Staffing Analysis

[bobcatplanner]

So I'm able to justify getting another person in my very short-staffed Development Services Department due to a major hike in development this year, and while I can easily identify four or five positions of need, I can only get one due to the City's tight budget. It's going to be tough choosing, especially between a Planning Tech and another Building Inspector which are very different from one another but both are needed. Does anyone have a method of analysis in justifying one position over another? I can definitely pull numbers for permits, inspections, plats, site/building plans, etc. and explain how Position X will alleviate the workload off of Positions Y and Z. But if there are any additional recommendations or successful analyses that you've used, please let me know! Thanks.

[mike gurnee]

Chuck any analysis. Go with the inspector, it is a much more critical position. (Sorry fellow planners, that's the director in me talking)

[mendelman]

Chuck any analysis. Go with the inspector, it is a much more critical position. (Sorry fellow planners, that's the director in me talking)

I agree with mike's very reasoned and sensible analysis.

Reviewing/approving plans in the office is relatively simple and straightforward and can easily be assumed by the planners, but in-field inspections take alot more time and have more chances for unexpected delays, thereby reducing the ability to execute the workload. More inspectors will help alleviate that more readily than a planning tech.

[NHPlanner]

Agree with the above responses. More "bang for the buck" in an inspector.

[Suburb Repairman]

Already spoke with you, but I'll post here for the benefit of others:

Inspector is the way to go at this point based on what you described.

A drop in your service level for inspections will cause FAR more howling compared to planning-related reviews. In addition, building inspections has a direct relationship to life & safety--ensuring buildings constructed are safe & meet code. While you can more easily outsource building inspections, I would try my best to avoid that as much as possible (expensive, and you end up with consistency issues). Plus, you can supplement simpler planning-related reviews easier with a PAID planning intern. When next year's budget season rolls around, work on converting the paid intern position to a planning tech or planner.

You can also talk with your city manager about putting an additional new position on a "trigger" that is assessed halfway through the fiscal year. If your permit levels remain at _______ and permitting revenue exceeds ________, then you can make another additional hire mid-year. It might make your city manager more comfortable absorbing a smaller bite of the salary this year. Alternatively, you could request adding both positions, but defer the hiring until mid-year--again, to help absorb the salary hit.

Finally, take a look at your administrative fees for
plan review
building inspections
building permit
contractor registration
trade permits
subdivision processing fees
zoning fees
etc.

Is it possible for you to demonstrate that your revenue would cover, or nearly cover, the additional staff needed? Are you in a battle with other departments? Emphasizing that your department generates revenue can sometimes give you a little leg up. Likewise, you can talk about how your department is the canary for growth pressure--your department is the first to see growth-related increases in business volume.

If all else fails, take your police chief & fire chief to lunch repeatedly and hope they go into a food coma while you are asking for a planning tech in lieu of additional cops & fire fighters.

[stroskey]

Where is the bottleneck that reduces your department "output"? Signing off on permits or inspecting projects? Always put effort into wherever the bottleneck is.

[luckless pedestrian]

what about a zoning officer - then the building inspector gets help with zoning enalysis/enforcement and you get help with zoning projects - win!?