EL Dorado County

Recommendations 18

• R1

  Page 43
  General Services personnel
• R2

  Page 43
  Auditor and various personnel
• R3
  Members of the Board of Supervisors Documents Reviewed:
• R4

  Page 43
  El Dorado County Leased Facilities, rev. 08-24-05
• R5

  Page 43
  Building Rents and Leases Spreadsheet
• R6

  Page 43
  General Services Proposed Capital Improvement Plan, rev. 01-30-06
• R7

  Page 43
  Rental Expenses: FY05 MS Excel Spreadsheet
• R8

  Page 51
  The divisions do not seem to have guidelines or processes in place to help staff identify how long a project will take from application to permit issuance.
• R9

  Page 51
  Permit issuance for all projects (residential, discretionary and ministerial) is taking too long.
• R10

  Page 51
  There is no consistency as to the information being disseminated; it varies depending on the staff member who is waiting on and/or working with the customer.
• R11

  Page 51
  Staff uses personal judgment in the planning processes instead of following applicable rules.
• R12

  Page 51
  There are no standardized checklists for customers to use to assist them in the permit process.
• R13

  Page 51
  There is a backlog of cases related to the General Plan implementation and the department has no strategy in place to deal with the problem.
• R14

  Page 51
  There is no communication between affected department heads to insure the expeditious processing of discretionary projects.
• R15

  Page 51
  The County Planning Commission rubber stamps departmental staff decisions instead of setting policy for issues that come under its jurisdiction.
• R16

  Page 51
  Staff spends the majority of its time “fighting fires” instead of managing the divisions.
• R17

  Page 51
  The department internet website provides incorrect information.
• R18

  Page 51
  The planning and building divisions do not provide enough emphasis on customer satisfaction. After numerous interviews with departmental management, other County staff, members of various county trades and business organizations, county residents, and a thorough review of public records, the Grand Jury decided to write a report. The Grand Jury found that high expectations have been placed on the department top management to complete the merger of the two separate departments, implement the General Plan, eliminate case backlog, and continue to process new applications, all on a timely basis. Although the new Director has made many positive changes in a short period of time, the fact remains that the divisions do not have sufficient personnel. The divisions have had recruitment problems with Senior Planners and Engineers who are used in the Plan Check process depending on the complexity of the project. The Board has recently approved a new compensation package designed to alleviate this problem and time will tell if the increase is sufficient to entice candidates. The department has indicated that it does not plan to hire additional personnel due to a decrease in building projects; however, single family dwelling permits are taking eight weeks or longer, discretionary projects are taking six to nine months before they go to public hearing and ministerial projects such as pools, decks and inspection exempt agricultural buildings are taking six weeks. The lack of sufficient and qualified personnel is resulting in very unpopular and unacceptable delays in issuing permits. It results in increased building costs for the County and delays in the implementation of measures under the General Plan since most of the Planners have been on board two years or less. The Grand Jury recommends the hiring of additional plan checkers in the applicable classifications and/or allocating funds for outside consultants. The Grand Jury recommends more training for personnel to insure consistency in dissemination of information to the customers and to eliminate mistakes made by Building Inspectors on building sites. The Grand Jury also recommends changes to departmental participation in discretionary projects to make sure that the customer is not subject to numerous changes and extra expense. Additionally, the Grand Jury recommends the establishment of specific performance standards to gauge work completion, customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness. Furthermore, it recommends that Customer Questionnaires be handed out with the final permit and the final building inspection in order to obtain a more complete picture of their performance. In conducting its investigation, the Grand Jury had great difficulty in obtaining individuals who would speak to the Jury for fear of retaliation by departmental personnel. They had chosen not to speak up before because their livelihood depends on them staying on good terms with departmental staff. The Grand Jury stated that it is the Board of Supervisors who are ultimately responsible for the implementation of the General Plan, and that any retaliation against a customer by staff will be subject to disciplinary action.