Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-29 Minutes New Hanover County Inspections Department Advisory Council (IDAC) Meeting Notice and Proposed Agenda Regular Meeting of 2021 Wednesday, September 29 th, 2021, at 3:00 PM New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive HR Training Rooms A & B September Report Attending: Nicholas Gadzekpo, Dave Smith, Rob Zapple, Hans Schult, Teresa McCormick, Todd Richardson, Jeff Theberge, Pete Avery, Edward McCaleb, Randal Seigle, Arthur Malpass, Randal Gray, Brianna Grella, Craig Johnson, Heather Reeves. I. INFO ON NHC ADMINISTRATIVE FACE-COVERING POLICY 1) Brianna Grella read the NHC Administrative Face Covering Policy and information. th, 2) Nicholas Gadzekpo edited the first question from September 7 and we also received a comment via email today. II. WELCOME COMMENTS & ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM 1) Dave Smith welcomed everyone and established a Quorum since they are one short. III. INTRODUCTIONS (FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC) 1) Nicholas started the introductions. 2) All attendees, IDAC members, and Building Safety employees were introduced around the room. 3) It was announced Randal Seigle was reappointed to the IDAC committee. IV. Public Comment/Forum Questions Answers by Teresa McCormick 1) Nicholas read the first question from Heather Reeves. a) I am having continued issues with delays in review setups. (1) Answered by Teresa-She spoke with Heather and talked in length and detail regarding the delays in the reviews being started. Some of the delays have been from a file delay issue. Teresa explained the file delay issue, and she is looking into some of the ones that it was not an issue with. (2) Todd explained that they were having some systemic issues, and they had been working with Tyler. Before the upgrade, there was an issue, and the upgrade would solve the issues. Unfortunately, the upgrade did not resolve the issue, and they are continuing to work with Tyler, and a patch will need to be put in the environment to fix it. (3) Hans asked a timeframe. Todd said it would be in weeks, not months, and are reliant on their process. Todd further explained it is random and intermittent, and there is a dedicated resource to work on the file delay for that permit number. (4) Heather asked if she needed to be checking daily to make sure it was set up after submission. Teresa explained the process when a file delay occurs. There was a discussion about a plan review for a specific site plan and the process. (5) Rob Zapple asked how far up the chain are they reporting the issue with Tyler. Todd responded to their Senior Management Team, and Leslie Chaney and Tim Burgess have been apprised. Rob will follow up with Tim and Chris Coudriet. It was discussed when the issues started. 2) Nicholas read the second question from Heather Reeves. a) Heather clarified her original question: Anytime something is supposed to be automatic, there are no other examples but anytime. Next, Nicholas asked about the delays and the eReviews setups. Heather clarified it was the same thing, and she got her answer. 3) Second/Third question from Brandon Lisk at McKinley Builders to Pete Avery, ready by Nicholas. a) Are you still experiencing issues with the permit portal related to "prior turn-ons"? If you are, can you provide a brief description of the problem? Pete clarified that you have to call in and have it added. You also have to submit a form since it is not automatic. b) Teresa discussed how the workflow works and that Heather also sees it. She explained that it is a workflow configuration, and it is automatically on the new single-family homes and commercial new buildings. The prior cut on permit is not uploaded to every permit type since it is rare for the other types, and you cannot apply for it until your building permit is issued. She told Pete if there is a permit type that he works with regularly to let her know, and if he needs it on there, they will look at having it automatically in that workflow. He let it know that the permit type varies, but he would like to see it added at some point. 4) The third set of comments is in two parts. a) What have you done about the Coast system to be more user-friendly on a mobile device or phone? i) Todd responded that he did not have much information about that right now. However, he has his card with him and is happy to provide his email address. Suppose there are more specific issues encountered on the phones and mobile devices. In that case, he can facilitate getting information from the software vendor on what devices and operating systems are supported. ii) Cameron explained that the question came from one of his members, and from what he understands, it is going on the mobile device to schedule inspections and look at inspections. It is very clunky to work through the process, or they can't even get it to the point of scheduling. Superintendents have to call into the main office or go onto a regular standard office computer to do the scheduling. iii) Heather stated that most of her guys call in their inspections because it is not a mobile- friendly device, and she is sitting at a laptop, so it is