05-11-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit A. Staff Recommendation for Future Facility Cleaning. 1. Background. These recent challenges, as outlined paragraph 1 of the council action, along with a long history of cleaning issues in city facilities underscore the need to try a different approach. Staff has analyzed the issue for some time and identified a need for increased flexibility, responsiveness and accountability with respect to facility cleaning and minor maintenance. Staff has also identified a number of procedural changes that would make the process more efficient and save considerable expense. Looking through some historical records and speaking with long service staff members confirmed this has been a concern for at least the last 18 years. Various attempts to adjust the cleaning requirements and the use of different contractors does not seem to have resulted in the desired outcomes. The special access requirements associated with Police Department combined with relatively small scope of work the city facilities present do not appear to align well with the way the commercial cleaning industry operates. The result has been inconsistent service at high prices with inordinate amounts of city staff time spent overseeing the contract. To that end, for the last 6 months City Department Directors have been exploring other options. The option that we believe has the most promise is to in-source the cleaning tasks by adding the duties to part time position. In-sourcing, permanent or temporary, will also provide opportunity to adjust the performance standards and procedures we have for cleaning. As they are currently written the may be excessive for our needs. 2. Proposed Plan for Cleaning. In order to provide cleaning services the City will use a current seasonal employee by redesigning the position from Park Maintenance Worker to Groundkeeper and adding Custodial Duties thereby creating a part time Custodian/Groundskeeper. The revised Job description is attached. 3. Proposal Pros and Cons. a. Pro- The proposal provides significant cost savings b. Pro- The proposal provided increase flexibility c. Pro- The proposal provided improved accountability d. Pro- The proposal does not increase staff head count (as Organizational Committee Goal) e. Pro- If the proposal does not work for some reason, the City can easily revert to contract service f. Con- The city will need to purchase a vacuum cleaner 4. Cost And Funding. The Seasonal Parks employee funding is already provided in the Parks Operation Budget. The Funding for the additional hours required to complete custodial duties will be provided by the budget line currently used to pay the cleaning contract. Current annual cost for contract cleaning is $33,000. Adding the duties to a Part Time position and including benefits will cost $20,600 /yr. As proposed this represents a potential savings of $12,400/yr for facilities cleaning. Further this proposal can be accomplishing without increasing current staffing numbers. 5. Part Time Appointment. In anticipation of the termination of the cleaning contract staff created the attached job description and included it in the annual seasonal recruitment process. The applicant listed below applied and was selected for both the se4asona parks maintenance worker position and proposed custodian/ grounds keeper position. He was appointed earlier this spring to the Parks Maintenance Worker position in which he is serving. If the Council concurs with the staff recommendation, Council will need to reappoint the following from the Seasonal Parks positon to the Custodian/ Grounds keeper position. Name Position Wage ($/hr) Remarks Mitchell Hall Custodian / Grounds Keeper $17.00 Transition from Seasonal Parks Attachment 1. Custodian/Grounds keeper Part Time Position Description.