Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8F -City Manager Criteria -- PROPOSED EV ALVA TION CRITERIA FOR CITY MANAGER FOR YEAR 2000 -Initially proposed and discussed at a Council Work Session on 2/10/00 -Submitted for Council approval on 3/06/00 with minor modification PURPOSE To assure that the City Manager is focusing energy and resources on priorities that respond directly to those concerns regularly and frequently expressed by the majority of our citizens. A large majority of our citizens are interested in the preservation of our semi rural or small town environment, and also believe taxes are too high for what they receive. It is a common theme that our City Government often works against rather than for our residents, and that City Government is more interested in devoting money and energy to new projects or new neighborhoods, than it is in solving current problems in existing neighborhoods. The Council wants these issues to be addressed in a proactive manner. To establish criteria by which the City Manager's performance will be evaluated for the year 2000. It is the intent that performance will be based upon both measurable and subjective criteria, and that the evaluation process will be continuous through the year, rather than just a year end event. MEASURABLE EV ALUATION CRITERIA A. Successful development of a year 2001 budget that will yield an average individual tax reduction of 7% (of City portion of real estate tax), with no reduction in City services. B. Effective competitive procurement of equipment and services as demonstrated by thellfollowing: . Minimum requirements specifications (specifications must defme what we need rather than what we want) . Purchases based upon not less than 3 competitive bids (except in special circumstances) . Bids to be submitted for consideration by the Council within a time frame that allows Council deferral or rejection without fmancial penalty, and without risk to th~ health, safety, or welfare of our citizens. - - J C. Effect a minimum of 10 improvements in our ordinances that make them more citizen friendly, more protective of our natural environments, and more protective of our neighborhoods. D. Action to clean up a minimum of 5 problem sites or problem situations that have existed for a considerable time within the City SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA E. Accountability for the accuracy and quality of information presented to the Council F. Util~ation o[~()~t/be~~fit analysis, return on investment analysis, or other [mancial analysis metho<fo'iogies (including factors such as lifetime cost of ownership, cost of money, and financial alternatives) when making spending decisions. G. Accountability for all normally defined functions of City management IMPLEMENT A TION A. Mid year evaluation-The Council would conduct a performance appraisal during the month of July B. Year end evaluation- The council would conduct a performance appraisal and salary review during the first week in December. Information from this meeting would be used by the evaluation subcommittee to formulate an overall written performance appraisal and salary recommendation for consideration at the mst meeting in December. C. Additional performance reviews would be conducted as deemed appropriate by the Council. City Manager Evaluation Subcommittee Wes Mader and Jim Ericson ...-.....-.......---r--...............-.---...