Laserfiche WebLink
<br />8 CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN <br />(Operator III, II, I) allow operators to “self-promote” if they serve appropriate time-in-service and earn additional <br />licensure levels. Almost every operator in the Department has pursued this strategy, leading to most operators being <br />licensed and classed at the highest grade (Operator I). <br /> <br />Despite the strengths of the Department, there are challenges as well. Most notable among them is the heavy <br />workload in the Department and the pressures to meet service-level targets. For various groups within the Public <br />Works, there are concerns regarding work-life balance and morale. In short, while the Department has identified <br />appropriate service level targets and is able to meet them, the pressure and strain required to achieve them has created <br />a somewhat unsustainable environment. If left unaddressed, this level of unsustainability will likely increase as the <br />City continues to grow and assets age. <br /> <br />For example, one major issue for operators is the ability to take paid time off (PTO). Additionally, there is a <br />noticeable lack of effective communication between operators and management regarding the overall goals and <br />vision. <br /> <br />COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WORKLOADS OVER TIME <br />Benchmarking is typically used to compare the quantitative and/or qualitative metrics of an organization against <br />those of peer organizations or an industry as a whole. Public works departments often struggle to benchmark against <br />one another due to the numerous unique factors that set them apart, such as the differing relative scope of the services <br />they provide (e.g., utilities, streets, parks) relative to the number of staff dedicated to that service. Some agencies <br />devote full crews to any one or all of these service offerings. Others, like Lake Elmo, expect their staff to perform <br />ALL of these services. As a result, the insight gained by comparing the City’s Department of Public Works to those <br />of other cities might be dubious or truly comparative. Instead, what can provide meaningful insight is an examination <br />of metrics that quantify relative workloads and how they have changed over time. Unfortunately, there is no way to <br />examine the cumulative workload of the Department across all its services over time. Instead, the following graphs <br />will look at the Department’s component services individually: water, sewer, streets and roadways, and parks. <br /> <br />The graphs in this section present workloads normalized by total full-time positions in the Department. The City’s <br />Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) contains tables of statistical information. Table 3 contains relevant <br />data from the ACFR and the total number of full-time employees each year, as reported by City staff. The ACFRs <br />do contain estimates of FTEs allocated by activity, but these allocations may be inexact. The allocation method may <br />have changed over time, and some allocated labor may not be directly related to the operation and maintenance of <br />assets (e.g., allocated time of the Administrator or Director, utility billing). For this reason, the workload metrics are <br />normalized by the total staff within the Department, as these ratios represent the total demand to do work per <br />employee. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />