Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0325 CC SPC ITEM 11BTO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND MOORPARK ITEM1.1 B- 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 - ,'.r:'<. CAUFMN c3uncu Meeting 3/ S _100 The Honorable City Council Steven Rueny, City Manager March 20, 1992 Consider Review of Director of Community Services' Position On February 5, 1992, the City Manager recommended a 5% adjustment to the salary range for the Director of Community Services position prior to initiating the recruitment process for the vacant position. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to evaluate options for the position and to report back to the Council. Staff has conducted an analysis of potential alternatives for assigning the responsibilities of the current position. The list of current major responsibilities and departmental organizational chart are attached as Exhibits "A" and "B ", respectively. This evaluation included consideration of potentially transferring responsibilities among departments to achieve operational efficiencies and consolidation of similar assignments. On April 18, 1990, the Council accepted the Organization and Management Review (Study) prepared by Hamilton and Associates. The Study found that the City's public works responsibilities were too fragmented, placed inappropriate demands on the City Manager's time and contributed to an unmanageable scope of responsibilities for. the Director of Community Services position. The City Council subsequently authorized the Public Works Director position. This position assumed responsibility for the street maintenance and improvement and other related responsibilities from the Director of Community Services' position. The evaluation of how to split responsibilities between these two positions continued through the 1990 -91 Fiscal Year and in July 1991 resulted in the present organization of responsibilities. DISCUSSION Four alternatives for potential modification of the current Director of Community Services position were evaluated: PAUL W LAWRASON JR_ JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M PEREZ ROY E TALLEY JR Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember P* meted On Hecycled Pap,- The Honorable City Council March 20, 1992 Page 2 z 1. A downgraded position to the superintendent level and reporting to either the Deputy City Manager or Public Works Director. 2. Combined position with the Assistant to the City Manager position and hiring of an additional recreation or management support position. 3. Status quo. 4. Status quo but with some transfer of responsibilities among certain positions. All of the management positions (Deputy City Manager, Assistant to the City Manager, Public Works Director, Management Analyst for Administrative Services as well as the Director of Community Services)'affected by this evaluation already have great demands placed on them. These referenced positions, excluding meeting attendance, routinely and consistently work at least 10 -20% more than the standard work week. In some cases, the span of control is such that there is a continuous push to meet deadlines and shifting of effort among various responsibilities. Adding more responsibilities would have a deleterious effect and exacerbate the existing situation. The collective result is that another management support position is justified but due to funding constraints will most likely not be proposed for funding consideration in 1992 -93. This point affects all of the options and is not a factor in the evaluation of where in the organizational level the current Director of Community Services should be placed. Option 1 - Downgrade Position During the Council discussion preceding direction to evaluate the position, the possibility of downgrading the position to a supervisory level position was suggested. Presently, two supervisory positions (Maintenance and Operations Supervisor and Recreation Supervisor) report to the Director of Community Services. If the position is downgraded, it would need to be at a superintendent level reporting to the Deputy City Manager or Public Works Director. You would not expect a superintendent position to report to the City Manager. This option would necessitate a change in the organizational structure so parks and recreation matters would become a divsion in another department. The present responsibilities and work load of all of these positions do not support making this change. It will be difficult for any of them to assume any additional responsibility without a negative impact on their current assignments. It could potentially affect the The Honorable City Council March 20, 1992 Page 3 -c- quality of support provided Commission since a department the primary staff support. to the Parks and Recreation manager would not be providing A lower level position cannot be expected to have the overall breadth of responsibility that exists with the current Director of Community Services' position. It would place an additional layer on the organizational structure and decision making process. The only potential advantage is salary and benefit savings. When compared to the disadvantages discussed above, any potential cost savings does not warrant selection of this option. Option 2 - Combined Position with Assistant to the City Manager (ATCM) Position Under this option, the reorganized Community Services Department would combine the transit /transportation and solid waste /recycling responsibilities of the ATCM position with the parks and recreation and associated responsibilities of the existing Department of Community Services. A support level position would need to be added. Some transfer of responsibilities to other departments would be needed to make this work. An exchange of responsibilities would include the Deputy City Manager assuming property management of undeveloped parks and VCTC rail property and the ATCM the cable TV government channel programming and administration. A transfer of responsibilities to the Public works Director, including parks capital project administration, maintenance assessment district administration, private property tree removals, parks, landscape, facilities maintenance and related items. The reorganized department would have responsibility for: 1. Park and facilities planning and staff to Parks and Recreation Commission 2. Recreation 3. Commuter rail /transit 4. Solid waste and recycling 5. Public information 6. Cable TV Government Channel This option would result in the loss of direct staff support to the City Manager, including special projects, which, along with the need for attention to solid waste /recycling and transportation matters, was the reason the ATCM position was created. Assigrnents tha! would be impacted include intergovernmental relations, regional governance, economic development, goal setting, legislative relations and special The Honorable City Council March 20, 1992 Page 4 T projects such as day laborer and paramedic issues. Depending on the type of support position selected, the City could be without an in -house position that has parks planning experience. This option as proposed would result in segregating the parks and recreation functions. This could be a detriment to scheduling and reserving park facilities and providing coordinated staff support with appropriate expertise to the Parks and Recreation Commission. If parks and facilities maintenance responsibilities remained with the combined position, it would have too many varied responsibilities for one position and would not give the City a department manager with experience in parks, landscape and facilities management, planning and maintenance. As with Option 1, the only advantage is potential salary cost savings. The potential cost savings does not warrant selection.of this option. Option 3 - Status Quo The discussion