Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/1995, 2 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE ANALYSIS MEETING DATE: City of San LUIS OBISPO March 28, 1995 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 2 FROM: John Moss, Utilities Directo �l PREPARED BY: Ron Munds, Water Conserva ion Coordinator SUBJECT: Resource Management Office Analysis CAO RECOMMENDATION Consider the proposed concept of a Resource Management Office and refer its implementation to staff as part of the 1995-97 Financial Plan process. DISCUSSION The proposed Resource Management Office would combine the water conservation, solid waste management and water reuse program components into one resource management office. Detailed analysis has shown this approach to be the most efficient, productive and cost-effective means to administer current and future resource programs. Background The concept of establishing a Resource Management Office (RMO) was first referenced as part of the City's 1989/1991 Financial Plan. In developing this plan, the Council established a goal in their work program to improve coordination and communication between City departments and other governmental agencies when addressing environmental issues. Upon review of the advantages and disadvantages of centralizing environmental program management, staff recommended in a report to Council in June 1990 that the decentralized approach was the most appropriate for the City. As part of the analysis, staff also recognized that some benefit was to be gained from incorporating selected elements of centralization into the City's organizational structure. In 1992, the City contracted with Hughes, Heiss and Associates to perform an organizational analysis of the Community Development, Recreation and Public Works Departments. The study recommended that solid waste management and recycling responsibilities be assigned to the Utilities Department. This recommendation was implemented in July 1992 at which time the contracted Solid Waste Coordinator position was transferred to the Utilities Department. The study also suggested that in the long-term the City might wish to consider establishing a Resource Conservation Division specifically consisting of water conservation, solid waste, and energy but needed to resolve a number of internal issues before such a plan was considered. In order to implement Council policies adopted in 1994 pertaining to water and solid waste, a 1994/95 goal of. the Utilities Department is to analyze and incorporate (in a cost efficient manner) the administration and budgetary requirements of existing and future water and solid waste programs into the organization. The following analysis is a result of the City Council iiiiniql%pni IIU city or San , ,S OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Resource Management Office Page 2 policies contained in.the adopted Urban Water Management Plan regarding water conservation (November 1994), Source Reduction and Recycling Element (August 1994), water reclamation program policies contained in the Urban Water Management Plan (November 1994) and the Utilities Department commitment to cost effective water and solid waste management programs. Evaluation Considerations The RMO evaluation identifies the following components as part of a comprehensive program: ■ Water Conservation ■ Solid Waste Management ■ Water Reuse (water reclamation) It is recommended (1) that other resource related programs, such as energy management, remain decentralized (current practice) because of the diversity of needs of each City department; (2) Parks and Recreation Department continue to evaluate the open space components of the General Plan; and (3) that the Community Development Department continue to evaluate and make determinations of environmental impact associated with new development. Of the three proposed elements, only water conservation has an operational history. With the recent completion of the AB 939 planning process and the signing of Joint Powers Agreement regarding solid waste management, program and operational assumptions used in this analysis are based on full implementation of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Operational assumptions for the water reuse program are based on similar tasks now performed as part of the water conservation program. A decision must be made on the level of service the City desires to provide within each component to meet state and federal mandates and the adopted Council policies. The determined level of service in turn will dictate the level of staffing required to accomplish the legal responsibilities and goals of each program. The key considerations regarding staffing of the RMO programs at this point are: 1. The Solid Waste Management Coordinator's contract expires 6/30/95. 2. Water conservation currently operates with one regular position and a full-time contract position budgeted until 6/30/95. 