HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/1991, C-17 - ORGANIZATION REVIEW OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC WORKS, AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS ATE
j�l��� City of San LUIS OBI SPO MEETING 91
10-29-91
ON" COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MM NUMBER: �—�
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Office
Prepared by: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Organization Review of Community Development, Public
Works, and Recreation Departments
CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion: (1) Approve and authorize the
distribution of a request for proposals to complete an organization
and management review of the Community Development, Public Works,
and Recreation Departments; and (2) authorize contract award by the
CAO if the lowest responsible bid is within $35, 000.
DISCUSSION:
As a part of the 1989-91 Financial Plan, the City established a
goal of completing periodic reviews of operations and programs to
increase productivity and improve service delivery. As outlined
in the attached "Request for Qualifications and Proposals" , there
are a number of reasons for completing such a review of the
Community Development, Public Works, and Recreation Departments at
this time. The specific information to be acquired through such
a review is also outlined in detail in the attachment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposal specifically states that the City does not intend to
expend more than $25, 000 to $35, 000 for this analysis.
An appropriation of $22, 000 was approved in the 1991-92 Budget for
contractual management analysis services (page D-96) . As noted in
the budget, when this appropriation was established it was
envisioned that these funds could be used to separately review two
departments. However, as discussed in the attachment, there are
a number of inter-related issues which warrant reviewing the three
departments concurrently. As such, the cost of the study is likely
to be higher than the original appropriation. Any funds needed
beyond the $22, 000 appropriation, up to a total of $35, 000, will
be supported from existing funds available in the Ventures and
Contingency account.
CONCURRENCES:
The Directors of Public Works, Community Development, and
Recreation have reviewed the request for proposals and support its
distribution.
ATTACHMENT:
Request for Proposals
KH:bw
org.rpt
October 30, 1991
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS:
REVIEW OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC WORKS
AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
CONTACT PERSON:
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
(805)781-7123
SUBMITTAL. DEADLINE:
December 6, 1991
[4-02-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Public Works Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. Community Development Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
IV. Recreation Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
V. Proposal Content and Process Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
��r-3
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS:
REVIEW OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC WORKS
AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
I. INTRODUCTION
The City has a goal of conducting regular reviews of operations and programs
to increase productivity and improve service delivery. Recently, certain issues
and events have combined to warrant the review of three City departments:
Community Development, Public Works, and Recreation.
As outlined below, there are issues which cross departmental boundaries that
must be examined (e.g., Should transportation functions in the City be
organizationally combined? Should park maintenance be transferred from Public
Works to Recreation?). There are also issues which are narrowly related to the
performance of one department, particularly the Community Development
Department.
With respect to this department, there have been a number of issues and
concerns which have surrounded the department over the years. Many of the
issues and concerns are typical and expected in a community attempting to
reconcile growth and economic pressures with the strong desire to protect a
quality environment. Other issues, however, are unique to the department as it
is organized, staffed, and performing today. Addressing these issues is a priority
outcome to be achieved by the consultant's evaluation.
The background and key issues for each of these three departments is described
below.
II. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Background
After 35 years of service, the City's Public Works Director is retiring. His
retirement will be effective in April 1992. As would be expected, over the years
the City's Public Works Department has evolved to a large degree based on the
interests and management style of its leadership. With the Director's retirement,
the City Council and city management need to take a fresh look at the
Department to assure that it is properly organized to meet the challenges of the
1990's and beyond. The results of this evaluation will also help the City
determine the skills, knowledge, and abilities to be sought in the City's
recruitment of a new Director of Public Works.
1
Currently the Public Works Department consists of four divisions: Engineering,
Streets, Parks and Buildings, and Parking. These divisions include the following
major functions:
The Engineering Division includes design, inspection, survey, traffic
engineering, and development review activities.
The Streets Division includes pavement maintenance, street sweeping,
storm drain and creek maintenance, street signing, striping, sidewalk
maintenance, traffic signal maintenance, and vehicle maintenance.
The Parks and Building Division includes the City's tree program, park and
landscape maintenance, Swim Center maintenance, golf course
management, building and facility maintenance, and energy conservation.