of the other ootions addresses the benefits of this option which include a combined parks and recreation function with appropriate department head decision making and experience in parks, landscape and facilities management planning, and maintenance and recreation programming to support the two divisions of the department. This option recognizes the importance of parks and recreation to the community and would retain the function as a department, not a division of another department. Option 4 - Status Quo with Some Transfer of Responsibilities My analysis of the Director of Community Services' position options concludes with the recommendation of Option 4. Prior to the current vacancy, staff had already initiated a review of certain functions and assignments with the possible shift among departments. This was being driven by several factors including the imminent initiation of the Cable TV Government Channel, the need for better contract administration and timely implementation of capital projects, the planned primary responsibility of the Deputy City Manager for Emergency Management upon the State's approval of the City's Disaster Plan, and the upgrading of the management support position in the Public Work= Department. As a result of an identified need, the Public Works Department has assumed responsibility for design _and construction of major park improvements starting with = ^ase of Arroyo Vista Community Park and certain parkway ir._= overents. As mentioned in Option 3, re :wining the Director of Community The Honorable City Council March 20, 1992 Page 5 T Services' position as a department head level position emphasizes parks and recreation as an important service for the community. It keeps the two together so that parks and other facilities are maintained and scheduled within the same department responsible for recreation activities to minimize coordination conflicts and maximize efficiencies. This option provides for parks, landscape and facilities management, planning, and maintenance to be done under the direction of one person and provides for experience in these areas as well as recreation so that the supervisors of the maintenance and recreation divisions have adequate in -house support. Exhibit "C" lists the current responsibilities proposed for transfer among the Director of Community Services, Deputy City Manager, Public works, Director and Assistant to the City Manager. Exhibit "D" lists the proposed Director of Community Services' major responsibilities. The transfers would not take effect until the position is filled. Even with this, as the parks and other landscaped areas expand, especially with the planned Phase I of Arroyo Vista Community Park and the desire for the City to initiate and /or provide more senior citizen, teen and at -risk youth programs, the importance of having a Director of Community Services position to manage these activities is evident. The City needs to be looking at having the capability of providing more staffing in this department. The projected needs and funding levels are the subject of a separate study which is currently underway and will be available as part of the budget deliberations. CONCLUSIONS The Director of Community Services needs to remain a department head level management position. The City has a big investment in the current developed parks and Community Center. This investment will grow in the future. The City needs management level expertise in parks planning, parks and facilities management and maintenance and recreation programming to provide direction, leadership and support in these functional areas. The City cannot relegate parks and recreation to division status in the organizational structure without significant negative impacts on other positions and areas of responsibility. In addition to an increasing number of sites and acres of parks, the City is increasing recreation activities, especially to serve at -risk youth, teens and seniors. Responsibilities in this area are too diverse and broad to The Honorable City Council March 20, 1992 Page 6 T expect a supervisory level position to adequately perform. If the position is downgraded, you would expect it to focus on either parks or recreation, not both, but the City does not have the capability for additional work to be absorbed by other existing positions. To downgrade the Director of Community Services position to a supervisory level will only exacerbate the workload situation and add an unnecessary layer to decision making. The parks, facilities, median and parkway landscaping, recreation programs and associated functions are important to the overall community and quality of life that people expect in Moorpark. This requires that these functions be considered as important as streets, community development and law enforcement. Downgrading parks and recreation to just one of many responsibilities for another department level manager does not give them the focus that is needed. The proposed transfer of responsibilities in Option 4 will not lighten the workload of anyone but it should assist in the consolidation and coordination of similar functions for those receiving new assignments, thereby enhancing their efficiency. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To retain the Director of Community Services position as the manager of the Department of Community Services reporting to the City Manager with the transfer of responsibilities as listed in attached Exhibit "C ". SK:sc 3201.tem EXHIBIT "A" CURRENT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES' MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Recreation Programs 2. Parks, Landscape and Facilities Management and Maintenance 3. Parks and Facilities Planning 4. All Parks and Facilities Capital Improvements 5. Administer Lease for Undeveloped Park Sites and Senior Citizens Center 6:, Maintenance Assessment District Administration 7. Administer Art in Public Places Fund (no current activity) 8. Administer Private Property Tree Removals (Ordinance No. 101) and Tree and Landscaping Fee (Resolution No. 88- 524) 9. APCD Health Advisory Notification 10. Radio Communications, Security System and Key Control 11. Staff Support to Parks and Recreation Commission 12. Liaison with Youth Sports Organizations EXHIBIT "B" COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART I Director of I Community Service Maintenance & Operations Supervisor Facilities Parks/ Landscaping I Administrative I Secretary Recreation Supervisor Recreation Coordinator EXHIBIT "C" PROPOSED TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITIES X - Current XX - Proposed Transfer * - Currently Shared Admin. Community Public Services Responsibility Services Works (DCM) ATCM Real Property X XX X Management Major Park Capital Improvement X XX Project Administration Maintenance Assessment X XX District Administration At Risk Youth XX X Emergency XX* X Management X* Administer Cable TV Government XX X Channel Programming Radio Communication X* XX X* System Senior Lifeline XX X Devices X - Current XX - Proposed Transfer * - Currently Shared EXHIBIT "D" PROPOSED DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Recreation Programs 2. Parks, Landscape, Facilities Management and Maintenance 3. Parks and Facilities Planning 4. Minor Parks and Facilities Improvements 5. Administer Senior Citizens Center Lease Agreement 6. Administration of Cable TV Government Channel Programming 7. Administer Art in Public Places Fund 8. Administer Private Property Tree Removals (Ordinance No. 101) and Tree and Landscaping Fee (Resolution No. 88- 524) 9. APCD Health Advisory Notification 10. Security System and Key Control 11. Staff Support to Parks and Recreation Commission 12. Liaison with Youth Sports Organizations 13. Coordinate City's Participation in At -Risk Youth Programs 14. Administer Senior Lifeline Service Contracts