CCP 07-10-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 of3 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 thc labor pool, operating and cost efficiencies, less management overhead, and cross training opportunities. A potential weakness is the eoncem 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 thc 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 eomfortable 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 ehanging the name ofthe 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 reereation. What I'm trying to incorporate here is maintaining all the advantages of the eurrent structure, while trying to address some additional necds that I feel are possibly lacking in the eurrent strueture. 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 reereation 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 reereation 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, exeept that the position would report directly to the City Administrator and not to Public Works. The Community Development Department would handle parks and facilities planning. The labor pool would be maintained in the Public Works Department. The potential advantages are that it allows each of the three areas to be separately focused on, without having to add additional staff. Another potential advantage is that we may be able to add engineering expertise and experience to the staff, which would also potentially inerease the value of the Director position and henee the recruitment pool of qualified candidates. (On the other hand there is a very limited pool of candidates for civil engineering types of positions.) Another issue is that the Community Development Department will have a very heavy work load during the next few years, with the Comprehensive Plan Update process and the possible dcvelopment of TCAAP, so taking on parks planning activities may be onerous. . . .