Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/4/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (20) DATE: February 4, 2004 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager ALLOCATED POSITIONS AND COMPENSATION PLAN—AMENDMENT#8 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Amendment 48 to the Allocated Positions and Compensation Plan creating the Department of Strategic Planning, the addition of four(4)new positions to be firnded from development services fees, and modify the Airport Director position. BACKGROUND: Approval of the new positions are recommended to address the issues of Palm Springs being"business unfriendly"through the following measures: 1)Increasing personnel in the Planning Department. 2)Creating the Department of Strategic Planning to bifurcate "strategic" and"current"planning. 3)Creating a"concierge service"for the development services area. On April 23, 2003,the Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation Task Force presented to City Council the"Recommendations of the Development Task Force" report. The purpose of this report was,"to improve the business friendly image of Palm Springs" (Task Force Report,p. 3). Additionally, in January 2003, council received a report from Irwin Kaplan,AICP, a city-hired consultant to consider issues within the development services area pertaining to the"business unfriendly"issues. The Kaplan Report suggested separating"strategic"(long term)planning from"current" (short term) planning activities to allow more focus and attention to each function. The Task Force recommendation was a modification of the Kaplan report in which it called for creating a "Planning Manager"position instead of immediately splitting the functions into two departments, allowing for a longer transition period before separating planning duties. Further,the City Council previously approved a"fee study" of development services to detennine if the City could recover expenses to the general fund. That study is now complete and the recommended increases will be presented to Council at a subsequent meeting in February which will fund the position changes requested in this Amendment (the Airport Director position will be funded from the Airport Fund). My recommendation,based upon careful consideration of the facts, and months of discussions with staff, community members, and developers, is to remedy the idea of Palm Springs being business unfriendly,through the addition of personnel positions and adopting the Kaplan Report concept of separating"strategic" and"current"planning into two departments.The estimated cost of the additional positions is approximately $ 355,279,to be offset by recommended fee increases estimated to be$ 484,827 annually. APPROVED City Manager ATTACFIMENT: 1.Resolution MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2004 FROM: DAVID H. READY, CITY MANAGER RE. ALLOCATED POSITIONSAND COMPENSATIONPLAN- RESOL UTION#8 Background On April 23, 2003, the Palm Springs Economic Development Corp. (EDC) Task Force, chaired by Mr. Michael McCullough, presented to City Council the "Recommendations of the Development Task Force" report. The task force was comprised of stakeholders from the building and development professions (architects, contractors and engineers), local citizens familiar with the permitting and inspection process, Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce, Palm Springs Planning Commission, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, city staff (City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and specific department heads when requested) and a council sub-committee, including Council member Chris Mills, and then Council member Jeanne Reller-Spurgin. The genesis of this task force dates back to July 2002, in which the EDC, during a council study session, suggested ways the private sector could assist city government. Subsequently, the Development Task Force (DTF) was created, whose purpose was, "to improve the business friendly image of Palm Springs."' Their report continues: "The primary goal of the DTF was to formulate concrete, specific, positive recommendations on how to improve the Planning, Engineering, Building, Economic and Redevelopment processes to City Council,"' 1 Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation, "Recommendations of the Development Task Force," presented to the Palm Springs City Council, April 23, 2003, p. 3. 2 Ibid. 1 The Task Force report identified several areas in which to improve operations (e.g. customer service training, better tracking mechanisms, ordinance reviews and revisions, additional key personnel, decentralized decision making, etc.). Subsequently, at the city council meeting of October 15, 2003, the prior seated council approved three new positions to be created, including a "Plans Examiner," "Planning Manager" and "Engineering Field Technician." The purpose of adding these positions was to address the ever-increasing workload in Planning, Building/Code, and Engineering. Currently, the positions are on hold pending approval of an increase in development fees, which will provide funding for the positions. The fee change legislation is anticipated to be agendized for council in late February. After the current council was seated (November, 25, 2003) at a workshop meeting on December 10, 2003, council members revisited this issue and gave staff new guidance to create a Director of Strategic Planning to bifurcate the planning duties as outlined in the Kaplan Report.3 Therefore, this staff report and requested action deals specifically with the personnel components of the Planning Department 4 Positions Requested I'm requesting the following action be approved which will change the Allocated Positions and Compensation Plan in the following manner: 1. Change existing "Planning Manager" position to "Director of Planning Services" 2. Change existing "Director of Planning & Zoning" to "Director of Strategic Planning"- creating the Department of Strategic Planning 3. Add position of a "Principal Planner" 4. Create the new position of "Development Concierge Tech" 5. Add position "Secretary" An important caveat to this request and action is that implementation can occur only if council approves subsequent development fee increases as prescribed by the forthcoming "fee study." The cost estimate for the new positions is calculated at $237,000, offset by the estimated fee increases of 'Irwin M. Kaplan, AICP,A Review of the Planning and Entitlement Process in Palm Springs, California:Executive Summary, January 2003. 