Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1D, Organization Structure .. _HILtS Request for Council Action Prepared By: Ron Moorse Council Meeting Date: September 15, 2008 Organizational Structure Budgeted Amount: N/A Actual Amount: N/A Funding Source: N/A Recommendation: NA Supporting Documents: 1. Memo from Ron Moorse re: Organizational Structure dated September 15, 2008 2. Memo from Ron Moorse re: Public Works Organizational Structure dated September 15, 2008 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 15, 2008 SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator f If Organizational Structure TO: FROM: Goals The key goals that are the basis of the design of the organizational structure are as follows: . The organizational structure reflects and enables the accomplishment of City goals and functions . Provides a management structure to effectively direct related activities . Ensures the activities included in the department match the overall focus of the department . Encourages cohesive, cross-trained work groups organized around related functions . Provides the capacity to manage projects on both an on-going basis and an ad hoc basis . Enables day-to-day operations to consistently function well . Enables capacity for developing a long term view to enable being proactive vs. reactive- pro actively identifying problems, challenges, and opportunities; and pro actively developing plans and strategies to put the City in a position to effectively take advantage of opportunities, and address problems and challenges Organizational Design Outline With these goals as the foundation, the organizational structure is based on the City Administrator supported by three department director level positions with clearly defined responsibilities and capacity for both the management of day-to-day operations, and long term planning and strategy; and also supported by staff with project capacity-ability to manage and complete, and support the completion of, projects that may involve one or more departments. The three department director level positions are the Finance Director, the Public Works Director, and the Community Development Director. The key elements of their responsibilities are outlined below. \\Metro-inet\ardenhills\Admin\City Administrator\General documents\RCA's\RCA organiz structure 9-15-08.doc 9/12/2008 Page 2 Finance Director Ensure accounting and financial reporting and controls are provided consistently well to ensure the City's financial resources are protected. The Finance Director plays the lead role in providing long term financial planning, and developing long term financial strategy. Public Works Director Ensure Public Works maintenance operations are handled consistently well, so that system users routinely experience no problems. Provide for a balanced, well organized program of affordable recreational activities, and ensure the facilities necessary for the programs are available and well- maintained. The Public Works Director also provides leadership for identifying and understanding future issues, ~nd for multi-year planning for infrastructure improvements. Community'Development Director Ensure service and regulatory activities are carried out consistently well, i.e. building permit processing, planning application processing, complaint response/code enforcement. The Community Development Director plays the lead role in planning and implementing a program of economic development and community development to maintain and strengthen the economic vitality of the City, and to provide the building blocks necessary to create the community envisioned by the City's residents and City Council. An organizational chart that reflects this design is attached. ...... - ~ ,..:= u = o .,.. ...... ~ IS ".,.. == = bI) - o (I.) ..... = ~ :g (I.) ~ ~ ~ ,.. ,..,..c .. ~ == OJ ~ .. -< ~. o ~ ....- u ~ ~ ~ ~ -- .rJ = = = u ~ ..... u (I.) ~ ~ ..... ..... -8 8 = U J. ~ ~ ..... = = Q > Q) ~ .1 .8 8 .~ ~ a .~ 8 .~] OJ) ~ C\S ~ ;::::s ~ ...... u u 8 ~ E~g<8~ ~t~~8~ .~ (I.) --~ ,.Q J. = = ~~ ~= .,.... ~ = 8 = ~ 8 = 8QS = ;> u~ J. = ..... ~ J. ..... (I.) -a -8 "'C -< ~ ..... u ~ ~ = ~ = ~ .....~ ~ -,.... ~ ~ -~ ~ = ~ J. ~ ~u ~ .=: .......... ~ J. J. = ~ ~ .a ~ .,.... = 800 "'C -< ~~ .S 8 ] ~ ~ ~ a~ u +-> E.~ 8 ~ e a ~~ ~ ooJ:l ~ ~ s.e E 8 .a .:g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.s 00 e ~~~sa ~~~~....... +-> ~ ~ 8.~ E ~oo~ (1)Eg. ..... l=l..... ~ 0 .- E .S ;g ~ t8 S ~ E:~~8&5~o ~ .~ CI) ~ > o (1) (,) 5 .S; E ~ ~ ~t: ~ ~ t'j 8..