2007 Park Maintenance Service Level Gap Analysis

New Search

Resource Maintenance Crew. We selected mowing and trail maintenance tasks as they relate directly to customer service aspects of our program. Since these tasks are elevated in the public eye, we assume that we are currently meeting the community's needs with regard to these two tasks. We estimated the amount of FTE these tasks currently require to accomplish compared to the estimated relative FTE they should require if we were doing all the work outlined in the RMP's. We then used the RMP's to calculate the difference between the percentage of our crew time that we should be dedicating to these tasks compared to the percentage of crew time we actually spend on them. We used this difference to extrapolate the total gap in service that we are providing to the community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS PARK OPERATIONS SERVICE LEVEL GAP ANALYSIS 1. Three maintenance activities were used for this analysis; mowing, litter pick -up and shrub bed maintenance. These three activities represent core maintenance activities that we're assuming are the most important and visual to the public. 2. Using existing RMP's, we calculated that it takes 25% of the total maintenance hours to perform these three activities, which is 25% of the total Park Operations FTE. Only FTE that are directly responsible for these activities were used in this analysis, i.e., Urban Forestry and Irrigation staff were not used. 3. It takes 14,413 hours annually to provide the three core activities for the park system. These hours represent 8.63 FTE. 4. 25% of the 19 FTE that are assigned in the three core activity areas equals 4.75 FTE. 5. The service level gap for the core maintenance activities is 3.88 FTE, which is a 20% deficit in Park Operations FTE. Outcome: Currently, and with some additional growth (20 +/- developed acres), the service level for the three core activities will not be affected due to this gap. One of the reasons for this is that additional resources (FTE) will be siphoned from the remaining 75% of maintenance activities, i.e., cultural practices, preventive maintenance, repair, renovations and replacement. On the surface, this siphoning phenomenon works; the park's aesthetics and usability are meeting the expectations of the public. However, it is reasonable to assume that if this situation is not corrected, the continuous reduction in preventive maintenance and plant cultural practices will cause a net loss in park aesthetics and functionality, creating over -all degradation to the park system as a whole.