Joint City-County Planning Task Force

Joint City-County Planning Task Force Meeting Notes July 09, 2014 - 9:30 a.m. Greene County Archives & Election Center - 1126 Boonville Ave. Meeting #21 Task Force Members present: Tim Smith, Greene County Administrator Greg Burris, Springfield City Manager Cindy Stein, Greene County Auditor Dan Patterson, Greene County Prosecutor Jerry Moyer, Greene County Court Administrator Jim Arnott, Greene County Sheriff The meeting began at 9:35 a.m. with a welcome from Greg Burris, Springfield City Manager. Mr. Burris asked the members to review the notes from the June 25, 2014 meeting, and asked for a motion of approval. Cindy Stein, Greene County Auditor, made a motion to approve the notes. Jerry Moyer, Greene County Court Administrator, seconded the motion and the notes were approved. Tim Smith, Greene County Administrator, gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Consolidated Functions.” Mr. Smith reminded the Task Force of their charge to look at the topic and determine the parameters without making formal recommendations. The “Idea Starter Suggestion” for this topic states: “The time seems right to consider future consolidation of city and county functions, such as Planning and Development, Public Works, Law Enforcement and others. This might be the first step towards combined government. Additionally, the time may be right for the County to consider Charter form of government. It would appear there would be savings associated with combining some of the functions within County government.” This topic was suggested by a citizen and sponsored by Mayor Stephens. Greene County is a non-charter form of government, falling under Missouri State Statutes. The City of Springfield is a charter government using “council-manager government”. There is no constitutional authority to merge a county government and a city government in Missouri. Currently there are a number of City and County services that are consolidated through agreements. These services include: the Health Department, 9-1-1, Emergency Management, Parks, and the Library. Harold Bengsch, Greene County Commissioner, explained how efforts to combine the Health Department began in the late 1950’s. It was consolidated into one department in 1977, twenty years later. This consolidation was primarily the first of its kind. Today a few other communities are beginning to implement this model. In addition to consolidated functions/services, there are also cooperative services between the City and County. One such service is the relationship between the City’s Public Works Department and the Greene County Highway Department. Dan Smith, Greene County Highway Administrator, explained how these two departments work together in coordinating snow plowing, sharing the salt storage facility, and using cost-share methods on construction projects. Economic Development is another area of cooperation. The City, County, and the Chamber of Commerce work jointly on efforts to bring new businesses and development to the community. Mr. Burris noted the good working relationships already established between these entities. Many other cities and counties do not have this type of cooperation. The partnership has created a type of “one-stop-shop” where all entities can work with each other.      Mr. Smith continued the presentation by explaining the purpose and future of consolidating functions. As stated in the PowerPoint, consolidation leads to improved delivery of services, consistency in services and regulatory programs, improved efficiency and elimination of duplication. Mr. Burris noted that there is currently a struggle for stormwater funding at both the City and County. Since there is no funding source, there is no money for projects. With this in mind, a combined funding source for both the City and County Stormwater Departments might be considered. Mr. Smith stated that stormwater funding would need to be a combined effort, not just for the City or County alone, but for both entities. Mr. Smith asked Commissioner Bengsch if there had been a noted reduction of cost in consolidating the Health Department. Commissioner Bengsch explained that the cost somewhat balanced itself out. While there were increases in cost to cover equalizing the pay scale, there were reduced costs in other areas. For example, with consolidation the Purchasing Departments and Administrative Departments could both be reduced to one department instead of two separate departments. Roseann Bentley, Greene County Commissioner, noted that for citizens it is easier to have only one entity to turn to, ultimately making this a benefit to the taxpayer. Dan Patterson, Greene County Prosecutor, stated it could also improve customer service. Commissioner Bengsch used the example of the Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program in which case people did not have to be concerned as to whether they lived inside or outside the city to receive services. Next Mr. Smith discussed the individual functions of the City and the County, and functions/services which are provided by both organizations. Services which are provided by both include: Law Enforcement, Planning and Zoning, Building Regulations, Stormwater Services, Streets/Bridges, and the various support services needed to maintain personnel and building operations. In 2010, the Springfield Police Department and the Greene County Sheriff’s Office researched consolidating services. In the same year Building Plan Review and Inspections also considered consolidation. In regard to consolidating Building Plan Review and Inspections, Mr. Smith stated that while it would be difficult to implement, it would not be impossible and should still be considered. Mr. Burris said it was important to note that these services were really not duplicated because each department inspects according to geographic area depending upon whether the location is inside the City or outside the city limits. Sheriff Arnott asked whether the Courts and Prosecutor’s Office could function as one. Mr. Patterson stated they could not consolidate function-wise, but could possibly consolidate their location. Mr. Smith agreed that this had been previously