Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />~ <br />~HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />July 10, 2006 <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM: Work Session <br /> <br />TO: Mayor and City Council . .' <br />I' 1,' <br />FROM: Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator {V~i//~~OJ' <br /> <br />SUBJECT: O&M Department Organizational Structure <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />On Monday, May 22nd the City Council approved the O&M Transition Plan. On Monday, June <br />12 City Council approved a Recruitment Plan and Timeline. 1 recommended that the City not <br />proceed immediately with the recruitmcnt of an O&M Director. Rather I wanted to proceed with <br />a proeess and timelinc that allowed the opportunity to develop and rcview options for the future <br />of the O&M Department. I reviewed many historical minutes and reports regarding previous <br />reorganizations and have some background on how the City anived at the existing structure for <br />the department. However, I am not sure the existing structure is the best alternative as we move <br />forward in the future. I want to make sure we have an organizational structure in place that <br />meets the current needs of the City but allows flexibility for future growth and change as needed. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />I have been in the process of gathering information. We obtained sample organizational <br />structures from other eities, and initiated discussions with the City of Roseville about the role of <br />enginecring services in the future. Sample structures were provided to the PTRC, and I attended <br />their meeting in June <br /> <br />My goal was to gather input and information in June, then dcvelop a proposed structure during <br />July. In order to facilitate discussion, I put together four sample organizational eharts. Thesc <br />charts were prcpared for diseussion purposes, and are based on historieal and current information <br />as well as drawing from sample structures in other communities. The final seleeted option may <br />be one of these options, a combination of some of them, or something different we haven't <br />thought about yet. . <br /> <br />Chart A illustrates the structure that preceded the current strueture. I believe the strength of this <br />structurc is that it allows more foeused attention on parks, trails and recreation separate from <br />public works or viee versa. This allows thc opportunity for thc development of specific expertisc <br />in each area. The weaknesses of this strueture are that you lose flexibility from your labor pool; <br />it adds another management position and department to the City structure which includes added <br />costs, and potentially \veakens the ability to pool resources as needed. Given our current work <br />