The Parking Division includes responsibility for the City's parking program,
including on-street parking and two parking structures.
Other functions in the Public Works Department includes administrative analysis,
special project management, and a newly created Solid Waste Coordinator
position. There are a total of 74.5 regular positions, and, including temporaries,
102 Full Time Equivalents (FTE's). (Organization Chart Attached.)
Two of the most significant questions related to the Public Works Department
are: Should the City's transportation-related functions be consolidated into this
department? Will a consolidation result in a more cohesive delivery of
transportation programs and strengthen efforts to encourage alternative forms of
transportation?
As mentioned, the Department already includes streets, traffic engineering, and
parking programs. The City's transit function, which was transferred from Public
Works in 1885, is located in the CAO's Office and oversees the operation and
maintenance of the system through a third party contract. The City's Bicycle
Program is currently in the Community Development Department (the installation
of actual improvements is carried out by Public Works).
The Community Development Department also carries out most of the City's
transportation planning efforts, although in consultation with Public Works. This
includes the City's Circulation Element, neighborhood traffic management plans,
bicycle facility planning, pedestrian path planning, trip reduction plans, regional
transportation planning, congestion management planning, and traffic and
transportation related environmental review. The transit program is responsible
for short and long range transit plans, including planning for a downtown trolley
program, transit transfer center, and substantial route and service changes. The
City's parking planning and management program is handled in the Parking
Division of the Public Works Department.
2
�'lJs
A secondary Public Works question is: Should park facility maintenance continue
to be located in Public Works, or should it be consolidated with the Recreation
Department? If so, should it be done in the near future, or at some other
specified point in time? The Division was transferred to Public Works in 1975,
during the tenure of the existing department heads.
Key Issues for Review
In general, the City desires a Public Works Department that is progressive and
appropriately organized for the 1990's and beyond. Therefore, consultant
recommendations should not be bound .by traditional concepts of the Public
Works function (however, models which have been proven successful elsewhere
would be desireable). With this in mind consultant recommendations are desired
relative to the following key issues:
General
Determine what functions should be included in the Public Works
Department, and which would be more appropriately located in another
department or elsewhere (e.g. another governmental agency, contracts
with private sector).
Identify whether changes should be made organizationally to improve the
Department's "customer relations"/public information capabilities.
Identify qualifications for future Public Works Director (e.g., is it necessary
for position to be registered civil engineer, or is a planning, transportation,
or management background acceptable, etc.)
Consolidation of Transportation Functions
Identify advantages and disadvantages of consolidating citywide
transportation functions into a single transportation division or department,
and provide a recommendation on this issue. The recommendation,
whether it involves total, partial, or no further consolidation, should be
based on what will work best and what will lead to the greatest
effectiveness.
• Identify total support staff and reporting relationships needed to create a
consolidated transportation division or department, if that were to be the
recommendation.
Parks and Buildings Maintenance
Identify advantages and disadvantages of moving all or some of the Parks
function of the Parks & Building Division to the Recreation Department, and
provide a recommendation on this issue, which includes timing and
conditions necessary for such a transfer.
3
• Identify advantages and disadvantages of separating out the Parks and
Building maintenance functions into two separate divisions, whether or not
the Parks function is transferred to the Recreation Department.
Identify the impact on staffing levels and the use of maintenance
equipment if the Parks function were to be transferred to Recreation.
Other
Identify advantages and disadvantages of moving the Solid Waste
Coordinator position to the Utilities Department, and provide a
recommendation on this issue
Identify advantages and disadvantages of moving the Energy Coordinator
position to the Utilities Department, and provide a recommendation on this
issue
Determine if there would be a significant benefit in combining conservation
related programs in the Utilities Department (water, energy, solid waste).
Determine how the existing Administrative Analyst and Special Project
Manager positions should be utilized in a different organizational structure.
Provide an organization chart for the proposed new structure.
III. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Background
There are a number of issues and concerns which have surrounded the
Community Development Department over the years. Some of these have
recently been articulated with the assistance of an informal community 'locus
group'. The group included a former Planning Commission Chairperson, a
former Community Development Director, representatives of neighborhood
interests, an Architectural Review Commission member, and a local developer.
Many of the questions and concerns regarding the Department are typical and
expected in a relatively "slow growth" community where the pressures of
development and environmental protection are in frequent conflict. However,
there are other concerns which are unique to the Department as it is organized
and staffed today.
In terms of the Departments current structure, the Department consists of two
divisions, Planning and Building & Safety.
The Planning Division includes both current and advanced planning
functions, with planners sharing responsibilities in both areas. The Division
also includes a newly created Zoning Investigator position as well as
administrative and technical support functions.
4
• The composition of the Building and Safety Division is typical of this
function.
There are a total of 25.6 regular positions and, including temporaries, 29.1 FTE
positions in the Community Development Department. (Organization Chart
Attached.) Of this amount, 9.8 positions are professional planners (one principal
planner, two senior planners, and 6.8 associate/assistant planners). There are
conflicting perceptions as to whether this staffing compliment is "too few" or "too
many". Turnover of Planning staff has been low over the years, with both
positive and negative consequences.
In terms of major areas of evaluation, based on focus group input and
preliminary staff evaluation, the following four main areas need attention: (1)
organizational structure; (2) personnel and training; (3) public
information/education; and (4) procedural changes. City staff believes that items
2 through 4 are already being addressed to a degree, and can be more fully
addressed after an improved organizational structure is in place. Therefore, the
consultant will be asked to look primarily at Item #1, organizational structure.
In general, the City desires a Community Development Department which is
organized to: (A) meet very high community expectations; (B) oversee a heavy
workload, and (C) to smoothly manage applications through a rigorous
development review process. In addition, the way the department performs its
responsibilities should be viewed by others as objective, consistent, and
responsive to direction.
Consultant recommendations are desired relative to the following key issues:
Key Issues for Review
Planning Division
• Determine if the existing number and type of positions are appropriate in
relationship to the existing workload (There are conflicting perceptions
regarding this issue; that is, the Department either 'overstaffed" or
"overburdened").
• Review organizational structure and determine what organizational changes
are necessary to:
- Facilitate enhanced supervision and overall management direction
- Expedite and assure consistent analysis, report preparation, and
decision making
- Create a greater capacity for long range planning
- Realign certain duties to bring greater expertise and continuity in
decision making to the current planning process
5
L'-114
• Evaluate and provide specific recommendations concerning the Principal
and Senior Planner positions, and the use and effectiveness of these
positions relative to overall departmental management and supervision
Identify the advantages and disadvantages of the "generalist approach"for
allocating assignments among the various planner positions (i.e., each
planner having current and long range planning assignments, counter duty,
etc.), and provide a recommendation on this issue.
• Identify the advantages and disadvantages of dedicating a position
specifically to assist the public with the development review process at the
public counter, and provide a recommendation on this issue.
Identify steps the Planning Division can take to improve its public image
in the community, including its "customer relations" with applicants and
others and its reputation as an impartial and objective organization.
Identify the appropriate location for transportation planning functions, as
outlined under the Public Works Department 'Background" discussion.
Determine if the implementation of the Open Space Program should be
transferred to the Recreation Department and, if so, in what time frame.
Building and Safety Division
• Determine if the Building and Safety Division is properly staffed, given
present and projected workloads, and appropriately placed in the
Community Development Department
IV. RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Background
The Recreation Department currently manages nine major recreation program
areas, including general recreation, aquatics, special instruction, trips and outings,
athletics for youth, teens, and adults, special events, and pre-school and school-
age childcare. In addition, the department schedules all City recreation buildings,
park areas, and playfields for general public use. Recreation is also responsible
for park and recreation capital project design and construction. Over 8,000
persons participate in City recreation programs each week. These programs are
carried out with 11 full-time regular positions. However, there are the equivalent
of 48.7 temporary FTE positions authorized in the Department to provide for
program leadership and coordination of various events and activities.
(Organization Chart Attached.)
