Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

Police Department. The motion to convene into closed session was made by alder person. So moved.

Norell. Second.

And second by alder Cummings. Alright. Sequence says aye. Norell? Aye. Beamon?

Aye.

Cummings? Aye. All right. We are in closed session.

We got this we're back on track back on track

Alright. We are okay. We are back from closed session. And our one agenda item that we'll take up is 25 dash zero nine zero nine, residency exception request for police department. Is there any action from the committee?

Make the motion to approve the request. Second.

There's a motion to approve the request and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Alright. That will be placed on consent if there's no objection. So that'll get forwarded to counsel for the final approval on the consent agenda coming up at the next council meeting. So thank you. First one.

Alright. You got it. Wow. Alright. Our next agenda item is five dash zero nine zero eight is discussion on Department of Public Infrastructure, DPI restructure. So, mayor, I know you had sent out a memo to the committee kinda laying out the rationale, kinda structure what we're looking at, and a couple asks in there. So I I don't know exactly how you wanna proceed it. Just kind of just running through that, but the floor is yours.

Thank you. Appreciate it. So, yeah, from the budget discussions from last year, I mentioned that I would like to pursue the idea of creating a separate park and recreation department. And so today, I'm not asking for any official approvals. We don't have any org chart that we're asking you to approve today.

What I am asking gonna be asking at the end of this is to allow staff the opportunity to move forward with the the official creation of that, with job descriptions, pricing, all that fun stuff. That would have some costs to it, associated with it, but not not anything drastic. But really to get the the committee and council, I did send it to the entire council as well, just feel for whether or not we should continue to or should pursue this. We've done some internal work already as to what it could potentially look like. We've looked at positions and their responsibilities versus the current Department of Public Infrastructure when what a park and recreation separate department would look like just to make sure that it was feasible in the first place before we even came with an ask.

So we have done work behind the scenes. What I am gonna ask is just that we have formal action to allow staff to present a full organizational structure and how a split would be. That's with input from staff, yourselves. That's really what I want today as a conversation as to whether you agree with this and and what your priorities are as the council for parks and recreation. Made it clear that they're very important to me.

I was very distressed back in 2011 when we had to eliminate the department due to budget cost constraints, but that was something that during those discussions we negotiated as being best to put it under the this new department of public Infrastructure back in that day to truly the only rationale was to save costs, to save money, which at that time we had to. We kind of threw that department together at that time. We've tweaked it and made it much more efficient and better over the years. But I think we're in a position now where we we can have the conversation about bringing that Park and Recreation Department back out of Department of Public Infrastructure to truly prioritize parks and rec, give it its identity that it deserves, I believe, in our community. But the quality of life, the economic development that really comes with parks and rec.

And looking at what other communities have done, a lot of communities throughout the state have their own park and recreation department just north of us. They have their own, right, park and recreation department. It's not really trying to reinvent everything that the department that that parks and rec under under department of public infrastructure does now, but it really is giving that identity and structure that could support its own department. Customer service also is a big thing in this. I think we can have a lot of efficiencies by bringing park and rec all under one house.

I'm recommending at the senior center right now for for all the the citizens needs for park and rec would be under one one house and one identity. So as I mentioned, we have looked at current responsibilities for the alignment if it is if it is even possible. We've outlined potential options for an organizational chart, but nothing is finalized at all. And and surely, I I believe that a dedicated department could improve focus on park and recreation, customer service, and just other opportunities that you know, Department of Public Infrastructure is a very large department. It has a breadth of different responsibilities from buildings and grounds to engineering to transit and park and recreation.

No fault of anybody's and I don't think anybody's doing a bad job, but when you have such a large department, everything just kind of gets, you know, compartmentalized into what it is and there's not a true 100% focus in certain areas. Again, Park and Rec's priority to me. I hope it is to you as well. And I think by separating it out, can truly give it the priority and I think it's justified that we've we've put a lot of money into parks and rec over the last few years. This last budget, $500,000 more for Red Arrow Park for example.

You as the council have prioritized parks throughout the years. So I don't see that separating it out would be anything less than what you've you've already committed to for parks. I think also reverting the Department of Public Infrastructure back to Department of Public Works. That's just a name that is common. DPI, Dan can tell you, gets asked probably every other day what what that is, what that means.

Citizens don't necessarily get it. They understand DPW is the trucks that go and plow snow and fix potholes and do all that stuff. Right? So I think I think reverting back to Department of Public Works the way it was, they also can prioritize where their strengths are. And that's I think the engineering and everything I laid out and what would be under the Department of Public Works.

I think that would also be beneficial to that department as well for its own identity and for where they truly are experts in their field and and the rest of that side of things. So really, I wanna have a conversation today. That's that's the the crux of this to see where your heads are at, what you would like to see. If this is the craziest idea in the world, tell us now and we can stop and move on with something else. I think it warrants a good discussion.

