HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - General Services Department ReorganizationCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AGENDA ITEM NO. 17
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Homer L. Bludau, City Manager
DATE: June 12, 2001
SUBJECT: General Services Department Reorganization Proposal
Recommendation
Approve the reorganization of the Operations Support and the Field Maintenance
Divisions of the General Services Department, with no additional employees
being added.
Backqround
Two key supervisory personnel recently retired from the General Services
Department, Leon Hart, Field Operations Superintendent, and George Millikin,
Operations Support Supervisor. Between them these two employees had 86
years of service with the Department.
During the recruitment process for the two positions, it became clear that a
minor reorganization of the Operations Support and Field Maintenance Divisions
would be a good way of dealing with the experience loss due to these two
retirements.
The General Services Director prepared the attached memorandum proposing
the changes.
Discussion
The General Services Department has nine divisions. Two of the divisions,
Facilities Maintenance and Operations Support, do not have a superintendent
position. The supervisors of those two divisions report directly to the Deputy
Director.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768
Proposed Reorganization of General Services Department
Page 2
It has become evident during the recruitment for the Operations Support
Supervisor position that qualified candidates with a combined knowledge of
traffic painting and signage, and possessing supervisory skills would be difficult
to recruit. In a like manner, during the recruitment for the Field Operations
Superintendent, it became clear that the Field Maintenance Division should be
reorganized due to its overly broad field supervisory responsibilities.
The changes would result in the elimination of the current Operations Support
Supervisor (Millikin's position) and relocate traffic painting and marking crew of
the Division under the Field Maintenance Superintendent, who would also
oversee the street and concrete crews (23 positions). The new position —
Operations Support Superintendent —would oversee the sign shop, facilities
maintenance, beach maintenance, storm drain and street sweeping operations
(29 personnel). Under this proposal, the crew supervisors and both the
Operations Support and Field Maintenance Superintendents are field working
positions.
The overall result of the reorganization is an alignment of like working units
(such as storm drain cleaning and street sweepers), a better distribution of
personnel per division, and an improved chain of responsibility. The end result
should be a better service response to residents, businesses, and other City
departments, better supervision and greater accountability.
The annual cost to accomplish this proposal is $18K, which represents the
difference in salary between a superintendent and supervisor position. No
additional positions are requested. Funding for the upgrade of the single
position would be included in the FY 01 -02 budget proposal.
The Human Resources Director has complied with the meet and confer
requirements related to the proposal. The bargaining group is the Newport
Beach Employees' League.
Approval of the reorganization is recommended to take place immediately in
order to address current personnel vacancies and ensure that all divisions are
properly staffed and supervised through the busy summer season.
Attachments: (A) General Services Director memo of May 25, 2001
(B) Current General Services Department Organizational Chart
(C) Proposed General Services Department Organizational Chart
(D) Current General Services Department Personnel Distribution
(E) Projected General Services Department Personnel Distribution
�EWPpRT
O� � 6
u „� x
a.
LIFOR�
TO:
FROM
W"W CkIt
City Manager
General Services Director
SUBJECT: Department Reorganization
May 25, 2001
As a follow -up to our meeting yesterday regarding the final selection of a Field
Operations Superintendent, I have developed the attached reorganization proposal that
depicts the current and proposed organizational structures.
The proposal addresses a number of issues that are more important than creating a second
superintendent position and include:
a. Aligns and restructures the affected divisions to match all other General
Services Department divisions and those of the Utilities Division of the Public
Works Department (i.e. Superintendent/Supervisor).
b. Takes advantage of the experience and skill levels of the two candidates for the
Field Operations Superintendent position. Tom Anderson, whose strongest
technical attribute is his construction experience, would lead the Field
Maintenance Division. Rick Greaney, who is the current Beach
Maintenance /Storm Drain Supervisor, would oversee the Operations Support
Division (Facilities Maintenance, Beach Maintenance, and Storm Drain/Tidal
Valve /Street Sweeping), a position where his technical skills are best utilized.
