Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12171985 - IO.3 To BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Contra tra DATE: December 9, 1985 /Jo urty SUBJECT; ` Organizational Placement of the Real Property Division SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(.S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: Our Committee disagrees on the following recommendation: 1 . a. Supervisor Powers recommends that the Real Property Division be left in the Public Works Department as is recommended by the County Administrator. b. Supervisor Torlakson recommends -that the Real Property Division be transferred organizationally to the General Services Department. Our Committee agrees on the following recommendations: 2 . Regardless of which department the Real Property Division is placed in organizationally, we agree that the Division should be housed in close proximity to the Public Works engineering staff because of the need for frequent contact with the engineering staff. 3 . Request the Public Works Director to determine the extent to which there may be morale problems within the Real Property Division and take appropriate actions to resolve them. 4. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: On November 5, 1985, the Board directed the County Administrator to review further the issue of the organizational placement of the Real Property Division and report back to our Committee by December 9, 1985. On December 9, the County Administrator' s Office reported to our Committee. Also present were the Public Works Director, the Assistant Director of General Services, the General Manager of Contra Costa Employees Local No. 1, and the Assistant Public Works Director for the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECO DICTION OF B ARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE f�'�//�/J ��E'f/v ' ' Vii, SIG T Tom Torlak on Tom P NA URE s T s ACTION OF BOARD ON December 17, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X APPROVED recommendation that the Real Property Division be left in the Public Works Department and AGREED to review the issue in one year. APPROVED recommendations 2, 3 and 4 (unanimous) . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: I,III,IV,II NOES. V AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: — OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator CC: Public Works Director ATTESTED Asst. Dir.--General Services PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Asst. Dir.--Flood Control Div. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Employees Local #1 M382/7-83 BY "�'�-�'' ,DEPUTY Page 2 Our Committee reviewed the County Administrator ' s report ( attached) which comments on the additional information we had requested in our previous report on this subject. Henry Clarke, on behalf of Local No. 1, emphasized the fact, supported by the County Administrator ' s report, that the majority of the employees involved in the Real Property Division desire to transfer to the General Services Department. He noted that in his opinion, the fact that 900 of the Division' s work is done for the Public Works Department is irrelevant. Mr. Clarke also disagreed that the County had met its Meet and Confer responsibilities. The Public Works Director emphasized again that 90% of the services performed by the Real Property Division are for the Public Works Department and that it would be difficult for him to set priorities for the Division' s staff if they were not organizationally a part of his Department. Supervisor Powers stated, in his opinion, there is no clearly defined reason to make a change in the existing organizational placement of the Real Property Division. In comparing the Real Property Division with the Communications Division (which is to be located in the General Services Department) , he noted that communications issues affect all departments and must be addressed on a countywide basis whereas Real Property services are project specific and are provided mainly to the Public Works Department in support of road and flood control activities. While he respects the preference of the employees to be- in the General Services Department, he indicated that it would be his recommendation to leave the Division iA the Public Works Department and request the Public Works Director to identify and deal with any morale problems which may exist. Supervisor Powers indicated he would be willing to take a look at the issue again in a year, if this is considered necessary. Supervisor Torlakson noted that, in his opinion, there were good arguments both for leaving the Real Property Division in the Public Works Department and for transferring it to the General Services Department. In his view, the overriding issue is that the Real Property Division is a service agency providing support services to other County departments, and, therefore, should be transferred to the General Services Department, along with other such support services. Supervisor Torlakson noted, however, that the Real Property Division should be left in close proximity to the Public Works engineering staff because of the need for frequent contact between these two staffs, a point which Supervisor Powers concurred in. The County Administrator' s report indicated that the possibility of redevelopment projects in West Pittsburg and North Richmond would not likely generate the level of property purchase activity which has been experienced with the Pleasant Hill BART station project. Supervisor Torlakson believes that these projects should be moved along more quickly, including the need for substantial involvement from the Real Property Division. The Committee agreed to make a split recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors and, therefore, submits the above recommendations.