3. Water reuse and other water project planning duties are being performed by a contract position until 6/30/96. •z City Of San IS OBI SPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Resource Management Office Page 3 In order to address the City's ongoing commitment and legal obligation to the above resource management programs, decisions must be made on how to incorporate the required programs and subsequent staffing needs into the existing Utilities Department organizational structure. Resource Management Office Responsibilities and Cooperative Staffing Staff has identified the proposed elements of the RMO and has prepared a general overview of responsibilities. These duties are outlined in Attachment 1. In developing the multi-resource management office, staff has examined the concept of using cooperative staffing between the various components. The analysis of this concept indicates that this would provide the most efficient, cost effective means to administer the current and future resource programs. Instead of having specialized managers (current practice), staff is proposing multi-disciplined staff which could cross over between the various office components and programs. The use of specialized managers for the development and planning process for solid waste and water reuse programs was necessary to insure the City's interests were protected during this period. The recommended RMO identifies a single manager to oversee three programs and two technical staff for implementation. This recommendation will create a "flattened" and more streamlined organizational'structure for the implementation of the RMO components. This will ultimately provide for better resource program coordination. There are many parallel aspects in the projected elements of the resource management office. For instance, in both the water conservation and solid waste programs, public education is an important part of each component's goals and objectives. The cooperative staffing strategy will allow staff to incorporate and disseminate both program's materials into one consistent message from the City to our citizens. Another example of cooperative staffing benefits would be with the water conservation and water reuse programs. A primary responsibility of the office regarding reclaimed water will be to monitor water use for compliance to state and local regulations regarding irrigation methods and efficiency. Currently, water conservation staff is responsible for enforcing water waste codes for potable water and are trained in irrigation auditing techniques for efficiency. These are just two examples of how the cooperative staffing concept will consolidate over-lapping duties and minimize fluctuating workloads within each component in the future. Additionally, cross-over between the office's responsibilities will add flexibility to the various proposed programs. Cooperative staffing will allow for adequate resources (mainly staff time) to be devoted to the implementation of projects and programs during the critical developmental stage and during anticipated peak workload periods of each component. The RMO staff will be able to respond in a timely manner to the changing demands of each program. By doing this, the City will assure the success of the over-all resource management plan. An additional advantage of cooperative staffing is that the cost of salaries and operating expenditures will be funded collectively from separate sources (i.e. Water Fund, General Fund, water reuse revenue) ���n� ►�IIBI��P° ��IN city of san L.4is osIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Resource Management Office Page 4 which will decrease the over-all cost to each revenue source. This will be discussed in more detail in fiscal impact section of this report. Attachments Attachment 2 provides additional detail of the RMO programs and services (outlined in attachment 1) in regards to general office responsibilities and the specific elements of the office's components. Based on this evaluation and actual operational experience gained from the water conservation program, staff has developed the workload analysis. The analysis evaluates the various tasks and assigns time estimations to accomplish the projected responsibilities. The result of the workload analysis are presented in Attachment 3. The conclusions indicate that three full time equivalencies will be required to staff the program (assuming the cooperative staffing is used). Alternative Staffing Options There are three staffing alternatives which Council could consider. They are as follows: Alternative FYI- Staff Recommendation The first alternative is the cooperative staffing concept discussed in the previous section. The recommended level of staffing would consist of one coordinator to oversee all program and administrative responsibilities and two technician positions to provide for the implementation of programs and customer assistance (i.e. public education, inspections, etc.). Alternative #2 The second alternative would separate solid waste management and water related programs (conservation, reuse) into two different sections. A random survey of communities of similar size to San Luis Obispo indicates that this is a common (but not universal) approach