discussed but was not implemented in part due to the major issue of parking. Chris Coulter, Greene County Director of Resource Management, stated that construction of a parking garage had been researched; however at $16,000 per space it was not feasible at the time. Mr. Smith added that it was in 2006-2007 when the garage had been considered. Mr. Smith referred the Task Force to the following handouts for additional information: the Lowther Johnson letter from 2009; the 2010 Citizens Law Enforcement Merger Study; and the May 20, 2011 memorandum to the Members of the Citizen’s Law Enforcement Merger Study Group. Mr. Smith explained the Urban Service Boundary which was first established in 1981. In 1994, if a subdivision was developed outside the city limits but within this established boundary, the developer had to sign an agreement to annex. However, residential areas operate as a deficit to the City because they do not provide an offset to revenue; therefore the City has taken a position against annexation. There continues to be an issue in the manner the boundary was drawn. Since the boundary outline does not follow an obvious pattern it can be difficult to determine whether a property is inside or outside the city limits or within the Urban Service Boundary. In 2003, there was an initiative to “square up” the boundary. This proposal was taken before the voters but failed.      Next Mr. Smith further explained the differences between a charter versus non-charter form of government. Currently Greene County is a first class, non-charter county. To form a charter, the requirements set forth in the Missouri Constitution, Article VI, Section 18(a) must be followed. Of these requirements, a county must have a population of at least 85,000 or have a first class status for at least two years. Greene County became a first class county on January 1, 1975, after meeting the statute requirements which included having an assessed valuation of $600 million. As a non-charter county, there are 13 elected officials who follow the duties/authorities as prescribed for each office by the state statutes. Traditional functions of county government include: tax collection, law enforcement, elections, record keeping and archives, and guardian/conservator for disabled, deceased, and minors. The county commission serves as the executive body of the county, acting under the authority and duties of Chapter 49 RSMo. There are numerous “modern” functions which have been added to the Greene County government over the years. The first being Emergency Management in 1950 and the latest addition is that of the County Administrator which was added in 2008. Mr. Smith continued by explaining the limitations and structure of charter county government stating that in 2005 Assistant County Counselor John Housley, compiled “A Comparison of the Structure and Functions of Statutory versus Constitutional Charter First Class County Government” which explains the process. To summarize these limitations it states that there is no constitutional authority to merge county government and city government in Missouri; it cannot change a county’s legal standing as a subdivision of the state; and a county must continue to perform the duties imposed by the state on all first class counties. Missouri State Statutes provide two alternatives for adopting a county charter government – Article VI, Section 18 (a)-(l) or Article VI, Section 18 (m)-(r). The first is a petition initiated by the citizens and the second an act initiated by the county commission. To adopt a constitutional home rule charter, a charter commission is formed after receipt of petition. After following specifications and approved by a majority of voters, certified copies of the charter and ratification are then filed with the Secretary of State. Mr. Smith stated that St. Charles County was a model for charter government. While there are still a number of elected officials in charter government, some positions are combined, eliminated, or restructured. In addition, it has the power to impose three taxes: 1.) Gross receipts of public utilities in the unincorporated county up to 5% maximum; 2.) Motor vehicle license tax in unincorporated areas -- same rates as can be imposed by municipalities; and 3.) Cigarette tax not to exceed 2.5 mils per cigarette. Mr. Burris asked whether the County Commission could impose this type of government. Mr. Smith stated it would be up to the citizens to petition a vote for the change. In the past one had been petitioned but was defeated at election. Mr. Burris noted three observations from the presentation: 1.) In regard to functional consolidation, Springfield and Greene County are already doing more than any other community within the state; 2.) There is a lot of complexity when it comes to consolidation; and 3.) There could be potential for unintended consequences and costs associated with consolidation. Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Burris the status of the combined courthouse. Mr. Burris stated there is a schematic architectural design, but the location was yet to be determined. Currently there is no funding for it, but the City is considering the possibility of leasing space to the County. In September, contingent upon the Governor not vetoing the proposal, both the City and the County will begin to collect a $10 court fee for each case. Mr. Burris stated this would cover approximately 23% of the courthouse cost, and they are looking for additional sources of revenue. Mr. Patterson added that the anticipated collection of the court fee for the County would be approximately $70,000 in 2015.      