CCP 07-10-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, . . . :f Page 301'3 Another challenge would be eoordination of parks, trails and recreation activities among the three different divisions. However, some cities function quite well this way, and by splitting the responsibilities into smaller pieces, it is believed that better-focused and more attention is paid to each arca. RECOMMENDATION At this time I am most comfortable with Chart C or something similar. My reasons follow: 1. I think this option provides the most flexibility to transition and grow over time, as needed. 2. I believe that putting the managemcnt of public works, parks, trails, recreation, and engineering under onc department head may be too much. However, I am not comfortable witb going back to two separate departments at this time. This structure allows the ability to put some of the parks, trails, and recreation responsibility with the PTR Manager position. It also allows a transition to two separate departments should it becomc rccommended in the future. 3. This structure maintains the concept of one "labor pool" for maintenanee activities, which I believe is the optimum approach for the City. If Council is comfortable with Chart C, we would then nced to address the following issues in order to move forward: 1. Salaries for affected positions 2. Thc need to add rccrcation programming support 3. Development of updated job descriptions 4. Recruitment of a Public Works Director If Council is not eomfortable with Chart C, "next steps" will depend on which option is selected. REQUESTED ACTION Provide staff with input and feedback regarding the organizational structure for the O&M Department. A formal recommendation will then be put on the agenda for the July 31 meeting. MW l\metro-inetlardenhills14dmin'.City Adminislrator\MemoI2U06\7-10-06 Memo Ri:; O&.!v! Structure. doc