|
you'll recall, initially had this idea brought forth back in June, and members of the
<br />Public Works Department, Mr. Sumada, were present at that time, as well as the
<br />Mayor, and so as part of this discussion, we wanted to make sure that we had the
<br />Public Works Department here since they would be the agency receiving this new
<br />Division of Permitting should the public approve it, and should we put it forward, so
<br />do you folks have anything to lead off with, or do you want us to ask you questions, or, I
<br />know Ms. Goldstein made a presentation and furnished us with a working paper which
<br />had specific language in it at the last meeting? Mr. Sumada.
<br />SUMADA: Why don't I start off by saying that, on behalf of the Department of
<br />Public Works, we support this initiative to consolidate, or combine, the functions into a
<br />Permitting Division within the department. I think we're still in the conceptual planning
<br />stages of this initiative. Much of the details, I think, still need to be worked out. We
<br />have not discussed it with our staff that extensively, and we need to do that, as well as
<br />coordinate with the Union, or the Unions that are effected. I think what has been
<br />passed out to you is a conceptual organizational chart for this new division, and I think,
<br />at that time, the concept was a Land Use and Code, but I think it's been revised to a
<br />Division of Permitting, to be under the Department of Public Works. Basically, under
<br />that, each of the different branches would be pretty much as depicted there. And
<br />again, we still have to work out some details, the coordination between the different
<br />functions within each of those branches, as well as the possible reassigning of duties
<br />that could possibly make it more efficient, or to achieve the end of what we're trying to
<br />propose, which is this one-stop permitting process, and also to possibly achieve
<br />some efficiencies and better communication by having all those functions relating to
<br />permitting within one office, and I think there's a lot of benefit that could be gained if it's
<br />approached in the proper manner, or attitude, by staff.
<br />RAY: Specifically, does anybody have questions for Mr. Sumada?
<br />HERKES: I have a question on the chart. Civil Engineer VII, up at the top. I
<br />know the Charter says we have to have a Civil Engineer in charge. I don't necessarily
<br />agree with that. I would rather write an Administrator, as that position, to run this
<br />department. You have Civil Engineers all over the place down here.
<br />SUMADA: Well, Commissioner Herkes, again, I guess we needed possibly to
<br />change the title. It wouldn't actually be a separate department. It would be division
<br />underneath the Chief Engineer's Office, so that part would remain unchanged unless
<br />it's a Charter Amendment to that effect, but the Chief Engineer's Office remains
<br />unchanged and then this new organization, called the Division of Permitting, would
<br />be like a subdivision under the Chief Engineer's Office.
<br />HERKES: Are there engineering things that that Administrator would do?
<br />The Civil Engineer VII?
<br />20
<br />
|