Once discussion on functional consolidation had concluded, Mr. Burris revisited the discussion on legislative matters and tax exemptions covered in the June 11, 2014 meeting. More official numbers of the tax exemptions have been released. The revised amount is around $8 million. The City intends to use an independent model to determine the fiscal impacts of the exemptions and convert the numbers into something easily understood by the citizens. Various scenarios explaining the impact to services, particularly police and fire, will be shown. Mr. Burris explained that the City owed it to the delegation to show the impacts on the community, including the objection to loss of local control and loss of revenue. In addition, the City will not be able to honor the commitments to the citizens who initially approved the taxes. Mr. Patterson asked what percentage of revenue loss Greene County would experience. Ms. Stein stated it would be approximately 10% in the General Revenue Fund. The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 8:30 a.m., in the fourth floor conference room of the Busch Building, 840 Boonville Ave. The tentative topic will by Civic Engagement. Mr. Smith stated that a draft of the report would be ready in about two weeks for the members to review. An anticipated release of the full report should be available at the end of August. With no additional discussion, the meeting dismissed at approximately 10:50 a.m. m:\data\wp51\storm2\vbrandon\joint city-county planning task force 072613\mtg. #21\joint planning task force, mtg. #21 070914.doc      Study of Feasibility of Combining Development Review & Permitting Services for the City of Springfield and Greene County, Missouri Unknown Field Cod Report of Ad Hoc Committee May 3, 2010 Part I: General Information Charge to Committee $ To determine the practicality of combining City and County development review services and what internal organizational modifications might be needed within either or both organizations regarding this topic to increase service and/or efficiencies. $ To provide a brief, written analysis of the group's process and recommendations. Committee Members Chris Coulter, Director, Greene County Resource Management Department Ralph Rognstad, Director, City of Springfield Department of Planning & Development Tim Rosenbury, Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Chairman, Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce Chris Straw, Acting Director, City of Springfield Building Development Services Tim Smith, County Administrator, Chairman Committee Process The Committee met weekly from February 8 through March 22, 2010, with the final report reviewed by the Committee on April 19 and April 26, 2010. The goal was to complete the initial review and report to the City Manager and County Commission by the first week of April. Meeting agendas and summaries are included in the appendix. Services Considered for Combination The Committee considered a list of City and County services related to development review. After review, it was decided to limit the study to the area of building plan review and inspection. The following table shows the services considered and the reasons why the committee elected not to include them in its scope of work. 1  Services Considered Service Include in Reason why or why not. current Scope Building plan review& inspection Yes Building codes are the same with minor exceptions Subdivision plat review No Subdivision regulations and review processes are similar. This function would be the next logical area to consider combining. Building & zoning enforcement No Differences in process due to City being a charter government and County a non-charter government Zoning case review No Zoning ordinances have significant differences Plan review for public improvements No Standards are similar Housing programs No County has no formal program Economic development No City and County collaborate through Chamber 2 Other Joint City & County Operations The City and County already have several joint departments listed in the table below: Department How Organized/Managed Library Funded by dedicated property tax, independent nine-member Board of Trustees, five members appointed by the Mayor, four members appointed by the County Commission. Health Department Administers public health programs in City and County, staff under City personnel system, funding included in both City and County budgets. Parks Department Under direction of nine-member Park Board with five members appointed by City Council and four members by County Commission, staff under City personnel system, 49 % funded by county-wide parks sales tax, 16% from City property tax and General Revenue, and the remainder from fees and grants tax. Watershed Committee Jointly funded by the City, County and City Utilities, managed by as of the Ozarks six-member Board with one appointee each from the three funding partners and three citizen members. Emergency Funded from City and County general revenue. Staff under direct Management management by County by agreement. Part II: Comparison of City and County Building Permit & Inspection Services 1. Ordinances and Regulations City of Springfield The City requires certification of electrical, plumbing, gas and mechanical contractors for all residential and commercial construction. The Building Development Services Department is the enforcement arm of the City for the building codes, the zoning ordinance, floodplain management ordinance and dangerous building ordinance. Plan review in the City is coordinated by the Building Development Services Department and involves among the Planning & Development, Public Works, Legal, Building Development Service, Fire and Health Departments. A table showing comparison of adopted City and County building codes is shown below. 3 Greene County Greene County is a first class non-charter county under Missouri Statutes. The County Commission has established a five-member Building Commission to review and adjudicate appeals of the building code. Building, planning and zoning and floodplain management services are all included in the Resource Management Department under the supervision of the department director. The Resource Management Department operates under the elected office of the County Commission and reports to the County Administrator. Summary of Adopted Building Codes Code City County 2006 International Building Code (IBC) Yes Yes 2006 International Residential Building Code (IRC) Yes Yes 2006 International Plumbing Code (IPC) Yes Yes 2006 International Mechanical Code (IMC) Yes Yes 2006 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) Yes Yes 2005 National Electrical Code (NEC) Yes Yes 2006 International Fire Code (IFC) Yes* No * Adopted through