In 1975, park and recreation facility maintenance responsibilities were transferred
from this department to the Public Works Department. Currently, the Public
Works Department also is responsible for Swim Center maintenance, general
recreation facility maintenance, landscape and park maintenance, and the City's
6
Tree Program. Whether or not the timing is appropriate to return some (e.g.
the golf course) or all of these functions to the current or a revised Recreation
Department is to be considered in the study.
In general, the City desires a Recreation Department that is progressive and
appropriately organized for the 1990's and beyond. The City's standards for
quality and the high level of programming are part of this examination. With
this in mind, consultant recommendations are desired relative to the following key
issues:
Key Issues for Review
Is the current Recreation Department structure working adequately in
providing its existing services and programs?
• If not, what organizational changes are needed to improve its existing
performance?
In particular, does the present method of operation, (i.e. fewer regular
employees and high use of part-time and temporary employees),
satisfactorily serve the needs of the Department and the program
participants?
• Should the park and recreation facility maintenance functions be part of
a consolidated "Parks and Recreation Department" or, at a lesser level,
should some of these function be returned to the Recreation Department?
• If consolidation is recommended, are present circumstances appropriate
for that change, or should it be deferred to a future (explicitly stated) time?
If to be deferred, what changes are needed in the existing Recreation
Department organizational structure prior to completing such a transfer?
• Would it be advantageous to move the open space planner position,
currently in Community Development, to the Recreation Department? If
so, should that be done after Council adoption of the Open Space
Element, for implementation purposes?
V. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND PROCESS ISSUES
Scope and Cost of Study
The City is not seeking a highly detailed operational analysis of these
departments. Instead, the City is looking for recommendations relative to the
best organizational and management structure the City can have to address
existing problems and appropriately position these departments for the 1990's
and beyond. If major issues surface concerning operational or procedural
matters, these should be identified by the consultant. However, it is not the
City's desire to focus on issues which would normally be addressed in
"operational audits" or "work methods" studies.
7
Although the City does not wish to establish parameters which constrain the
development of completely objective professional recommendations, the City
strongly encourages recommendations which do not result in a net increase in
City positions. Instead, the desired goal is to make adjustments within existing
resources to improve programs, services, and the City's capacity for managing
the challenges which lie ahead.
The City intends to expend no more than $25,000 - $35,000 for this analysis.
Proposal Content
Proposal packages must contain the following information:
1. Statement of proposed workscope.
A. A description of how the organizational review will be completed. As
an initial stage of the study, the City would like the consultant to
interview all Councilmembers, the CAO, and others identified by the
CAO (no more than six employees who are not members of the three
departments).
B. A description of how the consultant would plan to approach the study
and work with the staffs of the three departments.
C. A schedule for completing the Organizational Review (the study must
be completed no later than March 15, 1992)
D. A listing of the project manager and key personnel for completing the
Organizational Review (particularly, identify who would do the on-
site interviewing and work, and their relevant experience)
E. A project budget for the Organizational Review
2. Resume of professional experience
3. A listing of professional references, including names and telephone
numbers, particularly for equivalent or similar studies
4. Proposals must be no longer than 10 pages including attachments.
Proposal Evaluation and Selection Procedures
Proposals must be sealed and submitted before December 6, 1991 (please
enclose five copies of the proposal). Although proposals may be opened and
reviewed prior to the closing date, proposals will not be disclosed to competing
firms or to the public until after the award of the contract.
8
62-17-It
Proposals will be evaluated by an review team composed of City staff designated
by the CAO. Consultant selection will not be based on cost alone, but upon a
combination of the following factors:
• Proposal quality and responsiveness to RFP
Understanding of the project
Project approach and organization
Demonstrated experience and credentials of staff to be assigned to project
Total Fee
Personal interviews to screen and further evaluate the top two or three proposals
is likely to be requested. Following proposal screening and personal interviews,
the consultants will be ranked by City staff.
Contract Award
Based on the ranking noted above, the City anticipates negotiating a contract
with the consultant obtaining the highest score. If the City and the first ranked
consultant cannot reach an agreement regarding the terms of the contract, the
City will negotiate with the second highest scoring consultant, and may proceed
in succession to the third finalist on the same basis.