The pay level of the two superintendent positions would be the same
($73,595).
c. The current functions and personnel of the Operations Support Division,
formerly led by George Millikin, would be split up with the Sign Shop
personnel being reassigned to the Facilities Maintenance Shop and the three
traffic painting personnel (2 Traffic Painters and 1 Maintenance Worker I)
being reassigned to the Field Maintenance Division. The Operations Support
Division supervisor position would be upgraded to a superintendent position at
a cost of $18K annually. The recruitment for a replacement for Mr. Millikin
has not produced any viable applicants after considerable advertisement, which
was somewhat expected. Upgrading the supervisor position to a
superintendent position) and reassigning the current traffic painting and sign
technicians to like shop or field functions in other divisions is the best
alternative.
d. The proposed structure places like and related working groups under a
common superintendent. Examples are: the street sweepers and hand
sweepers, the carpenter shop and sign shop personnel, and the traffic painter
and street maintenance personnel would combine respectively. Also, annual
projects during the various seasons of the year (summer and winter duties) are
facilitated. In the winter months of the year, beach maintenance personnel can
supplement storm drain and open ditch cleaning activities. Likewise, other
personnel in the Operations Support Division would supplement beach
maintenance activities in the summer months.
e. A more equal distribution of personnel can be accomplished by the
reorganization. Presently, the Acting Field Operations Superintendent
manages 38 employees. With the proposed reorganization, the number of
employees to manage in each of the new divisions is more even.
f. The sole cost of these changes is $18K per year for the upgrading of a
supervisor position to a superintendent position. One position (Operations
Support Supervisor) would be deleted and one position created (Operations
Support Superintendent). No additional positions would be created and no
additional funds would be needed for the current budget.
I have taken the opportunity to gather comments on this proposal from the Deputy
General Services Director (Mike Pisani) and the Acting Field Operations Superintendent
(Larry Kolbo). Both are strongly in favor of the proposed changes.
If the proposal was approved, a significant amount of administrative action would have to
be done including: new job descriptions, budget and payroll realignments, and a
modification of the current budget proposals for FY 01 -02. However, the timing could
not be better to undertake the changes and incorporate them in the new budget.
In summary, I recommend your approval of the proposed reorganization as a means of
more effectively performing and managing the facilities, operations support, and field
maintenance responsibilities. The proposal does not set a precedent for such a personnel
action. In 1990, Gil Gomez, the Utilities Superintendent, retired and was replaced by two
superintendents (one for water, one for sewer). I think the results support the current
proposal.
David E. Niederhaus
Attachments: Reorganization Proposal
1:\ Users \GSV\MLindem n \2001 \m y01 \Dep[Reft2001 \Dep[Reft200Ldoc
6
CD
LL
�
�
«
_
Q
k
2
0
�
z
«
0
�
0
CID
E
�
0
coo
C22
.CM
�
coo
CM
CM
/
\m
. k
_ uo |R )'m } :w)
MM MM
{ |�� ;�
•!c0
c
§!a!; !;£ ■ ■;
�
/�()k��
|■
+.
.
!
■!
£!!
�
/�()k��
. . �
�
.
� �.
£L
� |
k'$i{ƒM=
c l
ƒf!
..{.1.�
CL�o,.�|
ul
k§) \ \\��
J
))
�
§
ix
LU
}�
}
\
C
E
cla
..r
L
cc
CL
C32
0
CA
03
v
.5
C.
cla
COD
is
C.