Springfield Fire Department 4 Primary Differences $ City ordinance requires licensed plumbing, electrical and mechanical contractors, the County does not. $ City inspections are made by trade specialty, with electrical, mechanical, plumbing and building inspectors performing only those specialty inspections. The County does not have specialized inspectors. $ The City does not require residential house plans. The County requires a floor plan. The County also requires a site plan for homes with septic systems. $ In addition to enforcing the building ordinances, City Building Development Services serves as the enforcement arm for the zoning and floodplain ordinances and provides review and inspection for on-site stormwater facilities and detention basins, as well as erosion and sediment control for sites less than one acre in size. $ Legal procedures for enforcement differ in the City and County due to their differing governing structures under State law. 2. Development Review & Permitting Procedures City of Springfield Floor plans are not required for single family and duplex structures. However, a site plan must be submitted and reviewed. The City has a Cooperative Permitting Process for commercial projects. Plan review is tracked with a central database. Plan review progress is posted on-line so that it can be monitored by developers and consultants. New building projects are initiated with a mandatory pre-application conference where the applicant and/or their consultant(s) review the proposed project with representatives of BDS, Planning, Public Works (stormwater, traffic, sanitary services), Health and Fire Departments and City Utilities as needed. (Note: Effective April 1, 2010, the pre- application conference will be voluntary.) Final development plans for Planned Developments (PDs) are reviewed and approved by the Administrative Review Committee consisting of the directors of the Public Works, Planning and Building Development Services departments. Plan reviews are coordinated by the Plan Reviewer in BDS. Since the BDS department enforces the zoning ordinance, review of zoning requirements are performed by BDS in consultation with the Planning Department. Re-development projects follow a similar but separate procedure in the City and are coordinated by an engineer assigned to these projects. Greene County A formal plan review is not required for single family and duplex projects. Building Regulations, Planning & Zoning and Environmental staff coordinate subdivision and zoning requirements 5 reflected on the final plat. Commercial project review is coordinated in a manner similar to the process in the City. A pre- application conference is optional. The developer and/or their consultant may attend a weekly Administrative Review Team (ART) meeting for this purpose. The ARC consists of representatives of the County Building Regulations, Planning & Zoning, Environmental (Stormwater, Wastewater systems) and Highway Departments, along with the Health Department and MODOT. There is no separate procedure for re-development projects. Primary Differences $ In the City, zoning requirements are interpreted by BDS, since they have enforcement authority. County Building Regulations does not have a separate zoning review section, since zoning regulation and enforcement functions are all included in one department (Resource Management). $ Re-development projects are much more common in the City, requiring fire code review and coordination of brownfield, tax credits and other special requirements. $ The City law department is more frequently involved in interpreting development requirements in the City. $ The Fire Department plays an active role in development review in the City. There are separate rural fire districts in the County, which are independent political subdivisions under State law. 3. Staffing, Salaries & Benefits City of Springfield The Building Development Services Department organizational chart is shown below along with a table showing positions and salary ranges. The City BDS department has twenty-nine (29) full time positions, four (4) of which are currently vacant. The City has a formal compensation and payment plan and a comprehensive benefit plan. City employees are “at will” employees; however, terminations must be reviewed and approved by a five-member Personnel Board comprised of community citizens. A comparison of benefits for City and County are summarized in a table and follows organizational charts and salaries table. Greene County County Building Regulations has nine (9) full time and two (2) shared positions. The Administrator of the Resource Management Department also serves as the Building Regulations Director. There are currently three (3) vacant positions in the County Building Regulations department. The County has a formal compensation and payment plan and a comprehensive benefit plan. County employees are “at will” employees. A progressive discipline process is followed. Comparisons are below. 6 7 8 9 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS Benefit City County Medical Insurance Self insured Humana Provided for employee Provided for employee Family coverage $394/mo Family coverage $688/mo. Life Insurance Voluntary contribution $15,000 term provided for employee Dental and other health Voluntary – cafeteria plan Voluntary – cafeteria plan benefits Deferred Compensation Maximum annual Maximum annual contribution 457(b) Plan contribution: $16,500 3% of annual salary, matched City matches employee by County through the County contribution Employees’ Retirement Fund (CERF) Sick Pay 12 days earned per year. 12 days earned per year Accrued maximum: 180 days Accrued maximum: 60 days Sick leave redemption Limited, certain rules apply Not available Paid Holidays 9 plus 3 floating holidays 13 Vacation 5 days after 6 months 10 days/yr., 1 - 7 years 12 days/yr., 1 - 7 years 15 days/yr., 8-15 years 15 days/yr., 8-14 years 20 days/yr., 16 or more years 20 days/yr., 15 or more years Longevity Pay Varies by years of service Not available Retirement LAGERS (Missouri State LAGERS (Missouri State system): 2% of average salary, system): 1.5% of average last 3 years salary for last 3 years County Employees