% and 13% from 1999 through 22 and has since declined to 15%. The above table shows the amount of revenue in excess of total direct and indirect expenditures for each year that was carried over for Building Development funding needs in the following year. Also, as shown in the table below, a portion of revenue in excess of expenditures was placed in the revenue stabilization fund and the BUILD initiative reserve. (Note: The stabilization fund and BUILD reserve require Board of County Supervisors authorization to budget and appropriate funds.) Revenue stabilization fund - $167,492 $5, $783,235 $35, - Permit Plan replacement/build - - $7, $9, $2,7,88 $1,847,83 - $167,492 $1,2, $1,683,235 $2,42,88 $1,847,83 47

8 Fee Supported Change in Comments (continued): Major uses of the $3.8 million carryover from FY 22 to FY 23 include: contracting for four plan reviewers to facilitate the reduction of plan review time; funds set aside funds for replacement of the Permit Plan system; funds set aside for the revenue stabilization fund, funding of the E-Permits project to enable customers to obtain permits online; and relocation of the Inspections Branch. The approved $2.3M FY24 carryover package included funding for: Walk-through TLO plan review program; replacement of the Permit Plan system; the PWC: Open for Business video production; contract plan reviewers; and a digital customer routing/queuing system for the Phase III development services building. 48

9 Trends in Purpose: To provide information on changes in key building development outputs. These key outputs include building permits, inspections conducted, total plans reviewed, and total permits issued. Total permits issued include building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and limited repair. Occupancy permits are excluded because of differences in how jurisdictions count them. 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, 9,465 8,432 Trends In Key Building Development Outputs Fiscal Year 1999 To Fiscal Year 24 12,833 11,877 1,845 1,532 11,281 11,58 1,371 9,7 13,333 13,118 Building Permits Plans Reviewed Fee Supported Change in 3, Trends In Key Building Development Outputs Fiscal Year 1999 To Fiscal Year 24 25, Inspections Conducted 264,278 2, 26,83 15, 1, 5, 147, ,58 1,15 86,81 Total Permits Issued 51,22 27,187 31,72 37,334 43,239 38,481 Trend: From 1999 through 24 all key Building Development outputs increased substantially each year over the prior year. In 24 total building permits issued were 58% greater, inspections conducted were 24% greater, plans reviewed were 39% greater, and total permits issued were 88% greater than in

10 The increase in activity is driven by the construction of larger and more complex buildings, both commercial and residential. The following table summarizes outputs by year: Fee Supported Change in Total Building Inspections Total Total Permits Permits Issued Conducted Plans Reviewed Issued ,432 86,81 9,465 27, ,7 1,15 1,845 31, , ,58 1,532 37, , ,674 11,877 43, ,833 26,83 11,58 38, , ,278 13,118 51,22 5

11 Percentage Change In Versus Spending Purpose: To compare the percentage change in key Building Development outputs between 1999 and 24 with the percentage change in spending (direct expenditures). 25% 2% 15% 1% 5% % Percentage Change In Key Building Development Outputs 1999 Through 24 Versus Change In Direct Spending 58% 24% 39% 88% 117% Building Permits Inspections Plans Reviewed Total Permits Spending Fee Supported Change in Change between 1999 and 24: Between 1999 and 24 building development spending grew faster than building permits issued, plans reviewed, and total permits issued, however, inspections conducted grew at a rate almost twice as fast as spending. 51

12 Building Permits Issued Per Authorized Employee and Average Cost per Building Permit Issued Fee Supported Change in Purpose: To provide an indicator of changes in Building Development workload. Building permits issued per authorized employee is computed by dividing total building permits issued by the total number of authorized employees per the adopted budget. Cost per building permit issued is computed by dividing actual Building Development direct expenditures, adjusted for inflation, by the number of building permits issued. This measure uses total building permits issued as a rough gauge of overall changes in Building Development workload. To the extent changes in building permits are not reflective of changes in complexity of plans reviewed, inspections, etc. or reflective of percentage changes in other key outputs, additional contextual information is necessary to get a complete understanding of workload differences Building Permits Issued Per Authorized Employee and Average Building Development Program Cost Per Building Permit Issued $439 $ $61 $493 $423 $527 $7 $6 $5 $ Permits Per Employee Cost Per Permit $3 $2 $1 $ Number of Building Permits Issued 8,432 9,7 1,371 11,281 12,833 13,333 Total Building Development Staffing Direct $3,72,821 $4,98,523 $5,112,987 $4,771,279 $6,765,853 $8,19,465 Trend: Cost per building permit issued increased 37 percent from 1999 to 24. The number of building permits issued per authorized position in 24 was down 1.7 percent compared to The Board of County Supervisors has supported adding resources to improve customer service. 52

