ALLEGAN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (EH) S ERVICES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENTATION NOVEMBER 9, 2017
Discussion Points (Based on Board Input 10/26/17) • Customer S ervice • Alternatives • Benchmarking • Follow-up • Data Analysis
Customer Service: • Impact/ Plan for technology and other efficiencies – DeYoung • Filebound • Technology-in field use • Ease of access to services and status tracking for customers • Online payment and application submission • Trackit to manage work flow during service process • Equity/ process for applications – S torey • New procedure for prioritization of services • For prioritizing permits for commercial facilities (excerpt) “ If the commercial facility provides a needed resource to our residents (i.e., utilities, phone service, education etc.) and it is requested by the applicant to be prioritized then it should be prioritized over other services. If the assigned sanitarian is unable to prioritize the service based on their current workload and continue to meet the current benchmark for their other customers, then contact the Environmental Health Manager.”
Customer Service: • Customer service commitment (scheduling? ) – Kapenga • All customers will have a tentative window for service completion within 5 business days of receiving a completed application with all required attachments. • All customers will have voicemails or emails returned within 2 business days.
Customer Service: • S cheduling/ resource allocations • Utilization of staff commensurate with task – Dugan • Continuing to use a non registered sanitarian for S ES C inspections. • S upport staff will be used to enter information in S WORD and scan services completed into Filebound. • S anitarians will have 45 minutes of phone/ admin time per day to communicate with customers (Communications that support staff can not answer). • Availability of staff to fill positions – S torey • Latest S anitarian posting in June 2015 had over 15 applicants, several were well qualified. • S anitarian compensation if hired in at G step or higher is comparable to surrounding counties.
Alternatives: • Contracting- S torey • S ES C can be contracted out. • Previously contracted out to Michigan Township S ervices by Drain Commission. • S ervice was moved to Public Health in 2007-2008. • The sanit arians have t he knowledge, skill set , and visit t hese sit es for sept ic and well if t he sit e needs t hose services also. • Was able t o be accomplished wit h exist ing st aff at t hat . • Mandated activities – What would cost be if S tate had to carry out? – S torey • Unable to get this from the Michigan Department of Health and Human S ervice (MDHHS ) within this timeframe. • They do not have sanitarians doing septic and well inspections. Not sure who to benchmark within MDHHS .
Alternatives: • What services could be outsourced to private, cost variance? – S torey • Loan Evaluations can be privatized • Private entities currently charge more. • The Realtors generally accept Loan Evaluations being done by outside agencies • It would be desired for out side agencies t o file result s wit h t he local public healt h department t o have a complet e facility file. • Public Health cannot provide variances on outside entities loan evaluations. • Currently there is no certification for those providing loan evaluations in Allegan County that ensures appropriate skill set and liability coverage. • Public Health may be viewed as being more independent leading to a potentially more obj ective evaluation.
Alternatives: • Allegan County Water and S ewer Regulation modification. The S tate requirement is 50 feet isolation distance. Could this be modified in the near future? This would decrease the amount of variances being requested and decrease the time to complete a permit, loan evaluation, etc. if a variance is required.
Alternatives: • Assigning addresses • Approaches among Counties vary • Equalization Departments are a common provider of this service • We are in discussion with the stakeholders to determine transition of these services
Benchmarking: • Benchmarking other Counties/ Perf S tandards – Kapenga/ S torey • An email was to sent to all 45 local public health departments. Wayne, Ottawa, Monroe, LMAS (UP), Mid-Michigan, Branch/ Hillsdale/ S t. Joe, Jackson, and Calhoun responded. None of them had productivity per sanitarian on average per day. Ottawa and Calhoun strive for a 10 business day turnaround. • Is problem limited to Allegan? – Black • Other counties have also seen an increase in service demand. They have increased fees and FTEs to handle those increases in services or they have longer wait times for service delivery.
Follow-up: • Follow up with customers after BOC decision – S torey • Public Health will send out a letter outlining outcomes of the meeting and other items to be addressed in 2018 with a timeline attached. • Letter will be sent to well drillers, realtors, septic installers, and builders via an email list serv along with those who signed up at the August 24,2017 Informational S ession.
Data Analysis: • S taffing • Assumptions relating to est. turnaround times – Kapenga • Workflow/ time demands/ S easonality – Kapenga • Costs/ Fees
Data Analysis: • Total EH Field S ervice S taff Needed: 7.0 FTEs • Currently 3.5 FTEs • Approved .4 increase for 2018 • 2018 3.9 FTEs approved • Recommended increase of 3.1 FTEs • Material cause\root issue • S ES C program requires 2.76 FTEs • No staff was added since the program was taken in house in 2007 • As well/ septic/ etc. demand has increased the ability to absorb S ES C services without appropriately staffing the service has become impractical
Data Analysis: • Assumptions relating to est. turnaround times and staffing levels – Kapenga • Every service was reviewed based on actual reported quantity of services and time allocated
Data Analysis: • Assumptions relating to est. turnaround times and staffing levels – Kapenga • Beyond dedicated service time the following assumptions were used to establish available resource time • Blending initial available resource time with service time we determined FTEs • Based on the number of FTEs completion Time was estimated
Data Analysis: • Workflow/ time demands/ S easonality – Kapenga • Generally perceived that there is a strong peak season with significant decrease in demand during periods • Data demonstrates there are peaks and yet consistency in demand
Data Analysis: • Workflow/ time demands/ S easonality – Kapenga • Generally perceived that there is a strong peak season with significant decrease in demand during periods • Data demonstrates there are peaks and yet consistency in demand
Data Analysis: • Fees should be based on the costs to deliver the service. Cost Per Sanitarian - Use as a base for each service Cost - Support Staff Wages - San 52,104 Admin - wages 17,160 Fringes - San 15,740 Admin - fringes 5,184 Indirect Costs 15,000 Indirect for Admin 6,375 Operation Expense 10,650 Support staff wages 93,415 Reconcile 6.58 FTE's to 7.0 5,610 Support staff fringes 28,220 TOTAL 99,104 Indirect for Support staff 24,038 TOTAL 174,392
Data Analysis: • Allocate Costs per S ervice, to determine fees • Fee schedule is quite detailed; averages were used Commercial Septic Residential Septic Type II Water Supply Type III and Loan Commercial SESC Residential SESC Permits/Soil Permits/Soil MDHHS Permits/Sanitary Residential Water Evaluations Totals Service Type Permits/Inspections Permits/Inspections Evaluations/Finals Evaluations/Finals Surveys/Finals Permits/Finals/Grou Commercial/ Mandated Yes County Yes County Yes State Yes State Yes State Yes State No No Number of permits/year 56 305 26 659 14 688 246 112 2,106 FTE cost $ 1,015 $ 712 $ 308 $ 242 $ 388 $ 207 $ 187 $ 147 Allocated Support Staff $ 271 $ 190 $ 82 $ 65 $ 104 $ 55 $ 50 $ 39 Additional Costs $ 29 $ 29 All-in Cost per Permit 1,286 902 390 307 492 262 267 216 Current AVERAGE Fee 775 460 250 250 225 150 229 229 Difference: Cost v Fee 511 442 140 57 267 112 38 (13) Annual Under-collected Revenue 28,620 134,780 3,642 37,782 3,734 77,341 9,247 (1,483) 293,663
Recommend
More recommend