Retirement Fund (CERF): mandatory contribution, 4% of salary. Tuition Reimbursement With approval from Human Not available Resources Department 10 Primary Differences $ There is a significant difference in salaries between the City and County. The following table compares salaries of equivalent positions. County Position Salary Range City Position Salary Range Difference at Mid-range County/City Bldg. $44,346 - Code $49,858- -12.4% Inspection/Plan $58,573 Administrator, $67,600 Review PAT 12* Manager, Grade 15 Building $32,614- Building $37,710- - 7.0% Inspector I, II, $50,211 Inspector, PAT 9 $51,313 III Grade 11, 12, 13 Administrative $20,550- Permitting $26,790- -24.9% Clerk, Grade 5 $27,123 Service $36,670 Representative, PAT 6 Office $27,955- Permit $41,309- -33.3% Coordinator, $36,941 Coordinator, $55,973 Grade 9** PAT 10 *Required to be a registered architect or engineer, not required for County position **Also coordinates Planning & Zoning desk $ There is also a significant difference in number of staff. However, direct comparisons of the two building departments should not be made since the City BDS includes floodplain management and zoning enforcement, as well as stormwater and sediment & erosion control review and inspection for building sites. These functions are not performed by the County Building Regulations Department. The following chart shows relative staff size. County staff numbers are adjusted to account for floodplain, zoning and stormwater functions included in other sections of the Resource Management Department. A chart comparing staff sizes is shown below. $ The City uses specialized inspectors for plumbing, mechanical, electrical and general building construction. County inspectors are not specialized. 11 $ Planning & Zoning, Floodplain Management (in the Environmental Section) and Building Regulations are all included in the same department in the County (Resource Management), allowing personnel to be more easily shared. County Planning & Zoning and Building Regulations share the same service counter and administrative clerks. $ The City has a more generous benefits package. * County total is adjusted to account for building related inspections, plan review and floodplain management functions performed by staff in the Environmental and Planning & Zoning Sections. The County Building Regulations Section by itself has nine (9) full time plus two (2) shared employees. 4. Permitting and Inspection Activity & Value of Construction City of Springfield BDS has nine (9) inspectors devoted to building inspection: three (3) general building inspectors, three (3) mechanical, plumbing and gas inspectors and three (3) electrical inspectors. There is one (1) registered architect who serves as the Code Administrator and one (1) professional engineer is devoted to re-development projects. The plan review and permitting section consists 12 of ten (10) positions under the direction of a professional engineer. In addition, there is a section consisting of six (6) positions devoted to code compliance and land development enforcement. Greene County The county has five (5) inspectors devoted to building inspection, one (1) plan reviewer, and three (3) clerical positions. One (1) of the building inspectors is devoted to commercial projects. Sewer connections and septic systems are inspected by the Environmental Section, a separate section in the Resource Management Department. The following charts compare the number of single family residential permits, total inspections, mileage logged and estimated total value of commercial, residential and total construction for the City and County for the years 2005 through 2009. This period was selected in order to give a more accurate picture of normal activity. Total building activity slowed drastically in 2008 and 2009, whereas 2005 and 2006 were record years for building. Due to a computer system failure, complete data for City BDS was not available for 2005 and 2006. 13 Delete above chart 14 15 • City of Springfield total for 2007 increased significantly due to St. John’s Hospital construction. • City of Springfield total for 2009 increased significantly due to Cox Medical Center South expansion. 16 Primary Differences $ Most building activity in the City is commercial, while activity in the County is mostly single family residential. $ County inspectors are generalized, while City inspectors are specialized. One inspector in the County can make electrical, mechanical/plumbing/gas and building inspections in one inspection stop; whereas in the City, three different inspectors are required to make these inspections. $ The County has a higher number of inspections per inspector. However, due to the predominance of commercial projects in the City, inspections may be more detailed. $ Mileage driven in the City is higher than that in the County, even though the service area covered is much smaller (82.4 sq. mi. City vs. 678 sq. mi. County). The City’s annual vehicle mileage budget is $64,500 versus $25,000 budgeted by the County. This difference is most likely due to stops by the individual inspectors with different specialities. $ The City does not provide vehicles. City inspectors use their private vehicles and are paid mileage (currently 50-cents per mile).The County provides County-owned vehicles and does not pay mileage. 5. Budgets, Fees and Revenue The following charts compare current department budgets for the City and County and revenue collected for the years 2005 through 2009. Though the budgets are not affected, it should be noted that the City and County use different fiscal years, with the City’s running from July 1 through June 30 and the County on a calendar basis. The City’s policy is to collect 100% of the cost of providing service. The County’s policy is to collect 75% of the cost of service. (Note: Actual percentage collected depends on amount of building activity. Neither the City nor County automatically adjusts fees to maintain the target.) Direct comparison of fees for commercial construction is difficult; however, in general, the City’s fees are higher than the County’s. For residential construction, both City and County fees are progressive, increasing with house size. County fees, however, are lower for small houses and significantly higher for large houses. 