13 Average Cost Per Building Permit Issued By Comparison Jurisdiction $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $ Average Building Development Program Cost Per Building Permit Issued $756 $75 Chesterfield $64 $656 $68 Prince William $61 $529 $569 $513 $493 $483 $527 Fairfax $439 $452 $412 $424 $423 $336 FY 1999 FY 2 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 Fairfax Prince William Chesterfield FY 23 Building Permits Issued 23,129 12,833 5,61 Direct $12,355,359 $6,765,853 $3,947,197 FY 24 Building Permits Issued 2,896 13,333 6,457 Direct $11,896,524 $8,19,465 $4,234,926 Fee Supported Change in Compared to Other Jurisdictions: In FY 24, Prince William s cost per building permit issued was less than Chesterfield s and more than Fairfax s. Since the other jurisdictions do not report indirect costs, the Prince William County cost per permit only reflects direct expenditures per permit. 53

14 Annual Inspections Per Authorized Inspector Purpose: To provide an indicator of changes in inspector workload. The measure is computed by dividing the number of inspections conducted during the year (by County inspections staff) by the number of authorized inspectors per the adopted budget. This measure does not include temporary employees or contractors. Fee Supported Change in 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, Annual Inspections Per Authorized Inspector Fiscal Year 1999 To 24 6,671 5,274 4,599 4,134 4,167 PWC Standard for Inspections Per Year 3,7 to 4,4 8,8 2, 1, Total Inspections 86,81 1,15 115,58 147,674 26,83 264,278 Number of Inspectors Trend: The number of inspections per inspector increased by 94 percent between 1999 and 24. The quality of inspections is measured by supervisors sampling inspection work and rating the work on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the best performance. While workload has increased substantially, the quality control rating has remained high Quality Control Rating Beginning in 1997 approximately.25 FTE s of supervisors time was devoted to conducting inspections. This is not included in the number of inspectors used to compute the above chart. 54

15 Comments (continued): The Insurance Services Office (ISO) recommends 2,613 inspections per inspector per year (1 inspections per inspector per day). Prince William County has instituted a Residential Combination Inspection Program that has a higher efficiency than that assumed by ISO. Additionally, the Mtrack Inspection system has increased efficiency. Therefore, the Prince William County Standard is 3,7 to 4,4 inspections per inspector per year (15.4 to 18.3 inspections per day). The fiscal year 25 adopted budget adds 4 additional building inspectors. Automation in the field has enabled building inspectors to complete building inspections faster. Fee Supported Change in 55

16 Annual Plans Reviewed Per Authorized Reviewer Purpose: To provide an indicator of changes in plan review workload. The measure is computed by dividing the number of plans reviewed during the year by the number of authorized plan reviewers. This measure does not include temporary employees or contractors. Fee Supported Change in 1,4 1,2 1, Annual Plans Reviewed Per Authorized Reviewer Fiscal Year 1999 To Fiscal Year 24 1,85 1,53 1,188 1,5 1,93 Plans Reviewed 9,465 1,845 1,532 11,877 11,58 13,118 Number of Plan Reviewers Trend: The number of plans reviewed per plan reviewer ranged between a low of 947 in 1999 to a high of 1,188 in 22. The number of plans reviewed per plan reviewer was 15 percent greater in 24 than in In FY 1996 Building Development stopped plan review for basements and sign installations. As a result, the plans being reviewed are more complex on average. In the 4 th Quarter of FY 23 and FY 24 a consulting firm was hired to provide contract plan review services. On average the firm provides four contract plan reviewers two days per week. 56

17 Nonresidential New Building Permits and Alteration/Addition Building Permits Issued Purpose: To provide information on changes in the number of new non-residential building permits and nonresidential alteration/addition building permits. Nonresidential buildings tend to be much more complex than residential structures and therefore represent a significantly greater workload per unit than residential structures Nonresidential New Building Permits Issued Fiscal Year 1999 To Fiscal Year Fee Supported Change in Nonresidential Alteration / Addition Building Permits Issued Fiscal Year 1999 To Fiscal Year Trend: The number of non-residential new building permits increased 189 percent between 1999 and 24. After declining from 21 through 23, nonresidential alteration/addition building permits ended the six year period with an overall increase of 5 percent between 1999 and 24. The complexity of projects represented by non-residential building permits can range widely. For example a small convenience store would be counted the same as a large office building. The number of non-residential alteration building permits has been adjusted from the previous SEA Reports to remove Pad Permits. Pad Permits included residential construction. 57

18 Residential New Building Permits and Alteration / Addition Building Permits Issued Purpose: To provide information on changes in the number of residential new building permits and alteration / addition building permits issued. Fee Supported Change in 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 3,27 Residential New Building Permits Issued Fiscal Year 1999 To Fiscal Year 24 3,44 4,49 4,528 5,139 4,258 Residential Alteration / Addition Building Permits Issued Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Year 24 4,241 4,718 5,33 6,22 4,937 6,616 Trend: The number of residential new building permits increased by 54 percent between 1999 and 24. The number of residential/alteration building permits increased 55 percent between 1999 and 24. Residential new building permits issued declined slightly in 24 compared to 23. This is the first decrease in a ten year period. 58

