Minutes of October 22, 2003 Meeting

Steering Group #4

Process Improvement Team II

 

TASKS FOR NEXT MEETING (11/18 at 12pm, Solvang Santa Barbara Bank & Trust)

Noah:  Compile recent survey data and send to Bill to put on website.

Joe:      Give HR info to Bill to put on website (what is available for the public and/or PIT members to read)

Marc:   Email new employee checklist to Noah (ngreer@co.santa-barbara.ca.us)

Adrienne:  Contact Jan to see if the City of Santa Barbara has a new employee checklist

Lynn:    Email training info to Bill for website; resend out training information in one email

Jan, Marc, Joe, & Alice: Continue to refine Supervising Planner job description

Bill:  Update website

 

Next meeting:  Determine who will make presentation at BOS meeting

 

 

Goals/Values mentioned in our discussion about the focus of the group

1. Confirmation that technical training for planners is necessary, Lynn and now Rita will be working on that in the future.
2. Consistency is necessary throughout the County
3. Ensuring we have good tools to help the planning process
4. Start to implement the recommendations given by PIT I that can be implemented (e.g., training)
5. Revise Supevising Planner job description
6. Develop a specific list of recommendations for our Board Presentation

 

We need to remember how our actions are benefiting the public.

1. Implementing a training program will improve our “customer service” by increasing consistency of policy and ordinance interpretations, speeding up project timelines, giving applicants clearer direction, etc.
2. Defining the role of the supervisor will also help with consistency of policy and ordinance provision applications- we should think about this when revising the job description

 

Discussion of how other jurisdictions review projects

1. City of Santa Barbara & City of Santa Maria have group reviews of projects when there is a zoning or policy interpretation question.

 

Having our group focus solely on the role of the supervisor (for now) is one way that our group can make a contribution toward solving the consistency issue.

1. Supervisors give information and introduce tools to project staff, therefore they are an integral part in the process to improving P&D’s permit processing.
2. We need to make sure that we also emphasize that supervisors are doing the best they can with the tools and procedural structures that are currently available; the PIT II process should aim to improve these tools and structures.
3. Updating Supervising Planner project description
1. Jan, Mark, Joe and Alice  reported on the changes that were made to the project description (job well done!!)

Suggestions/Comments

·         Good job descriptions are essential because JDs are used for recruitments, salary comparisons, promotions, etc.

·         May be better to leave the description and education/experience requirements fairly general (rather than delineating the specific duties that Comprehensive Planning, DevRev, Energy, and B&S supervisors do) in order to encourage a diverse pool of applicants. More specific information can be included in job “brochures.”

 

Discussion of Staff Retention

1. Joe presented some statistics about the number of people who have left P&D
• 37 departures from 6/02 to 10/03; Most people leave after working here from 2-5 years
2. Joe reviewed stats from exit surveys; an effort should be made to ensure employees take these surveys when they leave.

 

Training

1.      Many of suggestions are already being implemented

·         Training program is being upstarted, Permit Procedures manual has been “advertised,” etc.  Thanks to Lynn for all her hard work.