Laserfiche WebLink
<br />22 CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN <br />Recommendation 9: Stakeholders within the City should collaborate on potential Parks <br />staffing <br /> <br />The City recently produced a Parks Master Plan containing recommendations regarding the future of the City’s <br />parks, involving identified capital projects, improvements, and staffing. The recommendations were labeled as <br />‘High’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Low’ priority. A recommendation to hire a Parks Director was specially singled out as ‘First <br />Priority’, with highlighted text stating, “Adding this position is the most critical action the city can take toward <br />improving their park and trail system as the future unfolds.” <br /> <br />The recommendation for a Parks Director may be sound, but the recommendation omits discussion of this role’s <br />scope and function, how it might fit either within or alongside the Public Works Department, or how it might fit <br />within the larger City organization. Specifically, Parks Director positions rarely exist outside of Parks Departments <br />that contain other parks staff to oversee. Based on our analysis, the workload for a separate Parks department does <br />not exist at this time. <br /> <br />Recent developments within the City, however, call for an intentional process to plan for staffing some form of parks <br />leadership position in the coming years. In general, the growth that has matured the parks system sufficiently to <br />warrant a master plan will soon warrant a staff member to implement the master plan. One specific development <br />that may justify planning for a staff position is the recent acquisition of a 77-acre tract of land, currently intended as <br />a park containing a multisport complex. Development of this multisport complex may, depending on the amenities <br />provided, mark a significant turn in the level of service that the City’s parks offer its residents. <br /> <br />The City should conduct a workshop (or convene a workgroup) of relevant stakeholders, including the City <br />Administrator, Director and/or Assistant Director of Public Works, the Parks Advisory Board, and City Council <br />members to work through how a parks leadership position might best serve the needs of the City. The group should <br />answer such questions as: <br /> <br /> What is the scope of this position? Is this role intended to obtain grant funding and deliver capital projects <br />from the master plan? Is this role intended to plan and coordinate programming within the parks? <br /> Where in the City’s organizational structure should this role reside? If this role is in the Public Works <br />Department, what would be an appropriate title (e.g., Assistant Director, Manager)? <br /> When should this hiring occur? The multisport complex represents a large opportunity for the City but <br />lacks definitive plans. Should this position be filled to help the community plan its design, or be hired once <br />the park has been built? <br />Being intentional in answering questions of the “what” and “why” of this park leadership position will help create <br />agreement within the City as to the purpose of this role and help identify the ideal candidate for this envisioned role. <br /> <br /> <br />WORK PROCESSES <br /> <br />Recommendation 10: Implement the Beehive CMMS to fully utilize its capabilities <br /> <br />Industry standard software for public works departments includes asset management software that combines GIS <br />mapping with asset inventories to help track the location, condition, and maintenance performed on assets. When <br />asset management capabilities are combined with the capacity to issue, track, and complete work orders, these <br />software packages are known as Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS). The industry standard <br />practice is for work orders to be developed within the CMMS and assigned to operators. The operators perform the