to solid waste management. It was difficult to compare solid waste and water programs because not every city has a conservation and/or water reuse program. The other difficulty in comparing our community'to others was that the responsible department for solid waste varied from Public Works to Planning to Finance to .the City Administrative Office. It is important to note that most cities surveyed were still in the planning phase of AB 939 compliance and indicated that at least one person was responsible for this stage. Most indicated that additional staffing was being considered when implementation of their plans began. The primary advantage to this option would be during the short term implementation period of AB 939 programs. Two staff persons would devote 100% of their time to this process. The disadvantage would be the long term cost (Attachment 4) of having a specialized staff, especially ��� ►ii�IlNlllllll ��lll City Of san 'IS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Resource Management Office Page 5 since the regional authority and the City's recycling hauler will assume significant responsibilities for implementation and promotion of a majority of the long term programs. Additionally, this program would not provide the coordinated resource management strategy being recommended by staff and does not take advantage of overlap in duties. A1temative #3 The third alternative would reflect current staffing. The primary advantage of this alternative is that a specialized individual is responsible for each resource program. The disadvantages are that 1) there ultimately would not be adequate staffing within each component to effectively implement and monitor the various programs; 2) staffing cost (Attachment 4) would be significantly higher than the staff recommendation, 3) there would less flexibility to respond to the program needs of each element; and 4) this program would not provide the coordinated resource management strategy being recommended by staff and does not take advantage of overlap in duties. Implementation of Recommended Action As part of the workload analysis presented in Attachment 3, staff has evaluated the staffing needs during the transition from the current workload structure to the implementation of the RMO. The transition workload estimations are based on short term tasks that still need to be accomplished in the solid waste management regional planning, completion of the renegotiation process for the solid waste and recycling franchise agreement(s), and the development of information, operational procedures and training for both the solid waste and water reuse programs. The estimated transition workloads are anticipated to conclude within the 1995/96 fiscal year. Since the identified ongoing staffing tasks for water reuse program will not be begin until the planning and review process is completed, these transition staffing needs will be incorporated into the proposed staffing workload of the recommended RMO. Additional temporary staffing will not be required to complete the identified responsibilities. FISCAL UMPACT As shown in Table I on the next page, the proposed resource management office results in a savings of about $43,000 in annual operating costs. (Although the difference between $410,120 and $329,777 is $80,600, $37,500 of this difference is due to a lower level of toilet rebate funding.) This analysis assumes salary ranges that have been reviewed by Personnel but would still be subject to final approval. The Resource Specialist Technician salaries assume the "C" step of the proposed range. S� City oSan . s OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Resource Management Office Page 6 TABLE I. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE CONCEPT Comparison of Current and Proposed Expenses CURRENT PROPOSED Water Solid Resource Conservation Waste Total Mgmt Office STAFFING EXPENSES Regular 56,000 56,000 138,900 Contract/Temporary 37,400 49,800 87,200 SUBTOTAL 93,400 49,.800 143,200 138,900 NON-STAFFING EXP. 82,600 23,500 106,100 69,300 Toilet Rebate 137,500 - 137,500 100,000 Orange Bag resales - 17,000 17,000 15,000 SUBTOTAL 220,100 40,500 260,600 184,300 TOTAL $313,500 $90,300 $403,800 $323,200 The resource management office will be included in the Water Fund operating budgets, as 2/3 of its components are water-related (water conservation and reuse). However, because solid waste is a general fund activity, that portion of the resource management office costs related to solid waste would be funded by the general fund. Currently, the general fund pays $90,300 for the solid waste program (this does not include any budget for Utilities administrative staff, as they are currently 100% budgeted in the Water, Sewer and Whale Rock funds). Under the proposed resource management office, the general fund's portion would be about $86,900, a slight reduction in cost. Staff recommends that 10% of the Utilities administrative staff-- Director, Analyst and Administrative Secretary--be supported by the solid waste component of the resource management office. This would be an annual cost of about $19,000, increasing the total general fund support to $107,100. The general fund receives approximately $200,000 per year from solid waste franchise fees. Table II on the next page illustrates the impact to the general and water funds: ►► i �lulllll¶p� IIUI11 city of San ' IS OBISPO COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT Resource Management Office Page 7 TABLE II. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE CONCEPT Comparison of Current and Proposed Fund Impacts GENERAL FUND WATER FUND Support for Solid Waste Activities Support for Water Conservation& Reuse Activities Current Proposed Current Proposed (Conservation only) $90,300 $ 87,900 $329,800 $235,300 Admin not 19,200 incl. in the incl. in the Support funded water admin budget water admin budget Total $90,320 $107,088 $329,800 $235,300 SUMMARY The formation of the resource management office will add flexibility and depth to three programs, while reducing the current level of funding for these currently separate activities. Cooperative staffing will allow adequate resources to be devoted to the implementation of projects and programs during the critical developmental stage and during anticipated peak workload periods of the water conservation, reuse and solid waste programs. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Resource Management Program Services/General Overview Attachment 2 - Workload Analysis Task Description Attachment 3 - Staffing Workload Analysis Attachment 4 - Staffing Cost Alternatives Summary r7 XI IXlil'7MCIV 1 1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE Resource Management Program Services/General Overview Water Conservation, Solid Waste & Water Reuse CUSTOMER RELATIONS (all elements) Public information and education Program Promotion In-house Awareness Customer assistance PROGRAM COMPONENTS Toilet rebate/offset Collection programs/recycling Water audits- indoor/irrigation (potable, nonpotable) Solid waste evaluations/audits Composting (backyard/commercial industrial) Municipal Code enforcement Water Waste Retrofit Upon sale Water Reuse Ordinance Compliance In-house special collection/procurement Water Reuse plan review/installation inspection/annual inspection REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Integrated Waste Management Board Dept. Health Services/Regional Water Quality Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Board California Urban Water Conservation Council RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINSTRATION, MONITORING & EVALUATION Water Conservation Best Management Practices Adminstration Solid Waste Management JPA Administration/Technical Support Local Program Administration Franchise Administration Water Reuse ATTACHMENT 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE WORKLOAD ANALYSIS TASK DESCRIPTION COOPERATIVE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Pubtic/In-House Education & Information ■ Develop and Distribute Education & Information Materials Water Conservation Recycling (regional participation) Water Reuse ■ Organize Public & In-House Workshops Water Conservation Recycling Composting ■ Develop and Implement Marketing Strategies (all elements) PSA's Paid Advertising (radio, newspaper) Bill Inserts ■ Coordinate School Education Program ■ Coordinate Information & Education Materials w/ other Utility Companies ■ Develop Resource Library Customer Relations/Assistance ■ Customer Inquiries & Complaints (resource hotline) ■ Distribute Information ■ Resolve Customer Disputes (Water & Water Reuse) ■ Respond to Customer Inquiries and Correspondence ■ Low Income Assistance Program Data Entry/Program Tracking ■ Maintain Computer Tracking of Programs • Water Conservation Retrofit Upon Sale Database z-� Retrofit Rebate Program Database Water Offset Program Database • Recycling Customer Participation Tracking (San Luis Garbage linked to the Planning Dept. Land Use Inventory Database) • Water Reuse Customer Water Services Tracking Database Cross Connection Testing Database Irrigation Audit Database ■ Organize and Maintain Filing and Records System ■ Generate Reports for Program Evaluation and Reporting Requirements Audit Programs ■ Develop Solid Waste Monitoring Procedures in Coordination with San Luis Garbage ■ Develop and Implement Irrigation Auditing Services Program (water reuse customers) ■ Continued implementation of Water Conservation Water Audit Programs (indoor & outdoor) ■ Develop and Distribute Program Promotion Materials Resource Management Office Administration ■ Staff supervision ■ Program development SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ■ Solid Waste Collection Program Monitoring Multi Unit Office Cardboard/Paper Bar/Restaurant In-House Special Collection Residential ■ Composting Program Development and Implementation Backyard Regional ■ Reporting Requirements to Integrated Waste Management Board (AB 939) ■ Joint Powers Agreement Administration Technical Advisory Committee Staff support for City Council representative Program development and implementation ■ Franchise Agreement