ca
C
CO
ca
J
Q
CO
O
a
O
a
z
O
Q
N_
Z
Q
w
z
O
O
0
9��H
QR �
g s
0
i ��
a �
°un
z
N m
�m
•mrrE; m
V
•;
0
F
U
F
J
s
3
m � a
q'rmE'
o
32 c w U J Y W V U' W 2 2 2 LL>
wo
= U f
a.a
m
C A
c Cc�ms� ;y de`e
.p. E s_ 2 a m 8
LLKJm 01 VEIf A �C3>
Sc
a
m � a• �' � n FAN
. Y Vl F i' � •� � � 6
pC
U
� N
m
p t 0. m B B C � L m 0 ml m m
C m?= 's•'3'm @'ts ==
. 9 Y V• W: • m w Y A>
C Z > YU V LL
N m
�m
•mrrE; m
V
•;
3 0 ;
J
u u
Q LL
=
0
°m
s
3
m � a
q'rmE'
o
32 c w U J Y W V U' W 2 2 2 LL>
wo
= U f
a.a
m
C A
c Cc�ms� ;y de`e
.p. E s_ 2 a m 8
LLKJm 01 VEIf A �C3>
Sc
a
m � a• �' � n FAN
. Y Vl F i' � •� � � 6
pC
U
� N
m
p t 0. m B B C � L m 0 ml m m
C m?= 's•'3'm @'ts ==
. 9 Y V• W: • m w Y A>
C Z > YU V LL
W
0
u
"a
S
a
a
m
Q
L
5
C
Y
a
u
2
a
N
_
S
0
s
°a
n
3
N
D
N
L
S
h
0
z
�C
OS
L
C
V
C
N m
�m
•mrrE; m
�mmsmm'e�
� Q
Q
J
Q LL
=
M
11-1--1=m
21ull
21
w
E
W
0
u
"a
S
a
a
m
Q
L
5
C
Y
a
u
2
a
N
_
S
0
s
°a
n
3
N
D
N
L
S
h
0
z
�C
OS
L
C
V
C
4 7
C o
� o
N
P. ryC
Q
v
u
C
u
A
u
s
T
L
'D
4
P.
G
4 4
0 0 .
=U v E E>3>3>3>3
U'www
C
O
.y
u
4 4 4 4 4 4
00000000=.. —
C C
O u u u u u u u u
u
U
U 4 4 4 4
N
I.I
w
C
v
4
CL a.
° Ei
4-J
000000����.
a
tC
O
a
w
:ir
4-J
j+
o
cm
rr
cm
Sir
6
o s s
off
Ly
:3 r^
CA
y
u u i-r
U
F F ..
u
e
ON
U
°
'3
c
•��
s° s°
v1
C C N N u
r
cow
o
"�r
z
CUE
.=
AM
u
�•s'i
c
b : :
e
�
v
C O
.N ^y
Q
v
C
OFACN
C C C
ZyO
AlIJ '
4 u u
n' U U U w P P
F
4 7
C o
� o
N
P. ryC
Q
v
u
C
u
A
u
s
T
L
'D
4
P.
V �
E O
Y
4ry
U b
Q�
N
b
N
b
C
u
A
L
b
4
2
C
4 4
0 L, V V �pp �pp �pp �pp
P
p
o
d
�•
O J J J J
U
C
•�
•7
,�'
C
d �, •C �
�CNN ��tCCV R�CCN R�CCN
C u
a
C_
O
C
Y
Q Q
O O Q
a
O
N 7
O O
N
i�
L i i 1.• 1.• 1.• 1.•
[L
�• V C C C C 1' ' N' N 1' 1' 1' 1'
`
U E E E E '3 a s a3 >3 >3 >3
4
W U
W
O
•b N N � •b •b •a
C
U W w W W F F
O
0
0
r
m
O
b
p
0 4 4 4 4 4 4
N
C�
.000000-
Z
•6D
4 4 4 4 4 4 Q V
y
i..
p
4 7 7 7 7 7 7 •a •p
p
0
h
h W W W W W W
caw
p
�y
`V
W
O C
�~'1 ti H H
1.•
pRR
Qi1
4
CLF
0 0 0 0 �--1 �--1
0
O
o
P
C
�'
O �/u
4
u•
�' �' �' O O O O O
A
C
•u
mw
7
FC
�n W W W W
N
i
p YJ
'
N
a
o
O
O 0
C
o o
p
u
O
cm,
C
O
u
F1�CH
C
O O
0.
O
.�..
V 'q '�
•[�
y
W
C
Wy
.. r
•w
6J 6J .� �
�
•V
N
yowi��
av aa__ =r r
U • U U
E
a
v
=�
O
V b N GC GC
000wwwNN
z
F
h
z
V �
E O
Y
4ry
U b
Q�
N
b
N
b
C
u
A
L
b
4
2