I think there's a lot of good rationale behind splitting off Parks and Recreation from Department of Public Works. My ask you today is to have that conversation. If it's a go ahead that yes, you you think this is a good idea, get you the information you need on job descriptions, pricing, org charts, all that. I would envision us working on that throughout the month of January. I did mention February meeting in the letter. It doesn't have to be that January, February maybe so we can make sure that staff has opportunity to share their thoughts as well. But my goal would be then to point. Point. I

dedicated standing committee as

well. Again, I think I that's a think having those conversations directly on parks and recreation and not in a large large committee can have a lot of benefits as well for the electeds and for the citizens. So that is another ask that I I would have as well. We would create that separate committee, oversight committee of the park and recreation department and all related. So that's where I'm at.

Dan and Jesse really have been the ones that have been working with me closely on this. Dan is of course the the department handover, DPI currently, Andover Park and Recreation. So if you have any questions about logistics, how things work, Dan would be here to answer any questions for that. Appreciate your consideration and conversation. And as you can tell, there's a lot of park and rec staff here as well.

Okay. Thank you, mayor. And just kind of get the committee up to speed, I did sit down with Dan and the mayor in December to kind of get an indication of what they were looking for to bring and kind of set a timeline out for the discussions starting tonight and then kind of moving forward so that we had kind of set progress to be able to not just have a free for all conversation, but that there was set guidelines here and the ask is what we were looking for tonight. So I can start. I think it's important when you laid out here some of the building on successes.

I remember when we did have that standalone Parks and Rec and it really did give some focus to the Parks and Rec area. And I think we can learn from what was done well during that time and maybe even more so what wasn't done well at that time. I think we did that when we incorporated it in. Kind of washed away some of the stuff that wasn't done well. But some of the good stuff kinda got lost as well when we incorporated everything under the one umbrella.

It just doesn't that that size of things. So I think pulling some of that out is good. I do like the idea of that second or the additional standing committee for that. If you take a look at some of the duties that the standing committees have, even finance as an example, the list of duties that fall under finance is tremendously long when we went to four standing committees from six. Sometimes the details get lost because of the amount of stuff that goes to the committees.

So I I think it's good if we're really wanting that focus and detail. I think creating that additional standing committee is good. I think bluntly, either we're gonna do this now or we're gonna do this down the road is we've created a structure that's almost impossible to fill any succession plans going forward. I mean, there isn't another department in the state municipalities that have the structure like we have. So when you're looking to look at succession planning and bringing people in or moving people up, we don't have the ability to go and grab people from anywhere to put them into our structure because there's no other structure like it.

We're, you know, either we're gonna do this now or we're gonna have to do it when there's retirements or open positions because what are you gonna do? We don't have that ability. So I'm I'm fine moving forward. I think it's that's the next logical step. It doesn't mean that it's gonna necessarily cement it that it's happening in one direction, but it's at least gonna give us the knowledge base to figure out how to move forward if that's the direction that we're ultimately going to go. So I guess that'll open up to the committee. So Alder Cummings.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I don't really have too many questions.

I just said, first off, thank you for the memo ahead of time with everything and obviously we've talked in person as well with it and appreciate those conversations for that. Obviously, since I've been on the city council here, I've been a huge proponent advocate for the parks and recreation piece of our Department of Public Infrastructure. And I appreciate the focus that we've had the last few years to go and improve our public spaces and everything that we've been doing. And I think I think fundamentally, just with that piece, the the parks and recreation piece, that that's what gives the city character. It allows people to enjoy the city more than just no offense to, you know, sell trucks and roads and everything else.

But every every city in Wisconsin has road problems. Every city in Wisconsin has, you know, snow removal issues and and all of that that we deal with. Right? But realistically, for the citizens to enjoy the city, this is where it's at. And I think giving it the proper focus is the right thing to do, especially when we're talking about other aspects of, we've been at 34,000, give or take, 500 people for the last twenty, thirty years.

And, you know, if if we really want to grow, like, that's a part of what we can do is make beautiful spaces, you know, for people to want to come here. And I think when you just like everything as a you know, now I'm speaking as a business owner, but like everything, if you lump too much into one thing, something doesn't always get the focus because we only have so much time. And so I think having a separate department makes sense, including the the oversight with, you know, the standing committee makes sense. Because then we can focus on the fine details and give it the attention that it's due. So I fully support it.

I think just it'll make everything more efficient. The only the only question, I guess, I have, and that's just looking from a a pure efficiency standpoint and tell me if I'm crazy. But, like, right now, we have the parks and recreation department at the senior center for the offices, and we have everything else at City Hall, you know, for, like, you know, the oversight piece. I know we live in a day and age of Zoom and Google Meets and everything else, but would that be the most efficient spot for the offices, or do would we relocate them, like, in a centralized area with everybody else? So that way, at least, you know, if if somebody needs something from somewhere, you can just go down the hall and talk to them.

Yeah. I mean, it's a good question. I mean, right now, senior center has the park and rec staff there. Not not the not the laborers there out of Fleetwood Drive shop, you know, that's where they they go. But kind of the day to day park and rec is is already currently at the senior center.