simple for her. iv) Cameron explained that what is driving the next question is why we can't go back to email the inspections. He knows that we are trying to make coast work to the ability it is supposed to work. v) Nicholas explained that email is not the medium for work and how the process currently works. It is not sustainable to send an email request, and the Coast platform is the way to go instead of emails. He also explained that we had done a survey with jurisdictions and found out that most jurisdictions do not take inspection requests by phone, and we are the only ones that do it. (1) Hans followed up with the Coast software will work to schedule inspections, but it is not user-friendly with a phone. When Heather is on her laptop, she can schedule inspections, but the superintendents on their phones can't; therefore, we get 200 phone calls a day. (2) Heather clarified that it is partly because Coast has to think for so long at every click, and getting to the point where you see the permit and at the point where you can schedule the inspection takes a lot of steps and clicks, and it is hard on the phone. (3) Hans informed us that he had a phone call last week with a national builder, and our scheduling was the worst they have seen. V. ACTION ITEMS 1) Dave Smith discussed establishing a Quorum. 2) Dates were discussed between Nicholas and Dave. The next date was decided on November th 17. 3) Establishing Topics to Discuss for Next Meeting. a) Cameron requested to be taken off the agenda and would send topics to Nicholas to save on time at the meetings. VI. ANY INFORMATIONAL UPDATES TO SHARE? Responses from: 1) What's new from CFPUA? a) Jeff Theberge did not have anything new since the last meeting. Instead, he complimented on how well Teresa's group has done with CFPUA staff with getting them familiar with the system with the recent upgrade. 2) COAST/EnerGov Updates and progress? a) Teresa McCormick stated that they are continually working on Energov to resolve the issues. Projects are coming up that will work on simplifying the process. She said Heather informed her that some of the IO's are not working, the process, and what needs to be done to fix it. Todd is working with support on getting the file delay going. 3) Updates from the Building Safety Department? a) Nicholas Gadzekpo said there are no updates from the Building Safety Department. He explained that due to the issues, staff are stressed and are doing the best they can do. However, the staff has no control over it. Some resignations have come forward, and we have to fill up the vacancy. He explained the process for working on traffic at 3:00 each afternoon, and each day needs to be game-planned since two days are not alike. He touched on what DSC staff does on the phones daily. Some updates from the legislature, state building code, and other updates were passed around and explained. 4) Dave Smith commented that he was not fully aware that there is a form to fill out on alternative methods of an inspection component. Someone was questioning why you needed to fill it out, and he let him know it's because the state law put that form in there, and some departments require it, and some are not. So he will send out an email on it, and other things pop up frequently about why an inspection department is asking for it. 5) Rob explained amendments that came in for commercial and not residential and the process. The residential is on a six-year cycle, and all of the other codes are on a three-year cycle. He said there is a movement in the code council to try and find a way to get them to sync up. There is a gap since NC has its residential-only code, and the majority, if not every other state, accepts the IRC national residential code. a) Dave explained that departments would be working out of different years for codebooks, and it has been accepted that is what we have to do. It was in the house bill and approved. Rob followed up with how the dates work and his outrage that there is the technology that we can implement them on the residential until January 1, 2025, and it's a legislative decision. Dave explained how the process works and possible future scenarios and what can change. They have had appeals before that have gone into law once the ruling is in place. b) Rob said the law would penalize states for not adopting the code within three years. After that, they lose points in the calculations, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars lost from FEMA and other aid programs. He said if anyone wants to know more, contact him or Dave. 6) Updates from Ad Hoc and Building Code Council Meetings? Dave Smith explained that December 2022 is when all of the amendments for the different codes will be introduced to the council. He explained the process and timeline, and it has to be completed by January 2024. They did not do that the last time, and there was not a transition period. Some of the Ad Hoc committees have been meeting, and some committees review what other committees are doing. a) Rob clarified that full adoption does not occur until January 1, 2025, and it was designed that way. VII. ADJOURNMENT 1) Pete motioned to adjourn. 2) Rob seconded. 3) All were in favor.