17 • County Budget includes shared positions in Environmental and Planning & Zoning Sections. • The County Building Regulations Section budget, by itself, is $395,300 for 2010. 18 * Fees vary based upon size of home and special inspections required. The above example illustrates typical fees for the range of sizes shown. *Fees are calculated by formula. City and county formulas differ. The examples shown illustrate typical fees for the types of projects shown. 19 Part III: Summary 1. The Committee’s charge was to determine the practicality of combining City and county development review services and what internal organizational modifications might be needed within either or both organizations regarding this topic to increase service and/or efficiencies. 2. This report is limited to the area of building plan review and inspection. 3. Organizational structures of the two departments are very different. The City’s primary building and development service functions are located in separate departments: BDS, Public Works and Planning, whereas the County’s building regulation and planning functions are located in one department. The County’s structure allows for sharing personnel between various departments whereas the City’s generally does not. As a result, certain review functions performed by BDS appear to duplicate those in the Public Works and Planning Departments 4. Enforcement of the zoning ordinance, building regulations and stormwater regulations is delegated solely to the BDS Department in the City. These functions are integrated throughout Building Regulations, Planning & Zoning and Environmental Sections of the County’s Resource Management Department, again allowing for sharing of staff resources. 5. The City provides specialized inspectors for electrical, mechanical-plumbing-gas, and building work. This results in separation of inspection functions. For example, a single County inspector makes building, mechanical, plumbing and electrical inspections in one trip, whereas three separate trips by three different inspectors are required in the City. It should be noted that specialized inspection expertise is needed, particularly for complex commercial projects. However, this is generally not needed for residential inspection. 6. The City has a Crafts and Trades ordinance requiring certification of electrical, mechanical and plumbing contractors. The County does not. This is a potentially significant issue if the agencies are combined. 7. The fire code has a much greater impact on design and review requirements in the City. The Springfield Fire Department plays a much more active role in building and development review in the City, than rural fire districts do in the County. 8. The requirement for a residential floor plan has been a long standing political issue for the City, whereas these plans have been required in the County for some time. 20 9. Salary scales are different. Salaries for City building inspectors are about 7% higher on average than those in the County. Salaries for Permitting Service Representative / Administrative Clerk and Permit Coordinator / Office Coordinator run 25% and 33% higher, respectively, in the City. 10. There are differences in fees and enforcement procedures; however, these are not as challenging to address as the other issues. Part IV: Conclusions Based upon the information gathered, the committee recognizes there are three types of issues that need to be addressed to effectively combine the permitting services of the City and County. The issues are financial, regulatory and cultural. It appears that long term savings can be realized by combining City and County building and development services. Even if the combined operation were to be placed on the City wage scale, the increase in cost can most likely be offset by reductions in total personnel. It should be noted that because development activity is currently very slow, the amount of staff needed at this particular time will not reflect the amount of staff needed historically, or likely to be needed in the future when the economy improves. The committee’s interview with Kevin Gipson, Director of the City-County Health Department, revealed that there are very few issues encountered with administration of differing City and County regulations or the differing enforcement procedures. The primary improvements which stood out in the evolution of the combined Health Department were first, the placement of all employees on the same wage scale and second, allowing staff to be assigned to City or County functions as needed. The ability to share personnel across department lines is key to a more efficient operation. If one jurisdiction is experiencing less development activity, staff can be shifted to activities in the other jurisdiction. While the two jurisdictions are working under the same building code, there are significant differences in the two zoning ordinances. Any important difference in the City zoning ordinance is the Administrative Review Committee (ARC). The ARC has certain review, appeal and approval responsibilities assigned in the zoning ordinance. The intent of the ARC is to streamline the process by maximizing the ability to deal with development review and approval administratively. However, the ARC also diffuses authority and creates some uncertainty within the process because a decision by the ARC must be unanimous. One department director, of the three, essentially holds veto power over the other two. And, there is reluctance for directors to question issues that arise in another director’s department. Each director is the expert and is ultimately responsible for the outcome in their respective department, so the other directors tend to defer. Each director tends to have different priorities ranging from: constructing public improvements to maximizing development opportunities to ensuring conformance to codes. 