There's some it's a when I say efficiencies, there's some administrative tasks that come to city hall. So for example, if you rent a cabin in summer, you gotta come to city hall to get the key. You know? And that's, you know, one area of Park And Rec where you gotta come to City Hall here where I would recommend everything would just be at the senior center for that so people don't have to come to City Hall for for those types of things, the keys and everything. Because all the all that administrative staff would also be at the senior center.

It possibly could help with making sure the senior center stays open as well. We've had issues, not necessarily major issues in the past, just logistics of making sure someone's at the front desk at the senior center all times because people are shifting around, know, and the parking rec employees aren't necessarily there all the time. So that could help that as well, making sure that the hours are covered at the senior center. But, yeah, basically, everything would be taken most everything would be taken out of city hall for park and rec related items and then but

at the senior

center. So Yeah.

One central location. That that was kind of kind of where I was going part part of with it too, like and they're again not saying that, you know, saying, like, I won't support if you didn't do it. But relocating the city hall, like, obviously, you always have somebody here during the open hours. You know, renting out a cabin, I'm sure, you know, you could still have somebody here. And if somebody's on vacation or whatnot, you could, you know, train somebody, you know, that's already here to go and do that same same process. Yep. You know? And I'm just, like I said, there again, just thinking from pure efficiency standpoint, you know, and and maximizing what you have.

Yep.

So We will we we

can discuss this again. Like Kurt, Brock and Michelle are at the senior center full time. That's where their offices are, right? So they would be better to answer that logistical question for you, but we can talk about that internally and come back and report if it is the best location or whatnot.

Yep. Yep.

And there again, I don't know the other factors in play. Like, obviously, you know, keeping the senior center open probably is important. I mean Yes. So so, like, obviously, that all is going to consideration. But like I said, just that that was just my main question. But otherwise, I have, you know, I have nothing but good things to say for the current staff that's already there. And to be able to focus more on on doing amazing work and being efficient is, I think, just only a good thing. That's all I have.

All right. Thank you, Alder Companies. Owen Norell.

Thank you. So I know this was part of the budget we as the council approved. So I think my questions would really come out in your assessment that you're asking for tonight. Right? You're just saying, can we take this back to the staff, come up with the plan, bring it forward? I don't because any question I ask, I'm sure is gonna be covered there because I would ask about structure. I would ask about cost of the senior center. I would ask about how it's gonna leadership wise, all that's gonna lay out. And so I'm I'm all for exploring this as a department because one, you've asked for it. We've given you that approval already. And I would say, you know, again, my questions are just gonna probably be answered in your proposal anyways. So thank you. I'd support it.

All right. Thank you. Yeah, I might as well. Okay.

I I never really understood why they were all lumped

together anyway. So yeah, I'd be willing to look at it too.

I think it's a good idea. Thanks.

Alright. Thank you, alder Beeman. Well, I think you have the the committees behind you to say, let's explore it and come back with a plan. And, obviously, we budgeted some of the pricing aspects of it that are gonna come out of there's a line item for that. So

Yeah. The I mean, really, costs will be when we get when we talk about positions that are possibly new, you know, like a director or anything. We would obviously cost it out to Carlson Denton. That'll cost $504.50, whatever. I mean, that's normal like you always went through.

So there's those new costs. But other than that, there's really not much. Now I will say you know when we talk about the best way to do this, we obviously want to do it the best way or for creating something new. You know if I did mention during the budget, we're looking at budget neutral obviously because there's nothing budgeted more. And if there's some discrepancies there, it may be if you say, yes, we do want to create the department, but yet there might be some extra costs here or there, it might be a phased approach as well, where we have to talk about it next year's budget.

So I'm not saying because we haven't run the numbers yet that it's going to be zero sum. But what we want to present to you is really truly the best department and the structure and we'll cost it out and if it needs to be phased works out perfectly, we'll obviously bring that to you for final approval. My recommendation next would be potentially to have a committee to hold with the findings. I think this is a very large subject, so we can bring it back to personnel if you'd like, but I also think the full council should should have a say on this before it gets to full council because it is a pretty big ask to create a new department.

But that's up to you. Yeah. I I think once once we have the it the the form or the structure kinda set, let's bring it back to personnel, see if there's any tweakings that need to be made. And then I think a recommendation to the committee of the whole out of personnel would carry a little weight just so that there's some progression.

I agree with that.

Okay. So if there's really nothing I don't know

if you if Dan, if you had anything you wanted to add or Jesse, if I missed anything. We've had these conversations quite a bit in December.

Okay. Alright. Well, we'll look forward to an update when it's ready, and we'll put it on the agenda whenever you're ready to proceed. Sounds good. Did you want a separate for

the ordinance change for the standing committee? Is that something you'd want with this or separate from this to create the park and recreation?

I think if we're gonna do it, we'll do it all in one one broad stroke of the brush.

Can do. Thank

you. Alright. Well, if there's nothing further, I would look for a motion to adjourn.

Moved. Second.

We are adjourned. Thank you.