'Executive Director-Airports, included in this request is a separate matter from the task force recommendations. Its inclusion is a result of previous director's (Allen Smoot)retirement and to accommodate the new Director(Richard Walsh). 2 $ 375,000. As such, these positions will be self funded without additional impact to the general fund Organizational Change Rationale The basis of the additional personnel is related to the increasing workload in the development services area. In the past several years, permit applications for development, housing, remodels, commercial, etc. have risen from 450 in 1996 to 1,369 in 2003. This trend is expected to continue and has caused significant burdens on the capacity of the current planning, building and engineering staffs to perform their duties in a timely manner. Further, the idea of Palm Springs being "business unfriendly" has been an issue in which many residents and those in the development community have indicated is a serious concern. As City Manager since June of 2000, I have had to defend this issue, or the perception of this issue, over and over again. Moreover, at various forums (e.g. EDC, Uptown, Mainstreet, Chamber of Commerce, neighborhood meetings, etc.) the concern of "business unfriendly" has been strongly suggested as a predominate problem facing city government. Adding to this community discourse was the recent (November 2003) city council/mayoral election in which the city was repeatedly chastised by candidates and the media for not being "business friendly." Indeed, "business unfriendly" can be an elusive, and in many ways, a non-quantifiable concept. In fact, this issue has been considered several times prior to our current review process,' yet the perception persists. Personally, I've had developers tell me our Planning Department was difficult to work with, while at the same time, other developers indicate a very positive experience with staff. Some residents have conveyed their "fear" of the planning department while most conduct business without any problems. Complicating these issues, comments must all be characterized through a filter of city regulations. As such, in December 2002, the city retained a consultant in the field of development services to address planning concerns. The consultant also found this duality of opinions. He notes; ... There exists an anti-establishment sentiment within the community among those who feel alienated from the process..." conversely, "...it appears that almost all of the projects submitted to the City are approved...i6 s "A recurring theme among those interviewed who have been involved with the community over a long period of time,was that this audit is a repeat performance of similar efforts in the past and no significant changes are expected". A Review of the Planning and Entitlement Process in Palm Springs, California;Executive Summary, Irwin M. Kaplan,AICP, January 2003, p. 4. 'Id. at p. 8 3 This dichotomy is neither tidy nor simplistic, particularly given the dynamics of those who favor growth, those favoring conservative growth standards to maintain a "small village" environment, and those espousing a mid-range of growth strategies. Given my almost daily examination and wrestling with this idea of Palm Springs being "business unfriendly" over the past three and one half years, I offer the following observations and conclusions: 1) Workload increases (permit applications, commercial and residential activity, environmental issues) have stretched personnel capacity to the limit— given the expectation of prompt turnaround time, additional personnel are required. 2) Technology improvements are required to assist tracking processes (e.g. electronic plans/matrix tracking system to provide internal accountability, as well as provide applicants with an estimated completion date for their projects) 3) Without a significant change in the Planning Department, the "perception" of being "business unfriendly" will not go away. That change should manifest in the following; a) Implementation of the Kaplan Report recommendation of separating "strategic" and "current" planning. b) Renovation of the counter and offices/storage areas to create a more efficient and user-friendly environment. c) Addition of a "concierge service" to assist customers in navigating the entitlement process. However, also important to note, the Development Task Force did not recommended the split within the Planning Department as suggested in 3.a above. Rather, they suggested that council "create a Planning Manager position for current planning.... to provide for the gradual shift of existing Planning Director to facilitate transition."' This is an alternative which is also workable and may very well achieve the same result. My recommendation of separating "strategic" and "current" functions is merely a more aggressive attempt to address the "business unfriendly" issue. "Recommendations of the Development Task Force" at p. 8 4 Strategic Planning and Current Planning The twin issues of "workload" and "environmental complexity" have created the major capacity obstacles for the planning department. The Kaplan report made key recommendations to remedy these issues, including "establishing two separate review processes that distinguish between near term projects that can be readily solved and longer range projects and strategic planning issues that are more labor intensive.i' His analogy of a separate current and long range planning process was compared to the idea of having large 747 jets on the same runway as small single engine Piper Cub airplanes. They each have different requirements, and mixing the two hinders them both.9 The strategic planning process would be responsible for long-range issues that effect projects and city policy (e.g. the General Plan, CEQA requirements, EIRs, Tribal