21 These priorities may overlap but are not always congruent. There is no structure like the ARC in the County. If a significant issue in the County requiring advanced interpretation emerges on a project being reviewed, the issue rises up the chain of command, ultimately to the Director of the Resource Management Department or the County Administrator, who has authority to make administrative decisions. It would be difficult for the City to function this way because of how the zoning ordinance currently assigns responsibilities, but another problem is how the City organization is structured. There is no one position with overall responsibility for the development review process except the City Manager. Due to the size of the City organization and the complexity of development issues, past and the present city managers have tended to not get involved in development issues until they became extraordinary issues. Another cultural difference between the City and County is that City staff is inclined to make a much more literal interpretation of City regulations and ordinances. This is due in part to the size of the organization and the desire to ensure consistency in application of the requirements. It has also been the result of the management philosophies of department directors and key staff. . There is also significantly more reliance on the City Law Department to interpret regulations and requirements. The City has been working on this issue by bringing forward a number of zoning ordinance amendments to provide more administrative flexibility and to clarify language that is confusing. There have also been staffing changes to address philosophical issues. The City has placed all enforcement functions within the Building Development Services Department. This has developed into a system where the BDS department is almost regarded as a quasi-independent entity, relying upon its independent interpretation of zoning ordinances as a part of building plan review. This creates conflicts and appears to duplicate certain functions of the Planning & Development Department. This is particularly true for Planned Development ordinances, which are written by Planning Department staff, then interpreted by BDS staff. BDS interpretation may not reflect the intent of the ordinance as written and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. There does not appear to be an effective way for these differences in interpretation to be resolved at the department level. Hence, the Law Department is frequently consulted. The result of this practice is that resolution of fairly minor differences in interpretation can take considerable effort to resolve. This is a primary source of dissatisfaction with the development community. Again, the City has been working on this issue. The Planning and Development Department has been involving Building Development Service in the drafting of Planned Developments and Conditional Overlay Districts, which are being used more frequently in lieu of Planned Development to address specific development proposals. BDS consults more frequently with the Planning and Development Department on interpretation issues, and there is less involvement of the Law Department. It is clear that while reorganization can occur within the City or through this City-County combination and the City’s zoning ordinance can be amended to try to address the issues discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the issues can really only be successfully addressed by the City Manager explicitly stating the City’s development philosophy and demand conformance by all departments. If this cultural issue is not addressed, combined permitting service will probably have many of the same issues the City organization currently experiences. The City Manager 22 has a unique opportunity because two of the director positions (Public Works and Building Development Services) are currently vacant. As part of the hiring process, the City Manager can make his philosophy known to prospective candidates. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the expectations of the development community. There is the expectation of some sort of change to address these issues. Some may believe a structural change such as the combination of the City and County services is necessary, but as outlined above it is not sufficient. The critical importance addressing the cultural issue must be clearly explained to the development community. It has been helpful to have a representative of the development community participate in the committee’s discussions about this issue. It is hoped that the development community will appreciate the importance of this issue if it is explained by one of their peers. The bottom line is that any changes in organization must be clearly articulated, monitored and reported back after a period of time. Finally, the committee is also concerned about the on-going morale of the City and County permitting and inspection staffs. Both staffs are aware of the committee’s work. There are staff concerns about changes that may be coming, particularly the possibility of a combination of staffs that could result in layoffs. The process needs to move along quickly upon receipt of this report with a strategy developed to alleviate employees concerns. The danger of on-going uncertainty is that some of the best staff will leave for other jobs because they have the best ability to be hired elsewhere in this difficult economy. M:\tsmith\county administrator\2010\Ad Hoc Committee for Development Review\10-05-03 draft bds final report V1.doc 23  MEMORANDUM May 20, 2011 TO: Members of the Citizen’s Law Enforcement Merger Study Group A copy of the report titled “Merger of Springfield Policy Department and Greene County Sheriff Department, Turf-Purchasing-Training” dated 2010 was received by the City and County staff in January 2011. The City Manager, Police Chief, Sheriff, County Administrator, a representative of the County Commission and key city and county staff have carefully reviewed the report and provide the following comments. First, allow us to express our appreciation for the considerable amount of volunteer time and effort expended in compiling information and preparing the report. We are impressed with the expertise and breadth of experience of the committee members. The commitment to the community shown in generously sharing your time and talent is indeed