Preliminary Schedule for Consultant Selection/Study Completion
TASK DATE
Issuance of RFP October 30, 1991
Proposal Submittal Deadline - 5:00 p.m. December 6, 1991
Staff Review of Consultant Proposals December 9, 1991
Consultant Interviews December 16, 1991
Consultant Selection/Contract Negotiation December 16 - 20, 1991
Consultant Start Work January 6, 1992
Final Report Accepted by Staff February 17, 1992
Council Review/Adoption of Recommendations March 1992
9
Submission Location and Deadline
In order to be considered, the City of San Luis Obispo will receive sealed
proposals at the Office of the City Clerk, 990 Palm Street, P. O. Box 8100, San
Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100, until December 6, 1991, at 5:00 p.m., Attention:
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer.
KH:pworg
10
fir�3
n,
pa P
Vn
S -JV 1Y J� a Y
Z v
SS .
> e EE a E
� 1 _ . . Y •
es J• �S S 6 6
60
0,
C •
V
_ E c y
e � e vo
`e
Doe,
o
�Nnl RNNN �NNNNN N ««NNNNNN
4 y
2' < 3Cg
~ , = 3CEs 9Eg¢ €) `EE:y:S3��etyV
W N VOa
V. Ym O„ ZmYI nam •Tz Z1V„mV
D.
> g 9vvv vmv__ �vv t �j ary '
� e aa•z a•aaz Faz ��" a�
a a E ailessb� Hai
P aya'�3sysy *9090
sgys
LLJ
n n m Y `e p _
0 - • a 'a$ •� c
• w $ i 615 CiSS 1113 �56ii �•
Y
Y Lt F!S efR < s°i a U
OV•a P3 m9 4 mC aC C 1
3 W Ya 4A MY-` WG fr5 1 1 V 9=
U # 6 6 y
J v
m age
a 3 ^
ov a--- omnn.. ma.N
Rnnwi.-
I 5 a
V
L� t• e
r O Tie
- COyx] �y
Q e � d �n'�u' m iN>Ztj3n• 3�it lmi
•N e
c• a un Z ce§ 2v_
vv
oeo ;:131
a9 wt e� S
Z - c 3 0 3E EG gSSBai
=Y y..g-g P5 1 8- TL g
0 dS �d Y0 w n J• aZ�' 3• 'na c
„ W ; • Z_- E
:s E
N N NY m a N N NNN 1
Z
Q C
C
. � • e 4 e �� tl e�
O •� V
1 6
noon $n o„m Na
ni
;jig
GS 11 x Bm`
N `ece _a c 5
O C
ZZ1ji
rffl
W p s
MU 5.35 00 55 3 55
z
W
C C
�w/� Al
a
UU
t e
m m OW
m 23Y
EFill 11 Sr p `e
zH C 0
' e
a
CD
m
0
c
m °
aw
®
' 11 �
Y °
Lij
L a
t
e
m
W m
a _
0
WS C m e e�Ycv � C� d
>O u m— o v Z
C U C fn Co C O=�¢
aLLIO
f
z I I
_ <
LiJ
m m t
m
d CO
m
® Co W o
zO
`o
LLLL
v 9
C
J
® r—
V
0
i
m
a I I
L— y— J
Y
u
S
Y I m
� 3 C
2 F.
I I F. co LU
I I a
F-- -
vy�
L— J L¢------J J a � a � Q
co CC;
L— J I Ica
L-------J Z a W
r---� W (�
= I a
W 4J
D
CL 41
r— r-------� c
II Ii
Wce
-
I
W
r— 7 r-- - -7 F=.. .; a O
>
21, 1 0 0)CalA
T
I
a `'I 1
a
L— J L- - - -J 9
O o
I W I I co
ca I v T '° I a
I I I i ; a 91
IL I I I
e"3
CR cc N T
N ^ aro
CL LL
O C
gal
_ OW � 7
led 11
CL (a 2
- �7�i