Staff solutions.

Do you have a formula for staff increase requests as your park system grows? Is there a ratio of full-time to part-time staff that is optimum for your operation? These questions were recently posted from Sparks, Nev., on NRPA's forum, eCommunities. For information on how to join the discussion, become a member by clicking on "Join Now" on the right-hand side of NRPA's Web site, www.nrpa.org. Here are some of the responses that might help other park maintenance managers:

"Your best bet is to show the powers that be what it really takes to do your job. Show them the actual hours it takes to do the various jobs. Add up all the man hours that will have to be added as new facilities come online. Once you do this, you will have your own formula (real numbers) to support adding the appropriate personnel needed for any future additions. We have had very good luck with this approach when we request additional personnel. The numbers don't lie. In most instances, you do not want to have your front line supervisors supervising more than seven or eight staff." --Victoria, Texas

"This 'formula' is my own, based on what has happened from a cost standpoint in the park agency I work in: $15,000 annual increase in maintenance cost for every $100,000 invested in facilities. I don't think it matters too much where the [money] is spent; either in better maintenance equipment, full-time staff or seasonal support." --Alexandria, Minn.

"Depends on the size of the parks, the landscape in the park, the facilities in the park, the level of care, etc. Sounds like you need this information and that you need to have adopted in your city (general) plan a 'provide-as-you-grow and pay-as-you-go' ordinance for facilities, development, operations and maintenance stall: You need a consultant to develop a plan that fits Sparks, Nev., for both parks, facilities and maintenance that is defensible when presented, so it will be adopted by your city council/board, etc. You can't just adopt some other city's standards." --Chico, Calif.

"One full-time worker for every 14 acres of developed park land. We have found that to be an OK ratio." --Vacaville, Calif.

"You need to look into the Pacific Southwest Maintenance Management School next November. They teach you how to create a defensible system based on real, actual maintenance needs. A set standard does not work, as there are too many variables that change between municipalities, and probably even between parks in your own system."--Queen Creek, Ariz.

"My projections were performed various ways. I used our current level of service to project staffing 1) based upon per capita acreage formulas, and 2) based upon current level of service. Supervision must be considered in light of adding more staff, especially when looking at part-time help in the terms of FTE's [full-time employee] required. You may be looking at FTE's only and consider part-time positions derived from those; when you do, the conversion from FTE's to positions you will have many more part-time positions, which will require more supervisory staff: It is an individual city or department decision as to how many part-time positions are part of the FTE number(s). We based our calculations upon the current level Of service." --Renton, Wash.

"We have an adopted formula based upon our current level of service: Neighborhood parks: 1.0 FTE per 8.3 acres of parkland; community parks and specialized facilities: 1.0 FTE per 3.8 acres of parkland. We have no ratio of full-time to part-time employees. We do utilize a lot of partners in our community parks on weekends and evenings. These folks are supervised by a 'roving' supervisor. We have debated the +/- of part-time vs. full-time internally for quite some time. The parttimer's give us more scheduling flexibility at the expense of high turnover. Currently we believe part-timer's overall are the better way to go." --Port St. Lucie, Fla.