Steering Group IV’s January 28, 2004 Minutes

 

Documents Distributed:

• Matrix example (Steering Group II) for document due 1/30/04 for 2/18/04 All PIT meeting
• Section 7 “Upgrading Management, Supervisory, and Personnel Practices” summary prepared by Steve DeCamp for 2/18/04 All PIT meeting

 

Questions for PIT I and All PIT meeting on February 18, 2004

1.   Tracking Progress – How will accomplishments from the process improvement effort be tracked over a long period of time?  What type of system will be established, and who will be responsible for it?  What will the time intervals (6 months, yearly, etc.) be for tracking progress?

2.   Constructive Criticism – Is there a forum available for constructive criticism of the process improvement effort?  Concerns include: (1) Is policy being overlooked for the sake of process improvement?  (2)  Is there a forum or outlet available to evaluate potential problems or negative side effects that could inadvertently be caused by the process improvement effort?  (3)  Staff and other departments should have an opportunity to voice their opinions on the process improvement effort.

·        Noah and Angela to discuss these 2 questions at the PIT I meeting 2/3/04.

3.   RPMs – Discussed both internal and external Recurring Performance Measures (RPMs).  Peter Harmer emphasized how RPMs hold us accountable for our work efforts.  Angela Antenore mentioned that the Budget Book contains RPMs.  Steve DeCamp can bring information on RPMs to a future meeting.  June Pujo pointed out that other steering groups are suggesting changes to current RPMs, and Steve noted that these suggested changes could be considered during the next budget cycle.  Noah Greer has current RPMs with Tom Frutchey’s notes.  Angela will discuss the 6 kinds of RPMs after the All PIT meeting on 2/18/04.  Noah suggested that we ask other steering groups at the All PIT meeting for their ideas on possible RPMs.

 

All PIT Update for February 18, 2004

1.   RPMs – What suggestions to other groups have for changes to RPMs?

2.   Weekly meeting with Director – This idea was considered, but it is not going to happen.

3.   Development Review Division Circular – Noah spoke with Jackie Campbell about the circular, and it is working in the two following ways: (1) New Case Review  (NCR) is sending memos to staff regarding determinations made on emerging issues.  Steve Goggia and Alice Daly are working on this effort; (2) Steve DeCamp mentioned that Supervising Planners that attend NCR are to report back to staff meetings on issues discussed.

4.   Permit Review Meetings – Noah spoke with Jackie about the permit review meetings.  Meetings are not happening within one week of submittal, but the quantity of cases being brought forth by planners is good.  She recommends that this meeting be held every 2 weeks.

5.   Queue – June mentioned that the queue for assigning ministerial cases is in the development phase.  The queue would work as follows: (1) A case would not be in the queue for longer than 3 weeks; (2) Planners would work with Supervisors to determine appropriate time for taking on a new case; (3) Within 1 week of a planner having a case, substantive information would be provided to the applicant in the form of either 1) a meeting, 2) an important phone call, 3) a letter;  (3) Tom foresees the queue as an opportunity to reduce the stress level of planners, and an opportunity for the process to be more efficient; (4) A Queue Manager would be assigned; (5) Steve mentioned that they are not aware of an example of a queue system in a government setting, but they are typically used in industrial settings; (6) June mentioned that the queue will start in Dev Rev South by February.  The applicant would receive 2 letters: 1) One letter would state that the case has been received, and will be assigned to a planner within 3 weeks, and 2) A second letter would announce who the planner is, and that the planner will contact the applicant within one week; (7) Steve said that the most complex case will not be assigned to the newest planner; (8) At the City of Santa Maria, Marc Bierdzinski is the queue system.  Planners at the City work on discretionary, ministerial, and building applications, and respond to applicants within 30 days.  He manages 6 planners, and he knows what each planner is working on.  However, he can’t anticipate when applicants will resubmit their applications, a typical variable beyond our control.

6.   Standardization & Checklists for Cases – Noah mentioned that this issue is still an outstanding question, and it overlaps with Steering Group I’s focus.  Noah will discuss this issue with Group I.

7.   BAR/MBAR – Tina Frank to contact Steering Group II about their progress on BAR/MBAR processes, as well as other agencies and advisory bodies such as the Historical Landmark Advisory Committee, and agencies outside the County.

 

Sub-group Updates

1.   Tools – Met 1/23/04, and reviewed PIT I recommendations, looking toward implementation.  To meet again on 2/4/04.  Group to contact city librarians, to determine what planners need at their desks to do their jobs efficiently, conduct a financial impact analysis by the end of March.  Group to consider what kind of training and supervisory implications that they might anticipate from their efforts.  June suggested creating a “Where do I find it” index for planners.  Alice McCurdy previously asked Sherryl Smith to create an index for Article III.  Noah to report back.

2.   Interagency – There is a need to follow up with Steering Group II.  This sub-group has been on hold the last few weeks.

3.   Retention – Angela suggested discussing retention table with Dianne Meester.  Angela and Nicole will discuss.  Steve will also talk to Dianne, and will modify his summary for Section 7, “Upgrading Management, Supervisory, and Personnel Practices,” by 1/30/04.

 

Meeting Schedule

• All PIT Meeting 2/18/04 – Unfortunately Marc cannot be there due to a City of Santa Maria Planning Commission hearing.  Group needs to determine what needs to be done prior to this meeting.  Rita Bright will e-mail her summary on training to the group.
• Cancelled 2/3/04 meeting.
• PIT I to meet 2/3/04.
• Re-scheduled 2/10/04 meeting to Wednesday, 2/11/04 from 12-2 @ Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in Solvang (Marc able to attend).

 

 

“Homework”

• Steve to talk to Dianne.
• Adrienne to talk to Rita.
• Nicole Losch to call Jan Hubbell regarding our meeting schedule.
• Nicole to e-mail group with schedule changes.
• Nicole to submit group’s matrix to Anne Coates by 1/30/04.

 

Next Agenda for February 11, 2004

• All PIT Meeting 2/18/04 – Update from PIT I.  Determine what Steering Group IV needs to do prior to this meeting.
• Training – Review Rita’s update on training.  Adrienne Domas to update if Rita is not available.
• Management – Steve to discuss Recruitment.
• Sub-group Updates – Tools sub-group to update, and possibly Interagency and Retention sub-groups as well.