Struggling
to meet the public's demand for efficient government, as well as improving employee morale, the County Board
of Supervisors has appointed a new Ad Hoc Committee to review the permit process. After the departure of Developmental Services Director Greg
Fuz, the department has been under intense scrutiny for what many describe as a "dysfunctional" county department. During this same period, many employees feel that they have performed up to the standards set for them by management. They feel unfairly targeted and the department has seen high employee turn-over.
For well over a year, there has been substantial public outcry over the performance of this department with most of the complaints focused at the Planning department. Both large and small developers have expressed strong dissatisfaction in private meetings and in public testimony before the Board of Supervisors. In a recent meeting a man testified before the Board about his experience. Although he was not a developer by any professional standard, anyone that wants to build, remodel, or divide the land they own, is a developer by county standards. In a strict sense, making land or buildings more then what they are today, is development.
In the case of this man, he wanted to break off a piece of the land he lived on to give it to a family member. When he went to the Planning Department he was told that he could split his land into four pieces. He testified that he decided to do that now and pay once, rather then decide to do it in the future and pay twice. As this was not a "for-profit" activity, he was concerned about the cost. He then testified that after spending about $45,000 to engineers, surveyors, architects, and the like, he took his plans to the Planning Department to be told, "oh no, this land cannot be split into four pieces." Exasperated, he said, OK then just the one piece that I originally wanted. He was then told that he would have to start the process anew because they could not use the work he had paid for because it was for a four-way split.
Although the Board publicly acknowledged that some of the Developmental Services problems arose out of unclear and changing directives from the Board, it was also clear that the problem was far wider than the Board alone. It was stories like the one above that prompted the Board to hire a consultant with strong Planning Department credentials to review the Developmental Services Department and report back to the Board. Part of the recommendation made by the consultant included forming an ad hoc committee of county stakeholders from the public to provide an external review and recommendations to compliment the internal report.
At its regular meeting on May 13th, 2008, the Board of Supervisors created an Ad Hoc Committee to look at the permit review process and have it provide recommendations to the Board on how to create efficiencies. The CAO's office was asked to return to the Board on May 20th with suggestions for the scope of the Ad Hoc Committee, so that the Committee understands its role and the expectations of the Board. At the regular Board meeting of May 20th, A motion was made by Supervisor Sweeney, seconded by Supervisor Baumann to appoint ...[see below]; and approve the outline proposed by the Chief Administrative Officer [also below] with the following revision: "Task: To provide recommended actions to the Board to improve the permit review process as applied to Planning and Building ministerial and discretionary permits, with its first status report to occur no later than June 17th, 2008 and no later than every 30 days thereafter."
1. Larry Ito (Chair Dupray appointee)
2. Mike McDougal (Chair Dupray appointee)
3. Art Marinaccio (Supervisor Sweeney appointee)
4. Cyndi Shaffer (Supervisor Sweeney appointee)
5. Kim Beal (Supervisor Baumann appointee)
6. Art Cort (Supervisor Baumann appointee)
7. Sue Taylor (Supervisor Briggs appointee)
8. Jack Borba (Supervisor Briggs appointee)
9. Brian Shinnault (Supervisor Santiago appointee)
10 . Jim Bull (Supervisor Santiago appointee)
Scope of the Committee:
-
Name of Ad Hoc Committee: Permit Process Ad Hoc
-
First Meeting: Wednesday, May 21th 2008 at 3pm - 5 pm at the CAO's Conference Room.
-
Future meeting schedule: Wednesdays, Every week, at 3pm - 5 pm at the CAO's Conference Room.
-
Agenda Preparation: To be established by the Committee
-
Staffing: CAO's office (David Strore) and with other staff to attend as requested by the Committee on an as-needed basis.
-
Agenda and Minutes: CAO's office will prepare and distribute to the Board and Committee members.
-
Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair To be selected at first meeting (Committee appointed Mike McDougal as Chair).
Task:
To provide recommended actions to the Board to improve the permit review process, with its first status report to
occur no later than June 17th. 2008 and no later than every 60 days thereafter
Final Report: No Later than May 31st 2009.
Public Participation: The public is invited to attend the meetings.
EDC Development Services Organizational Chart:
Observer's report of first meeting: (These observations are not comprehensive or official, see the official minutes for anything more then these casual observations and notes)
Members wasted no time and met for the first time only 24 hours after the Board approved the Scope of the Committee. Attendees established a quick rapport. The members represented several diverse, but related, fields. It was quickly noted that the members were collegial, professional, and knowledgeable in the county's permit processes from the "user" prospective. Members in attendance were: Cyndi Shaffer; Mike McDougal; Kim Beal; Brian Shinnault; Larry Ito; Michelle Scales standing in for Jack Borba (who was unable to attend the first meeting due to the short time between his appointment and the first meeting). CAO's staff member was David Storer. Public observers were Sherri Lum-Alarcon (El Dorado County Association of Realtors, Political Affairs Sub-Committee Chair) & Cris Alarcon (El Dorado Business Alliance, Communications Liaison).
The members established a Chair & Meeting schedule immediately. A general discussion of goals, timelines, and procedures was held. Staying in the professional tenor of the meeting, it was adjourned at 5:00 sharp to reconvene next week at the same time and location.
