New Search
program above what 4J is willing to pay (obviously they want to save money, not spend more). Can we be <br /> creative with equipment ownership costing or is the existing system an inflexible "given "? Should I be raising the <br /> issue with George re: his costs and adding this on to what I give Doug Lemley? <br /> 4. We would have to increase staff (during the mowing season) by more than double the existing mowing crews <br /> (3.5 - 4 FTE for my crew, plus 2 FTE for "meadows ", probably at least 1 FTE for Dee .. I'II confirm). <br /> As the need is seasonal, the most reasonable way to meet the need is with seasonal /temporary employees. We <br /> might need a few additional "B" positions, but would want to use temporary labor for most of the program (Or <br /> there is no chance of keeping it cost - efficient to al level 4J would be willing to fund.) The season lasts six <br /> months, with the "peak" coming before school is out each year (April - mid -June) With the current push to <br /> reduce temporary labor, I wanted to bring up these issues on the front end of the discussion. If six -month <br /> seasonais (half or more) and four -month seasonals hired prior to the end of the school year are going to be a <br /> problem, we should not proceed. We could make some use of "temp source" types to reduce unemployment <br /> liability, but almost certainly would need some more traditional seasonal hires. (Six -month seasonal hires are <br /> the backbone of 4J's existing program. We have no hope of being competitive if we must use "A" or "B" <br /> employees.) <br /> Doug is only talking about mowing at this time, however, The most practical way of approaching the problem <br /> may me "contracting" all the District's grounds maintenance. Adrian, Dee, and yourself should become involved <br /> at once if we want to make such a proposal. If you like, I can "test the water' with Doug when we meet at 1:00 <br /> PM. The questions I raised in my earlier memo to Bob Hammitt also would need to be addressed if we were to <br /> go that direction. <br /> Re; the above, I want to stress, again, that any such arrangement must include a provision that the City will <br /> operate using our rules and procedures, NOT those of the School District. Specifically, the pesticide use policy <br /> of District 4J is a ponderous and unworkable burden that we should NEVER agree to work under! (Imagine a <br /> process like you are currently going through to remove the lattice work at West University Neighborhood Park <br /> every time you wanted to spot -treat a shrub bed. Really ... I'm not kidding, it's even more unworkable than that!) <br /> A "mowing only" agreement could be concluded without addressing the pesticide policy matter, but that could <br /> complicate things like equipment transfer, etc. as noted above. <br /> Doug also mentioned that "meetings are taking place" between the District and the City on these and related <br /> maintenance issues. Are you involved in these meetings? Are we going to be involved? represented? The <br /> potential impacts are enormous! We really need to be in on the planning if we want it to work. <br /> Because of his previous interest in this subject, I've sent a "cc" of the above to Bob Hammitt. <br /> Page 2 <br />