Placer reviews supervisorial district staffing models

Due to growth within Placer County, the Board of Supervisors received an overview of its staffing model for its district staff. Placer County CEO Jane Christenson said the board's district staff assist with various operations, including constituent outreach and response, scheduling support, county meetings and collaboration with stakeholders and county staff. "This is a critical need to support our supervisors in serving the citizens of Placer County," Christenson said. According to Christenson, the current model for board district staff, established by Ordinance 5450-B in 2007, is one full-time district lead and one part-time district aide (1.5 staff) for Districts 1-4. Along with those positions, the ordinance also established for District 5 to have an additional district director due to its size (2.5 staff). Christenson said Placer's significant population growth during the 2021 redistricting process prompted an overview of the current staffing model. "Placer County is in growth mode," said Genna Martin, administrative and fiscal operations manager for Placer County. "We continue to grow and the county is a desirable place to live, work and play. With that growth, we continue to also evolve our staffing models and plans for resourcing related to those needs as they expand and grow with the population growth." According to Martin, 80 percent of District 5's population are unincorporated residents with the next highest being District 4 at 37 percent. Placer County Human Resources (HR) Manager Suzanne Holloway said HR met with board members and district directors and common feedback was with Placer's population growth, there are more constituents and a significant amount of load increase. As a result, staff proposed the following staffing models for each district: Option A: A revised district staffing structure which would add a district representative position that would report to the district director and have a primary focus on constituent response and outreach and attending meetings on behalf of the supervisor. This option aims to free up district directors to perform more legislative analysis and high-level duties. The estimated cost for this option, including salary and benefits, is $725,000. Option B: Revision of district staff allocations, which adds a full-time district director where both directors would have equal levels of authority and salary range. The estimated cost is $805,000. Option C: Maintain the current district staffing while HR and CEO staff look at centralized staffing to provide support needed to the districts. Holloway said Option A also allows for changing the district director title to district chief of staff. District 5 Supervisor Cindy Gustafson asked if there could be flexibility within the options as to how the staffing needs are implemented, as it may work better for her district to have two district aides than having another full-time person. Gustafson confirmed she did not feel her district needed another person at this time and felt comfortable continuing with 2.5 individuals with consistent support from the centralized office. "Our goal is to make sure that each of you have what you need, whatever those resources are," Holloway said. District 4 Supervisor Suzanne Jones noted there is no parity between the districts and even with removing District 5, she still has an "anomaly" with 37 percent unincorporated residents in comparison to District 1's 8 percent, District 2's 10 percent and District 3's 6 percent. "The workload I have, I need a clone of my district director," Jones said. "... Those two will be doing the bulk of the work. And believe me, I'm getting phone calls. I get emails. I get text messages from my constituents and they want to see me. The next-best person to see is my district director, not some centralized staff." Jones noted she did not support hiring a staff member with a lower classification and lower salary and demanding them to work as hard as her district director. District 2 Supervisor Shanti Landon noted she liked the concept of each district having the flexibility to choose how to meet its own need but could foresee there being confusion for the public and staff on the hierarchy in each district. Landon also noted wanting to be cognizant of the taxpayer's money and felt a district representative could meet the needs. District 1 Supervisor Bonnie Gore said having a structure like Option A that allows the opportunity to increase staff if needed and having a point person within the staff made sense to her and allowed for parity within the staff. Jones said, "I need someone to handle the workload. That's why I'm not interested in a chief of staff right now, because I have a workload that surpasses a district representative at a lower pay scale. It's going to be that much harder to fill at a lesser pay when I'm going to be demanding that they work every bit as hard as my district director." The board received three comments, including asking the board not to penny pinch when someone is asking for what they need, one requesting the board exercise conservative fiscal responsibility and one seconding what Jones said her needs are. Jones made a motion for Option B, but the motion failed due to a lack of a second. Gore made a motion for option A. Gustafson noted she supported Option A with the chief of staff title change. "It's obsolete," Jones said of Option A. "It's like planning to add a lane to Highway 65. One lane isn't going to solve the problem. We're already obsolete and behind the power curve." The board approved the motion in a 4-1 vote, with Jones submitting the lone nay vote. According to Christenson, staff will return to the board with a proposed ordinance for the staffing model during its March 14 meeting.