HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06051984 - IO.3 �o_3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Internal Operations Committee Contra
Costa
DATE: May 21, 1984 _ County
SUBJECT: Proposed Transfer of Grading Inspection Duties to Public Works Department
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Refer this matter back to the County Administrator to consider in conjunction with
an overall review of possible reorganization of the Building Inspection, Planning,
and Public Works departments.
2. Remove this item as a Committee referral.
BACKGROUND:
On February 21 , 1984, the Board referred to our Committee a recommendation from the
County Administrator that the grading inspection function and staff, currently
performed by the Building Inspection Department, be transferred to the Public Works
Department effective July 1 , 1984. A similar recommendation was made to the Board
in a February 15, 1984 letter from the 1983-1984 Grand Jury.
On May 21 , 1984, our Committee met with the Building Inspector; Public Works Director;
Dean La Field, representing the Building Industry Association; Mrs. Dorothy Mutnick,
representing the Grand Jury, and staff from the County Administrator's Office. The
County Administrator's Office summarized the memorandum from the County Administrator,
reviewing how the grading inspection function is handled in a number of other counties,
and forwarded responses to .questions raised by the County Administrator with -the
Public Works Director.
The Building Inspector suggested that he had not seen any material which proved to
him that there were any cost savings to be achieved from the proposed transfer primarily
because the positions which would achieve the savings are vacant and they have been
vacant for some time. Mr. La Field noted that no one had contacted their Association
in preparing any of the recommendations; that there is a discrepancy between the
County Administrator's report and the Grand Jury's report on the potential cost savings,
and that the Building Industry is very satisfied with the system as it is working.
Mr. La Field also noted that the Building Industry is paying for the grading inspection
staff through the building inspection fees, and that his Association opposes the
proposal to transfer staff to the Public Works Department.
Henry Clarke, speaking on behalf of Local I, noted that grading inspection is a
specialized function and has been recognized as such in this County, and that his
Employee Organization has the right to Meet and Confer with the County before any
proposed transfer takes place. He noted that the Building Inspection employees
involved in the proposed transfer are unanimously opposed to the proposal .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE E
SIGNATURE(S) dW Powe Nancy C. Fa n
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 5 , 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
county Administrator OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Planning Director ATTESTED
Building Inspection Director J.R. LSSON, COUNTY CLERK
Public Works Director AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
Dean La Field, Bldg. Industry Assoc.
Mrs. Mutnick, Grand Jury ® 329
a&�•M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY
-2-
The Public Works Director noted that LURPAG studied this issue and agreed
not to take a position on the proposed transfer.
The inspection function has to be divided between Public Works and the Building
Inspector at some point in the process. Presently, the division is made at the
private property line, with the Building Inspector doing inspections on private
property and Public Works doing the inspections on public property or rights-of-way
as well as inspecting driveways.
Mr. Walford added that his office has provided all of the information necessary,
or available, and that his office has nothing further to add to the proposal .
The representative of the engineering technicians noted that construction inspection
work is more skilled than grading inspection work, and that not all grading inspectors
will necessarily qualify to do construction inspection work, and that his staff
would be opposed to the proposal .
Supervisor Powers noted that it is his feeling that the departments should either be
combined entirely or things should be left the way they are. We should not be
discussing taking only one function and transferring it between departments.
Supervisor Powers recommended that the Committee ask the County Administrator to
study the possibility of even larger savings from combining the departments and
possibly creating a transportation agency. It was suggested that the County
Administrator look at the recommendations made by the Government Review Committee.
Building Inspection noted that they have prepared a flow chart showing how the
Building Inspection, Planning, and Public Works departments handle the entire
process of grading. The Committee agreed that this chart should be reviewed by the
County Administrator as part of a study of these three departments. In addition,
Mr. Walford suggested the County Administrator should look at the possibility of
bringing all fees generated by the three departments into a single revenue source
and charge the costs of the three departments against that revenue account in
order to clearly show what the full costs are in relation to the revenue presently
being generated.
Supervisor Fanden noted that she is willing to leave the grading inspection function
in the Building Inspection Department in view of the testimony presented to the
Committee and because the Building Inspection Department's costs are entirely
offset with fees.
00 . 330