In the first installment on “Planning Organization in Third Tier Suburbs”, this blogger described a staffing comparison of eighty-five communities. What was neglected or not clearly specified, in the first installment, was the connection between staffing levels and the workloads, responsibilities, and formal functions of the individual planning offices.
The staffing level of a particular department does not necessarily coincide with the individual planner workloads and responsibilities within that community. To back up this comment, this blogger will mention an anecdotal story about a town planner in a first or second tier suburb in Central Massachusetts. In observing this planner, it appeared that he had a lot of dead time. In order to make himself appear to be busy, he assisted the town administration in answering phones and meeting with the general public on non-related planning issues, other free time was used to study for an additional advanced degree. His planning work load, therefore, was significantly dependent upon the limited activity of new development within the
community in terms of both subdivisions and commercial site developments.
The staffing level of a particular department does not necessarily coincide with the individual planner workloads and responsibilities within that community. To back up this comment, this blogger will mention an anecdotal story about a town planner in a first or second tier suburb in Central Massachusetts. In observing this planner, it appeared that he had a lot of dead time. In order to make himself appear to be busy, he assisted the town administration in answering phones and meeting with the general public on non-related planning issues, other free time was used to study for an additional advanced degree. His planning work load, therefore, was significantly dependent upon the limited activity of new development within the
community in terms of both subdivisions and commercial site developments. On the other hand, in this blogger’s community, there are times where a customer needs to take a ticket in order to stay in the queue for a response to their questions by the Town Planner. It is these times that the Town Planner pulls his hair out.
The above instances highlight the need to study a generic job description for a Town Planner and compare it to individual positions of Town Planners in other representative communities.
Generic job descriptions of Planning positions are available from the Local Government Institute in Tacoma, Washington. Eight key highlights of a generic job description for Town Planner are as follows.
One, “supervises the development and implementation of growth management, land use, economic development…or other plans and codes.” Administers “community development programs and services pursuant to adopted rules, regulations, and budgets.”
Two, “supervises the evaluation of land use proposals for conformity to established
Plans and ordinances; and evaluate proposal development impacts.
Three, oversees enforcement of local codes where applicable.
Four, oversees the permitting functions of developments including application, fee
Assessment, plan review, inspection, and occupancy.
Five, provides staff support to the Planning Board and other boards as needed and assigned. Also serves as a member of various task forces and committees.
Six, prepares and writes grant applications including maps and plans.
Seven, “develops and maintains a data base of information for planning.”
Eight, “monitors inter-governmental decisions and legislation actions.”
This generic job description has a different emphasis in more mature communities such as in first or second tier suburbs. For example, there are a number of communities that are heavily involved in redevelopment activities. In many instances these communities administer the Community Development Block Grant program. For example, the community of Greenfield runs a CDBG program which includes its downtown and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Its planning staff spends considerably less time on subdivision type issues. In the blogger's working community, a time allocation study was conducted several years ago and it was determined that over 44% of the planner's time was spent on developer type tasks including subidivisions, commercial developments, and land platting.
It should be pointed out that there are three categories of communities that benefit from CDBG funds in the State of Massachusetts: one, entitlement communities that are guaranteed funding directly from the Federal government; two, min-entitlement communities that are guaranteed funding through the state based on meeting the national objectives; three, discretionary communities that are selected in a highly competitive basis as determined from an elaborate scoring system set up by the state.
In other words, discretionary communities can not rely on obtaining these funds on a yearly basis and should not anticipate these funds for their respective planning activities. Many communities such as an Ashland or Hopkinton are considered relative wealthy communities by CBDG standards and therefore should not waste their time applying for these funds.
Other deviations from the generic job description include items such as supervision of engineering consultants and attendance at numerous committee meetings. In the former case, communities such as Blackstone Southborough and Fox borough use independent consultant companies for peer reviews and on-site inspections. In the latter case, the organizational structure of the community and the lack of professional staff create situations for increased volunteer efforts administering government functions at evening meetings that require the planner’s attendance.
One, “supervises the development and implementation of growth management, land use, economic development…or other plans and codes.” Administers “community development programs and services pursuant to adopted rules, regulations, and budgets.”
Two, “supervises the evaluation of land use proposals for conformity to established
Plans and ordinances; and evaluate proposal development impacts.
Three, oversees enforcement of local codes where applicable.
Four, oversees the permitting functions of developments including application, fee
Assessment, plan review, inspection, and occupancy.
Five, provides staff support to the Planning Board and other boards as needed and assigned. Also serves as a member of various task forces and committees.
Six, prepares and writes grant applications including maps and plans.
Seven, “develops and maintains a data base of information for planning.”
Eight, “monitors inter-governmental decisions and legislation actions.”
This generic job description has a different emphasis in more mature communities such as in first or second tier suburbs. For example, there are a number of communities that are heavily involved in redevelopment activities. In many instances these communities administer the Community Development Block Grant program. For example, the community of Greenfield runs a CDBG program which includes its downtown and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Its planning staff spends considerably less time on subdivision type issues. In the blogger's working community, a time allocation study was conducted several years ago and it was determined that over 44% of the planner's time was spent on developer type tasks including subidivisions, commercial developments, and land platting.
It should be pointed out that there are three categories of communities that benefit from CDBG funds in the State of Massachusetts: one, entitlement communities that are guaranteed funding directly from the Federal government; two, min-entitlement communities that are guaranteed funding through the state based on meeting the national objectives; three, discretionary communities that are selected in a highly competitive basis as determined from an elaborate scoring system set up by the state.
In other words, discretionary communities can not rely on obtaining these funds on a yearly basis and should not anticipate these funds for their respective planning activities. Many communities such as an Ashland or Hopkinton are considered relative wealthy communities by CBDG standards and therefore should not waste their time applying for these funds.
Other deviations from the generic job description include items such as supervision of engineering consultants and attendance at numerous committee meetings. In the former case, communities such as Blackstone Southborough and Fox borough use independent consultant companies for peer reviews and on-site inspections. In the latter case, the organizational structure of the community and the lack of professional staff create situations for increased volunteer efforts administering government functions at evening meetings that require the planner’s attendance.
No comments:
Post a Comment