issues, neighborhood concerns, ordinance reviews, etc.). Included in the strategic process will be the effort of the "roundtable" program to review development policies affecting development from commercial retail to neighborhoods," Conversely, current planning activities would be responsible for coordinating the City's development review activities including conditional use permits, sub-divisions, site plans, sign permits and design review. With regard to the "pros" and "cons" of this reorganization plan, I would note the following: Pros include: - Demonstration to the community of our earnest attempts to improve "business unfriendly" environment. - Strategic planning will receive a more focused attention (e.g. general plan, ordinance reviews, neighborhood concerns) and will have priority, not just time that is left over from current daily functions. At the same time, current planning will benefit from having staff deal exclusively with those issues. - Additional staff will reduce counter wait times. °Id. at p. 1. °Id. at p. 10. 0 "Recommendations of the Development Task Force," at p. 6. 5 The "concierge service" will create a more user-friendly atmosphere and assist residents in navigating the development services process. Cons include: - Additional expense for increased personnel - Transitional "ramp-up" period - Planning staff longevity/institutional knowledge less than three years - Some overlap of responsibilities will occur Conclusion An important consideration of this request is the status of the current Director of Planning and Zoning. I want to assure council that this organizational structure will be effective because of his level of skill and technical ability in the areas of strategic planning outlined above. Currently, he and his staff are overwhelmingly bogged down in handling both the strategic and daily planning issues. For example, general plan meetings, neighborhood meetings, Section 14 issues, Planning Commission meetings, City Council meetings, and commercial development EIRs are simultaneously competing for the Director's time, along with the day-to-day counter application requests — a good example of the 747 and Piper Cub analogy stated above. This organizational change request should not be viewed negatively upon the current Director as he has repeatedly requested additional personnel to handle the workload increases. Also, over the past couple of years, we have tried several other remedies to the "business unfriendly" problem without the level of success anticipated. This was due largely to the inability to add personnel because of our increasing budget deficits, which have continued to grow, resulting in 17 position layoffs last fiscal year. That being said, the current Director deserves significant credit for the work he has been able to accomplish with limited resources. As such, for council to increase the development fees to allow us to implement the above plan will be a positive step forward. Combined with the range of other recommendations of the Development Task Force and the Kaplan Report, I'm confident the issue of "business unfriendly" will be replaced with a reputation for exceeding customers' expectations. Finally, as City Manager, I must also comment on the fact that these issues have seemed to divide the council and many in the community. The 6 responsibility to address the trinity of issues including "business unfriendly," budgetary concerns, and dealing fairly with personnel, have all converged into this recommendation. There may not be one single right answer. However, the time has come for me to suggest a remedy beyond merely "mobilizing prudence."11 Although we can confront the tangible issues of organizational capacity, workload, additional personnel, fees, and regulation reviews, the more intangible concepts of perception and personalities require expertise from fields beyond public administration. Therefore, the above recommendation is a careful consideration of the facts before us and represents my best suggestions at this time. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Respectfully Submitted, David H. Ready, City Manager 11 Jack J. Gargan, and S.R. Brown, What is to be Done? Anticipating the Future and Mobilizing Prudence, Policy Sciences, 26: 347-392. 7 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT #8 TO THE ALLOCATED POSITIONS AND COMPENSATION PLAN, ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 20641. WHEREAS an Allocated Positions and Compensation Plan was adopted effective June 18, 2003, for the 2003-04 fiscal year by Resolution No. 20641; and WHEREAS the City Council desires to amend said Allocated Positions and Compensation Plan to include reclassification of the positions: Executive Director of Airports to Director of Aviation; Director of Planning & Zoning to the Director of Strategic Planning; Planning Manager to Director of Planning Services; and the addition of one (1) Principal Planner, one (1) Development Concierge Technician, and one (1) Secretary. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, that the Allocated Positions and Compensation Plan for positions in the City Service for fiscal year 2003-2004 is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 1 Classification (Department) Range No. Added No. Deleted (Deletions) Additions Authorized Positions Executive Director—Airports (Aviation) EX81 1.00 ( 1.00) Director of Aviation (Aviation) EX74 1.00 1.00 Director of Planning & Zoning (Planning) EX73 1.00 (1.00) Director of Strategic Planning (Planning) EX71* 1.00 1.00 (*Being paid at EX73 until incumbent employee vacates position.) Planning Manager MX63 1.00 (1.00) Director of Planning Services (Planning) EX71 1.00 1.00 Principal Planner PS57 1.00 1.00 Development Concierge Technician GU40 1.00 1.00 Secretary GU29 1.00 1.00 Total authorized positions 2003-2004 Budget 442.75 Total (deletions) prior Amendments Total additions prior Amendments 7.00 Total (deletions) this Amendment (3.00) Total additions this Amendment 6.00 Total authorized positions as amended 453.75 ADOPTED THIS day of 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By CITY CLERK CITY MANAGER REVIEWED & APPROVED AS TO FORM 0 - ..