2019-04-10 Minutes
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL (IDAC)
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Location: HR Training Room A-401, Government Center
Date: April 10, 2019
Scheduled Duration: 3:30 pm 5:00 pm
IDAC Members present: David Smith, Sean Lewis, Rudy Dombroski, Pete Avery, Randall Siegel.
Special Guest Attendees: Commissioner Rob Zapple
NHC Building Safety Staff: Nicholas Gadzekpo, Director; Hans Schult, Assistant Director.
s Office: Tim Burgess, Assistant County Manager.
Other County representative present: Brianna Grella, Administrative Specialist, Building Safety Dept.
Chairman David Smith opened the meeting at 3:35 pm, with the full knowledge that having the only four
committee members, then present constituted the absence of a quorum, and that the IDAC Committee could
not make any decisions during the duration of the meeting. Chairman Smith continued by thanking all those in
attendance for the meeting and noticed that the agenda did not appear to be lengthy for deliberations. He
also mentioned that Cameron Moore had informed him that he would be late for the meeting. The meeting
started with the four IDAC Committee members present in addition to the other attendees present. Chairman
David Smith reiterated that an additional committee member would constitute the needed quorum. Shortly
afterward, an additional committee member arrived, constituting a quorum to enable the committee to take
business actions, where necessary, during the order of the meeting.
Chairman Smith stated that both he and Pete Avery commented positively on the thoroughness of the
minutes, and then expressed his thanks to Nicholas Gadzekpo for writing the minutes. He then stated that the
minutes would not be read in full unless someone had questions or comments on the minutes. Pete Avery
then made a motion, seconded by at least two committee members in unison, to accept the minutes as
written. The minutes were unanimously approved, with Nicholas Gadzekpo clarifying to Chairman David Smith
that the minutes were exclusively for the February 13, 2019, IDAC Meeting.
Chairman Smith invited Nicholas Gadzekpo (Nicholas) and to which Nicholas
mentioned the March 20, 2019, COAST Informational Meeting held in the adjacent HR Training Room.
Nicholas recounted that the meeting lasted for about an hour and a few minutes and highlighted thirty items
that were either discussed or mentioned by the audience. And that, in follow-up, he sent a list of those thirty
items to members of the IDAC Committee. Nicholas explained that when first sent, the items were not
enumerated but that he later attached a revised enumerated list of the thirty items to the minutes distributed
for April 10, 2019, Meeting. The list was March 20,
2019 Meeting Highlights COAST I
distributing a detailed spreadsheet that covered remarks/response to each item, and the details of
category, disposition, resolution, and timeline for follow-up and completion. Nicholas stressed that for the
most part, a lot of the items had either been resolved or were in the process of resolution and that the items
highlighted in yellow were the follow-up items that the Building Safety Department, in conjunction with IT,
would take care of within the allotted timelines. He clarified that most of those items with timelines centered
around training for the users of the COAST portal, and that there are projections for completion dates in May
and June 2019, respectively. Nicholas said that item #22 on the spreadsheet listed FAQs that IT expected to
complete by Friday, April 12, 2019, and post onto the COAST webpage. And that IT intends to send a copy to
Cameron Moore to distribute to the WCFHBA.
Nicholas drew the committees attention to the column heading remarks/response (in red print) and stated
that the list under the heading was intended to provide the committee with a comprehensive response to the
thirty items mentioned during the March 20, 2019,COAST Informational Meeting. Nicholas reiterated that the
county documented the thirty items which included comments, statements, questions, concerns or opinions
made by the audience in attendance at the COAST Informational Meeting. And that Building Safety and IT staff
performed their due diligence in addressing each one of the thirty items. Nicholas invited the committee to
ask any questions they had on the items. Chairman Smith acknowledged that it was his first time seeing the
spreadsheet and invited Nicholas to highlight the items of significance. Nicholas summarized that the six items
(i.e., 20% of the list) shaded in yellow were all related to the training needed by the users of COAST, and that
May and June 2019 were target months for completing the training. To plan the training, Nicholas said lead
time was necessary in April and May to gather information from (1) Call Center staff on their interactions with
customers, (2) daily trends of fixes mitigated for customers, and (3) figuring out the different types of contact
profiles, such as billing contact, project contact, superintendent contact, etc., in COAST contact management.
Chairman Smith asked Pete Avery about what COAST-related issues he had seen with his projects? Pete Avery
gave some examples. Chairman Smith reverted to contractor-training, to which Nicholas remarked that some
of the training has been informational but that formal training would be forthcoming. Hans Schult (Hans)
stated that he recalled that some builders wanted individualized training and that some have already been
done in particular, for Plantation Builders, Johnson Builders. He said that staff still needed more information
on the different types of contacts, to offer training. The larger builders have lots of contacts like
superintendents, billing contacts, etc. Hans continued by saying that the department will also include the use
of audio-visuals in the training. Chairman Smith said the decision to offer individualized training is great and
wonders if the Building Safety department has the time to devote to the training. Nicholas said that his staff
will make the time. The IDAC Committee members continued their discussions on the training. Nicholas
reiterated that of the thirty items, six were directly related to training COAST users, which would eventually
make things easier for the customers and his staff.
There was some discussion on revision forms. Hans said the forms would be available on the COAST portal and
the Building Safety Departments website.
After the discussions ended on the training for COAST users, Commissioner Zapple asked if there were any
reactions from eliminating the inspections job cards. Nicholas said he thinks the reaction varies depending on
the number of builders/contractors who heavily rely on the job cards versus those who may be indifferent.
Some contractors rely on the job cards for the record of their inspection history. But historically, inspectors did
not always sign the job cards, and so there are questions on their reliability. Hans said he heard two negative
comments, one being that inspectors were failing inspections because they said they could not find the prior
inspection history on their iPads leaving contractors to believe that the job cards were the solution. Hans
said, were happy to do either way, but a majority of contractors may not want them. Another negative was
from some of the inspectors did not have the time to sign the cards or did not find cards on the job site to sign
on, in the first place. Nicholas asked Commissioner Zapple if there was any special significance on the job card
question. Nicholas remarked that this was the second time the topic on job cards had come up the first, was
th
on February 13 IDAC Meeting. Commissioner Zapple said he saw the job card issue both ways: specifically,
that he has clients who have small operations and rely on the job card while contractors with bigger
operations may have the staffing and helps who research inspections history and the follow-ups required
without needing job cards. Commissioner Zapple said it was important for some builders, knowing where
things are on the job regarding the inspection status. He said it was useful, but if the card got lost, so went
the record of the job history. He said it was useful to him. Hans said that as the use of COAST increases there
should be less need for job cards.
The committees discussions continued on the viability that notifications by emails can serve for inspection
records and history. Hence, another reason why electronic records may serve customers better than job cards.
There was a remark from the committee that some customers do not see review comments for whether a
particular review failed or if some departments are not placing review comments after completing their
reviews that required resubmitting. Nicholas said he will have staff find out about the absence of review
comments from other departments particularly, where there were comments given to customers by phone
from the Health Department but were not visible online. Hans said that customers should be able to see the
review comments in real time.
Commissioner Zapple asked about the meaning of the non-issue with gas releases comment under item # 12
of the list of the thirty items. Hans said the non-issue meant there a problem as originally stated by
th
the commenter/inquirer in the audience during the March 20 COAST Informational Meeting. Hans stated
that staff sends the gas releases successfully and that if they werent, customers would have inundated the
department with an excessive number of phone complaints.
Chairman Smith asked Nicholas and Hans if there were any additional items to address from the thirty items
listed. Again, Nicholas reiterated the importance of the training for COAST users, and said he believed that the
training would go a long way to resolving the issues COAST users are having while using the COAST portal.
Next, Nicholas explained item # 30 which was about requests by customers for the City of Wilmingtons zoning
inspections. He said that unlike the regular inspection requests (for building, electrical, mechanical/HVAC, and
plumbing, where there are next-day guarantees for the performance of inspections); his staff does not
guarantee to customers, next-day zoning inspections for the City of Wilmington. The reason is that his
department does not control the staff deployments and schedules of the City of Wilmingtons zoning
operations. The outcome is that while zoning inspection requests are received, the actual inspections may not
occur until after several days. The county was only providing an intake service for zoning inspection requests
and forwarding those requests to the City of Wilmington.
Commissioner Zapple asked if it was possible to make the list of the thirty items available/accessible for
viewing by customers. Nicholas said it was possible. Commissioner Zapple said that the remarks/responses
and resolution/timelines captured good information showing follow up on issues brought up by customers.