Administration Recycling Program Modification Rate Reviews Service and Performance Analysis WATER REUSE PROGRAMS ■ Reclaimed Water Irrigation System Installation Inspection/Audit ■ Reclaimed Water Use Monitoring Enforcement of reclaimed water codes and ordinances. ■ Cross Connection Testing/Reporting ■ Reporting Requirements to Department of Health Services/RWQCB WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ■ Rebate Program Inspection Form Processing ■ Code and Ordinance Enforcement Water Waste Codes- customer contact and follow-up Retrofit Upon Sale- tracking and follow-up ■ Offset Program Inspection Tracking Customer Assistance ■ Reporting Requirement to the California Urban Water Conservation Council ■ Best Management Practices Program Administration Quarterly Meetings Program development and implementation ATTACHMENT 3 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE STAFFING WORKLOAD ANALYSIS PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED Elements Common to All Programs HOURS/WEEK Public/In-House Information & Education 15 Customer Service & Assistance 10 Municipal Code Enforcement (water/solid waste/water reuse) 5 Data Tracking & Evaluation 10 Required Program Reporting 5 Resource Management Office Administration 15 Water Conservation Best Management Practices Program 5 Development/Implementation/Administration Retrofit Programs Administration 15 (Rebate, Upon Sale, Offset) Water Audit Program 5 Water Reuse Water Reuse System Installation Inspection/Annual Inspection 10 Water Reuse System Monitoring/Cross Connection Testing 10 Solid Waste Solid Waste/Recycling Collection Program Monitoring 5 SRRE/HHWE Local Program Administration 15 AB 939/Regional Participation 5 TOTAL 130 REQUIRED FTE'S 3.25 The above analysis is a reflection of the expected ratio of time to be spent on programs and services and is not intended to be an exact accounting-of weekly workloads. ,Z-/Z RESOURCE MANAGMENT OFFICE ALLOCATION OF STAFFING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Estimated Solid Water Water Elements Common to All Programs Total Waste Cons. Reuse Public/In-House Information & Education 15 7 5 3 Customer Service & Assistance 10 2 1 6 2 Municipal Code Enforcement (water/water 5 1 3 1 reuse/solid waste) Data Tracldng & Evaluation 10 1 3 1 Required Program Reporting 5 2 1 2 Resource Management Office 15 7 5 3 Administration Water Conservation Best Management Practices Program 5 0 5 0 Development/Implementation/ Administration Retrofit Programs Administration 15 0 15 0 (Rebate, Upon Sale, Offset) Water Audit Program 5 0 5 0 Water Reuse Water Reuse System Installation 10 0 0 10 Inspection/Annual Inspection Water Reuse System Monitoring/Cross 10 0 0 10 Connection Testing Solid Waste Solid Waste/Recycling Collection Program 5 5 0 0 Monitoring SRRFJHHWE Local Program 15 15 0 0 Administration AB 939/Regional Participation 5 . 5 0 0 TOTAL HOURS/WEEK 130 45 50 35:]] - z-�3 TRANSITION WORKLOAD ESTIMATIONS The following workload analysis assumes the Solid Waste Management and Water Reuse programs will require additional staffing resources during the initial implementation period. Program Description Estimated Hours/Week Development of Public Information & Education (Solid 15 Waste/Water Reuse) Regional Authority Participation (completion of elements) 15 Completion of Solid Waste & Recycling Franchise Agreement 5 Development & Implementation of Solid Waste/Recycling 10 Collection Monitoring Procedures TOTAL 45 REQUIRED F VS 1* *The transition workload estimations are anticipated to conclude within the 1995/96 fiscal year. Since the planning, design and review process for the Water Reuse Program will not be completed until July 1996, the staffing needs identified will be incorporated into the staffing workload of the recommended Resource Management Office, therefore additional staffing will not be required. I-17 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE Administration of Water Conservation, Water Reuse, Solid Waste Staffing Cost Alternatives Summary Annual Cost CURRENT STAFFING Water Conservation Coordinator $56,000 Solid Waste Coordinator $49,800 Water Conservation Representative 2/ 1.3 FTE $37,400 Total Base Salary and Benefits $143,200 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 Recommended Resource Management Coordinator 3/ $60,500 Resource Specialist Technician 3/ C step $39,200 Resource Specialist Technician 3/ C step $39,200 Total Base Salary and Benefits $138,900 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 Water Conservation/Reuse Coordinator $56,000 Solid Waste Coordinator $49,800 Resource Specialist Technician 3/ $39,200 Resource Specialist Technician 3/ $39,200 Total Base Salary and Benefits $184,200 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 Water Conservation Coordinator $56,000 Solid Waste Coordinator $49,800 Reclamation Coordinator $68,000 Total Base Salary and Benefits $173,800 1/ Solid Waste Coordinator's contract expires 6/30/95. 2/ Water Conservation Representative's contract expires 6/30/95. 3/ Proposed salary for proposed new positions (C—step).