- 5 ~ 0.. ~ CI) t'j~"'O~ ~~;~ (,) (,) (1) t'j .s.s~ ~ ~~~~ 00 +->~ "'0 ~.r;) ; (1) E ~ CI) .~. ~ g .g , t'j ~ ~ (1); 00 ~ ~.~ CI) < 8~~S~~ o I-< E ..;j ..;j "5 t;) 8 t8 ~ ~ .s 8~JS~~~ ~~ CI) (,) .B 8 ; ~ . .... l=l r:/J ~ it "'0 r:/J E ; ""; (1) 00 .0 ~.s ; 00 E ~ ~ t'j it3~ ~ DEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 15, 2008 SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator f /; Organizational Structure-Public Works Maintenance TO: FROM: Goals The goals of the organizational structure of the Public Works maintenance function are as follows: . The organizational structure reflects and enables the accomplishment of Public Works mailltenance goals and functions . Encourages a cohesive, cross-trained work group . Enables day-to-day operations to consistently function well Options There are two main options for organizing the Public Works Maintenance function A. Public Works Superintendent managing and supervising the 8-person maintenance crew B. Working foreman/foremen providing day-to-day work coordination and assignments for the maintenance crew The following is an analysis of the pros and cons of these two options. Analysis Option A Pros: -- The PW Superintendent is a true supervisor, has supervisory authority, is independent of the labor union, and has a management perspective -- The PW Superintendent has an overall perspective to assist in determining priorities re: Streets, Parks, etc. -- The PW Superintendent has sufficient time to plan, organize, schedule, and assign multiple daily projects for the 8-person crew. --Public Works employees have the opportunity to take on the role ofproject leader in the field. --This structure matches the philosophy of a cohesive, cross-trained pool of Public Works employees . \\Metro-inet\ardenhills\Admin\City Administrator\General documents\RCA's\RCA PW maint org struct. 9-15-08.doc 9/12/2008 Page 2 -- The Superintendent is focused on planning, organizing, scheduling and assigning work to enable the crew to operate efficiently and effectively Cons --The Superintendent is limited in doing maintenance work --The Superintendent is onjob sites less than a working foreman Option B Pros: --The Working Foreman can assist with the work of the crew -- The Working Foremen can be on the work site more with the crew Cons: --A working foreman is not separated from the union, so does not have authority regarding personnel issues --A working foreman is pulled between organizing work and doing work. This can create tension, and can reduce the productivity of the crew if too much time is spent doing vs. organizing work. --A working foreman is generally focused on one or two aspects of maintenance operations, i.e. water, or water and sewer, which does not facilitate priority setting among the multiple maintenance operations, i.e. streets, parks, water, sewer, storm sewer, fleet maintenance. -- With a crew of 8, (with an additional 7 seasonal workers during the busiest portion of the year) and multiple maintenance activities, a single working foreman could not plan, schedule, and organize the work of the crew and still operate as a working foreman. Either the "working" element would suffer, or the "foreman" element would.suffer. --multiple working foremen would be needed to manage the Public Works maintenance operation. Looking ahead to the development of TCAAP, the scope of maintenance operations will increase substantially, as well as the size of the crew, making it more difficult to manage the crew with one or more working foremen. -- With two or more working foremen, the amount of time spent organizing work vs. doing work becomes equivalent to a full-time maintenance position, resulting in a de facto loss of a maintenance position, although there are "working" foremen. --Having multiple working foremen reduces or eliminates the opportunity for maintenance workers to serve as project leaders at work sites --Assigning multiple working foremen to oversee specific operational areas can erode the philosophy of a cohesive group of cross-trained maintenance workers, as the working foremen will be focused on their specific operational areas, and will tend to surround themselves with crew members who have the same focus. -- working foremen focused on one or two operational areas will have a more difficult time coordinating among themselves in terms of priority setting regarding the needs of the various operational areas. Recommendation On the basis of the above analysis, it is recommended that the Public Works maintenance operation be managed by a Public Works Superintendent.