Nicholas mentioned that his staff had heard that some customers were asking whether, at a later date, there
th
would be another COAST Informational Meeting similar to the one held on March 20, 2019. To this, the IDAC
committee felt that a follow up meeting could be possible after there has been further progress made with
th
the thirty items mentioned from the March 20 meeting. However, there were consensus comments from the
IDAC committee members who also overwhelmingly noted that the roll-out/launch of COAST was far better
than what occurred with One-Solution. Nicholas then provided the written response from the IT Director that
highlighted items # 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28, as relating to the remarks/response and
th
resolution/timeline given by IT for some of the thirty items mentioned in the March 20 COAST Informational
Meeting.
Commissioner Zapple asked if there has been an increase in electronic submittals of plans for permits in
through the COAST portal. Nicholas noted that the electronic submittals are on the increase, given the fact
that there are currently more than 1,600 COAST users compared to the 897 during the first few weeks after
go-live; that is, the number of users has almost doubled. There has also been more than 50% of electronic
submittal of plans. Also, the department scans plans that some customers submit on paper and then converts
them to electronic documents. The department accepts permit applications and Certificates of Occupancy
(COs).
Under New Business, Hans provided Inspections update on the quarterly volume of inspections (from January
2019 until March 2019). The report showed electrical inspections as the most requested and performed. Hans
also informed the committee that the department had just hired an additional Level III Electrical Inspector.
Nicholas stated that other Level III candidates were under consideration for filling some vacancies on staff.
Hans also provided the total number of permits issued, showing residential permits as outpacing those for
commercial work. Commissioner Zapple asked about a comparison of data with those for 2018. Hans
promised to provide the comparisons later and said he thought the numbers were similar. Commissioner
Zapple asked how close the volumes were in Hans estimation. Hans answered referencing the percentage
changes that showed from month-to-month. Commissioner Zapple asked about rollovers, and both Hans and
Nicholas confirmed that rollovers were fully under control.
Concerning overall operations from March 11, 2019, until April 10, 2019, Nicholas stated that the plan reviews
were only overdue in four instances and was for just one project each: March 25 Building Plan Review,
March 26 Mechanical Plan Review, March 27 Mechanical Plan Review, and April 1 Plumbing Plan Review.
A question arose from the IDAC committee on whether there was data for pre-permit reviews. Hans
mentioned that those types of reviews were under the purview of the Planning and Land Use Department and
that the data could be available. Commissioner Zapple asked about the review times for CFPUA; Nicholas
mentioned the average was 5.9 days. Next, Nicholas summarized that the Call Center
for calls was consistently less than one minute daily, with its staff answering more than 94% of all calls
received daily. And in terms of the number of calls, as inquired by Commissioner Zapple, Nicholas said the calls
had reduced from close to 400 during the week of go-live to about between 250 and 300. But that a majority
of those calls were inspection requests. Rather than going online to request inspections, customers find it
easier to request the inspections by phone through the Call Center. Also, Nicholas mentioned that the
customer lobby wait time was never more than 10 minutes per customer, with the actual average assist time
of not more than 19 minutes. Hans mentioned that some other jurisdictions also use Tyler/EnerGov and that
New Hanover County would host a meeting for users in May. Chairman Smith asked if there were any further
discussions under new business. There were no other inspection issues or concerns before IDAC.
Next, Chairman Smith commented on the Construction Institute report under Other Business. He mentioned
that Tyler had placed the item on the agenda. Chairman Smith said he was involved in the Construction
Institute last year but not this year. Nicholas asked if there are dates for the Institute; Chairman Smith said he
was sure the dates might be on the CFCC website. Chairman Smith then gave a brief summary and said one of
the things he asked about was what the curriculum covered. He said he thought for the Institute to be
successful, the participants should emerge from the construction industry. In other words, a builder or
subcontractor can recommend the Institute to helpers on staff who are deemed to have the potential for the
types of advancement that can benefit the builder/subcontractor and the industry as a whole. Chairman Smith
continued with a group discussion on the item. Some of the discussions touched on whether hours of course
credits could count towards tenure on the job, etc. Chairman Smith said if Cameron Moore were present, a
number of the questions and details would be clearer. He said that the State was also working on continuing
education requirements for contractors. The discussions continued until there were no additional comments.
Commissioner Zapple expressed thanks to NHC staff for their efforts with go-live and for backing those efforts
with the kind of work that showed data for services improving in the right direction. All present also thanked
Commissioner Zapple for his support. Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at about 4:37 pm.
Submitted by:
Nicholas Gadzekpo, Building Safety Director
New Hanover County