CCP 11-19-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Joe Lynch, City Administrator ~ Maintenance and Operations SUntendent Position FROM: SUBJECT: CC: Tom Moore, Jim Perron personnel file DATE: November 16,2001 BACKGROUND I have enclosed a copy of the memorandum sent to you October 12,2001, concerning this position and my previous recommendation. I have also enclosed a copy of the City of Arden Hills organizational chart from 1999 and 2001. The chart lettered A, dated November 1999, reflects the current state of organizational and reporting structure. The chart lettered B, dated November 2001, indicates my proposed and accepted organizational change for the City of Arden Hills. As you can see on chart A, there were eight direct reports to the City Administrator, and one of the points I made in trying to convince the City Council to approve an organizational structural change, was the span of control and the diversity of the types of positions reporting to the City Administrator was too great. On chart B the reorganization creates three direct reports to the City Administrator. As previously indicated, the rationale for the creation of the Maintenance and Operations Superintendent position is to reduce the number of mid-management positions, allow for streamline reporting, and enable the Maintenance and Operations Director and Maintenance and Operations Superintendent access to a larger labor pool for more attention to projects. The creation of the Maintenance and Operations Superintendent position job description basically incorporates the main duties of the current Public Works Maintenance Foreman position as well as some of the aspects of the Parks Foreman position. The Parks Foreman position is eliminated. However, at this time I am not recommending a reduction in pay for that position due to two factors; this reorganization was not as a result of the lack of performance on the part of that employee, and with the inclusion of parks employees in the union the wages of parks employees could be brought to the same level of public works employees. Ifwe reach an agreement for a 3% increase, there would be no adjustment in the pay for this employee. If the adjustment is larger than 3%, this employee would receive less of an increase.