06-20-06 PTRC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 of 3 point for the discussion. I am also including a brief, cursory discussion of some strengths and weaknesses for each option. The potential strengths and weaknesses is a key area where input is desired. Chart A illustrates the structure that preceded the current structure. I believe the strength of this structure is that it allows more focused attention on parks, trails and recreation separate from public works. This allows the opportunity for the development of specific expertise in each area. The weaknesses of this structure are that you lose flexibility from your labor pool; it adds another management position and department to the City structure which includes added costs, and potentially weakens the ability to pool resources as needed. Given our current work load and financial status, I am also not comfortable that we need two department heads and two separate departments at this time. Chart B illustrates the current structure. Strengths of this structure include increased flexibility from the labor pool, operating and cost efficiencies, less management overhead, and cross training opportunities. A potential weakness is the concern that some areas may get overlooked in favor of others (for example, more effort on public works issues versus parks or vice versa), either in reality or perceived reality. In addition, I am not certain that this structure best suits the City as we try to prepare for future potential growth as a result of TCAAP. I believe it is possible that eventually, with the new parks, open space, and recreation that will develop along with TCAAP, we will need to add staff to address those needs, ultimately needing to separate Public Works from Parks and Recreation. Another concern I have is that we have increased our in-house engineering capabilities via our agreement with the City of Roseville. I am currently managing that function, but I think it makes sense for this to fall under the Director of O&M. However, I don't feel comfortable adding it to a position that already manages public works, parks,trails and recreation. Chart C illustrates somewhat of a hybrid between Charts A and B. It contemplates splitting out some of the Parks and Recreation activities from O&M and changing the name of the department back to Public Works. However, it maintains the labor pool concept for maintenance of parks and trails and other related activities. Parks planning and recreation activities are managed by a position labeled Parks and Recreation Manager, which reports to the Public Works Director. As envisioned this position operates similar to an Assistant Public Works Director responsible for managing parks and recreation. What I'm trying to incorporate here is maintaining all the advantages of the current structure, while trying to address some additional needs that I feel are possibly lacking in the current structure. Equally important is that this structure contemplates future growth in that the Parks and Recreation Manager position can be upgraded to a Parks and Recreation Director in the future as needed. I believe it may be necessary to add additional recreation program staffing under this option, since some of the O&M Director responsibilities would be added to the Parks and Recreation Manager position, thus limiting some of the time available for recreation programming activities. This would result in an increase in costs versus maintaining the current structure. However, it would be a lower cost than reverting to the old structure of two separate departments. Chart D illustrates an option that splits parks, trails, and recreation responsibilities three ways. It also contemplates the possibility of incorporating the City Engineer position into the Public Works Director position, increasing our engineering expertise on staff. The Recreation Supervisor position would function as it currently does, except that the position would report GES