19 Maximum Number of Days to Review 95 Percent of Plans Purpose: To provide information on the timeliness of plan reviews broken down by non-residential, residential and commercial tenant layout plans. Days represent work days (not calendar days) Maximum Number of Days To Review 95 Percent of Plans - First Submission Fiscal Years 1999 to Nonresidential Residential Commercial Tenant Layout Fee Supported Change in Trend: In 24 the maximum time to review 95 percent of non-residential building plans and residential building plans was down 44 percent and 41 percent respectively from In 24, nonresidential plan review times were at their fastest point of the six year period. Residential plan review times reached their fastest point in 22 and then trended upwards through 24. In 24 the maximum number of days to review 95 percent of commercial tenant layout plans was up 8 percent from However, in 24 the maximum number of days to review commercial tenant layout plans was reduced to 15 days from 25 days in 23. Between FY 1999 and 2, 3 new plan review positions were approved in direct response to the increase in plan review times. The 3 new plan review positions helped to reduce plan review times. In 1999 provision was made for third party plan review in certain cases. Under this policy the owner has the option of using BOCA International for new apartment and multi-family commercial structure plan review. In the 4 th Quarter of FY23 and FY24 a consulting firm was hired to provide contract plan review services. On average the firm provides four contract plan reviewers two days per week. 59

20 Comments (continued): Another way of evaluating the timeliness of plan reviews is to look at average plan review time. The following chart provides average plan review times for FY 21 through FY 24. Fee Supported Change in Average Plan Review Time - First Submission Fiscal Years 1999 Through Nonresidential Residential Commercial Tenant Layout 6

21 Maximum Number of Days to Review 95 Percent of Plans By Comparison Jurisdiction Maximum Number of Days to Review 95 Percent of Nonresidential Building Plans - First Submission Loudoun Fairfax Prince William Loudoun Fairfax Prince William 28 Loudoun Fairfax Prince William Maximum Number of Days to Review 95 Percent of Residential Building Plans - First Submission Loudoun Fairfax 63 Prince William 15 Fee Supported Change in Compared to Other Jurisdictions: In FY 24 Prince William took less time than Fairfax to review non-residential and residential building plans. Loudoun did not respond to our survey for FY 2, 21, 23 and 24. Chesterfield does not report plan review times using the maximum number of days or average number of days to review 95 percent of plans. Between FY 1999 and 2, 3 new plan review positions were approved in direct response to the increase in plan review times. The following table shows average plan review times for Prince William and Fairfax. Average Plan Review Times Fiscal Year 23 Fiscal Year 24 Nonresidential Residential Nonresidential Residential Fairfax Prince William

22 Maximum Number of Days to Review 95 Percent of Plans By Comparison Jurisdiction Fee Supported Change in Loudoun Fairfax Prince William Maximum Number of Days to Review 95 Percent of Commercial Tenant Building Plans - First Submission Loudoun Compared to Other Jurisdictions: In FY 24, Prince William s maximum number of days to review 95 percent of commercial tenant building plans was less than Fairfax s. Loudoun did not respond to our survey for FY 2, 21, 23, and 24. Chesterfield does not report plan review times using the maximum number of days to review 95 percent of plans or the average number of days. The following table shows average plan review times for Prince William and Fairfax. 29 Fairfax Prince William Average Commercial Tenant Layout Plan Review Times Fairfax 9 6 Prince William

23 Percent of Inspections Performed On Day Requested Purpose: To provide information on the timeliness of inspections. This measure includes building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, gas and fuel storage tanks. 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Percent of Inspections Performed on Day Requested Fiscal Year 1999 To Fiscal Year 24 94% 93% 93% 93% 95% 94% Fee Supported Change in Trend: Since 1999 between 93 and 95 percent of inspections have been performed on the day requested. After 1996, four supervisors who previously did not conduct inspections, devoted part of their time to performing inspections. During FY23 and FY24 there were two temporary part-time inspectors. 63

24 Percent of Inspections Performed On Day Requested Percent of Inspections Performed on Day Requested 1% 93% 92% 1% 96% 1% 97% 1% 95% 94% 8% PWC PWC PWC Fee Supported Change in 6% 4% 2% % Prince William PWC highlights the Prince William County column in the table above. Compared to Other Jurisdictions: All of the comparison jurisdictions report over 9 percent of inspections performed on the day requested. Fairfax Chesterfield Fairfax County reported the percent of inspections performed on the day requested broken down by residential and non-residential inspections. The figures reported by Fairfax for 1998 through 22 are presented in the following table: Fairfax County Percent of Inspections Performed on Day Requested Nonresidential Inspections 96.1% 97.1% 99.5% 1.% 1.% 1.% Residential Inspections 93.7% 94.7% 92.7% 91.% 95.% 96.% Loudoun County was unable to respond to our survey. 64