gratifying. We understand and acknowledge that you are not advocating a full merger of the two departments at this time, but that the discussion and research of this possibility remain a long-term goal. We agree with your conclusion that, particularly in these difficult economic times, we owe it to our citizens to eliminate any unnecessary duplications of effort. We also agree with your statement that “turf issues should not be acceptable in making policy.” We believe that this applies not only to law enforcement operations, but to all city and county functions. We recognize and agree with your recommendation that the two departments seek and take advantage of every opportunity to reduce costs through cooperative purchasing and contracting and combined training. We will aggressively pursue these goals and will seek every practical opportunity to reduce cost and increase efficiency in this manner. You observed that, while the Springfield Police Department (SPD)and Greene County Sheriff’s Office (GCSO) have worked closely together in many areas, there have, none-the- less, remained significant barriers between the departments. We are very pleased to report that as a result of the close working relationship between Sheriff Arnott and Chief Williams, the philosophies of the two agencies have been brought into much closer alignment. The Police Department and Sheriff’s Office have been, and will continue, working together on a number of initiatives that have a significant impact on efficiency and costs for providing law enforcement services to our citizens. Examples of these include: • Dispatch: We continue to utilize a county-wide dispatching system and the new 911/emergency management center under construction will enhance those efforts. • Records Management System Consolidation: SPD has installed a new records management system (Niche) and has offered the option for the Greene County Sheriff’s Office, as well as other area police departments, to “piggyback” on the system to increase information sharing and accessibility as well as create significant cost savings. GCSO and Republic PD are in the planning stages of taking advantage of this cooperative opportunity. • Firing Range: A recently completed and approved Memorandum of Understanding between GCSO and the City of Springfield granted access to a portion of the current firing range for the Sheriff and his employees. • DWI Enforcement: SPD, GCSO, and the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP), are in regular contact and are now coordinating their efforts as they relate to checkpoints and saturation patrols focused on DWI offenses. • Training: The upcoming construction of the Springfield Regional Police and Fire Training Center will increase and enhance the opportunities for coordinated and combined training between GCSO and SPD, as well as all other local law enforcement agencies. This facility has been designed from the ground up to be a regional asset. • Intelligence: The SPD Crime Analysis Unit prepares a “Law Enforcement Sensitive” daily bulletin and currently distributes it to GCSO and over twenty other agencies in the interest of intelligence sharing and enhancing officer safety. Input from the partner agencies is encouraged and we are hopeful it will increase. • Jail: Funded by a county-wide tax, the GCSO operates the jail for use by both SPD and GCSO. The agreement in place since its construction has allowed the City of Springfield to eliminate the operation of a City Jail, creating a more efficient operation and save taxpayers’ money. We recognize that Springfield citizens pay county taxes, too. • Property Crimes: Sheriff Arnott and Chief Williams spearheaded a public education campaign highlighting the increased occurrence of property crime throughout the area. In conjunction with this effort, SPD, GCSO and MSHP created a property crime task force focusing on auto theft, heavy equipment theft and cargo theft affecting the area. • Crime Lab: The City of Springfield and the State of Missouri collaborated on the construction of a regional crime lab in Springfield. The new lab, operated by the MSHP, has been a great benefit to both the GCSO and SPD by saving time, money and personnel costs. • SRT/SWAT: Each agency operates a specialty unit that provides some level of tactical response. We are planning to discuss and plan a move to a more regional focus. We agree that as fuel costs continue to rise, we will need to seriously consider alternative fuels and vehicles. Staff at the City of Springfield Department of Public Works and the Greene County Highway Department is constantly researching the latest advances in technology and equipment and will continue to do so. As new vehicles are ordered, we will continue to utilize state contracts or local bid processes to ensure the most cost-effective use of taxpayer funds. Options for alternative fuels (i.e. E-85, CNG, hybrid, etc), and type, make and model of vehicles needed will be reviewed on an annual basis by all agencies. The recommendations of your committee are consistent with those of the Safety & Justice Roundtable and the Public Safety chapter of the new Community Strategic Plan. It is our intention to continue to work toward achieving these goals. We recognize that the citizens of Springfield and Greene County expect and deserve high-quality and consistent public safety services regardless of whether they live within the city limits of Springfield or in the county. We will continue to do our utmost to provide the best services in the most cost-effective manner possible. Again, thank you for both your interest in public safety and the time and effort you invested in your report. Sincerely yours, ___________________________ _______________________________ Greg Burris, City Manager Jim Arnott, Sheriff ___________________________ _______________________________ Paul Williams, Chief of Police Tim Smith, County Administrator cc: Mayor O’Neal Members of the Springfield City Council Greene County Commission Tom Mountjoy, Presiding Judge, 31st Judicial Circuit Robert Spence and Jean Twitty, Co-Chairs, Safety & Justice Roundtable M:\tsmith\county administrator\Law Enforcement\11-05-12 back from williams & cm.doc