HomeMy WebLinkAbout10E - 1999 City Manager Performance Evaluation
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
December 20,1999
10E
Frank Boyles, City Manager
AGENDA ITEM:
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF 1999 CITY MANAGER
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SALARY REVIEW.
DISCUSSION:
The City Manager's Employment Agreement calls for a performance
evaluation to be completed within 30 days of November 1st annually.
An Evaluation Committee of Council member Wuellner and Mayor
Mader has assumed the responsibility for completing this process as
set forth in the agreement and followed in previous years.
In November of this year, Councilmember Wuellner distributed the
performance evaluation form to Councilmembers requesting that each
complete the form and return it to him. The Evaluation Committee
then compiled and consolidated the individual results into a summary
version. Attached is the performance evaluation summary as
prepared by Councilmember Wuellner and Mayor Mader.
ISSUES:
There are two actions for consideration by the Council. The first
action would be to consider approving the Summary Report of the
City Manager's Performance as submitted by the Evaluation
Committee. Approval of the report requires a majority vote.
The second action would be to conduct the City Manager's Salary
Review. Attached for information is the 1999 Stanton DCA Salary
Survey for City Manager salaries. Prior Lake is included with a group
of 26 cities with similar populations. The mean salary for City
Managers in this group for 1999 is $6,758 per month or $81,096 per
year. The City Managers existing salary is $76,533. The Council may
wish to consider this data in setting the City Manager's 2000 salary
rate.
The Evaluation Committee was unable to reach a consensus as to its
recommendation for a salary increase, if any. The Council should
determine its collective perspective regarding the City Manager's
performance over the past year and in doing so, direct staff as to the
salary increase, if any. Any action to direct a salary increase for the
City Manager, must be made as a motion and second at the regular
meeting. Such a motion would require a majority vote to be carried.
No action to direct staff with regard to a salary review would indicate
162{l(t~lUA~if~911~lltlofiJtIiiG!;Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
that the City Manager's salary would remain unchanged for the year
2000.
1. Approve the Evaluation Summary Report and Direct Staff with
Regard to the Salary Review.
2. Approve the Evaluation Summary Report with amendments and
Direct Staff with Regard to a Salary Review.
3. Approve the Evaluation Summary Report and take no action with
regard toa Salary Review.
4. Approve the Evaluation Summary Report with amendments and
take no action with Regard to a Salary Review.
As the Council deems appropriate.
I:\COUNCIL\AGNRPTS\99\1220 _IOE.DOC
w,
December 15, 1999
To: City Council Members
From: Dave Wuellner and Wes Mader
Subj: City Manager's Annual Performance Review
The following material is the result of the five Councilmembers' reviews of the city
manager. Since the committee could not come to consensus as to a recommendation to
the council, this report is merely a compilation and condensed reiteration of category
scores and comments made by the council. Should the council, upon reviewing the
comments and numerical ratings, decide that an adjustment should be made to the city
manager's salary, a recommendation/motion must be made and seconded.
The format of the review is the same used in previous years, and uses a five point scale
to assess performance in various categories. The scale is as follows:
5 - Well above standards (Please comment)
4 - Above standards
3 - Meets standards
2 - Below standards
1 - Well below standards (Please comment)
The evaluation categories were as follows:
Organizational Management
Fiscal/Business Management
Program Development
Relationship with Council
Long range Planning
Relationship with Publici Public Relations
Interagency Relations
Professional/Personal Development
The following are these categories with the overall scores given by each Councilmember
along with various comments (in italics).
It should be noted that only three of the Councilmembers included any comments on
their appraisals.
Copies of each Councilmember's appraisal are included with this report.
1
1. Organizational Management:
Category Scores:
4.0, 3.75, 4.75, 3.25, 3 (Average = 3.75)
Frank's organizational skills are excellent, as evidenced by the quality of council
agendas, weekly updates, and the city's Y2K preparations.
Frank has consistently provided equal and timely reports to Councilmembers when the
need arises. With the volume of issues that arise, Frank has been very informative and
concise in his evaluation of every aspect.
I believe Frank has a lot on his plate and does accomplish a great number of projects.
see the directives the council sets... along with the goals of the city council as a large
body of work.
2. Fiscal/Business Management:
Category Scores:
4.4, 3.6, 4.6, 3.4, 1.4 (Average = 3.48)
The fiscal and financial conditions of the city are the strongest they have ever been.
Frank is extremely conservative in spending and uses extreme discretion during the
budget process.
Perhaps this is an area the Frank excels and he has a responsible staff to provide all of
the information necessary.
New, creative and very positive bidding practices have been established with the
playground equipment for example, that keeps the playground equipment on budget,
with quality equipment and the residents getting the most out of their tax dollar.
Has done an outstanding job on fiscal issues, including budget for the year 2000.
Always at or near zero increase.
3. Program Development
Category Scores:
4.0, 3.25,4.0, 3.0, 2.5
(Average = 3.35)
Frank has a strong handle on programs and services, and is very effective at initiating
council directives.
The only aspect that I would like to see more use of is the "Tactical Turtle Team". The
use of that team between departments has served the city well in cost savings and a
more efficient operation.
-;-
2
4. Relationship with Council:
Category Scores:
4.0,3.75,4.25,3.0,2.0 (Average = 3.4)
Frank has improved dramatically over the past year in the quality of staff reports, the
accuracy of his data, and in the appropriateness of his judgements. He has effectively
navigated a sometimes-divided council.
Frank has done an incredible job with his relationship with the City Council.
I think an education for Councilmembers on the roles of city govemment should be used
to permit Frank to operate more efficiently and effectively. Micro-managing by
Councilmembers only hurts the process...
5. Long Range Planning:
Category Scores:
4.0,3.83,4.33,3.17,3.0 (Average = 3.67)
Frank has done a good job integrating the strategic plan into the programs, services,
maintenance, and budgeting. The only limitation he has is convincing some
Councilmembers of its value.
Again, the city is fortunate to have a city manager with a "vision to the future" for Prior
Lake. He recognizes that the decisions made by the Council today will affect residents
and businesses twenty or more years into the future.
6. Relationship with the Publici Public Relations:
Category Scores:
4.0,4.0,4.33,3.67,2.0
(Average = 3.6)
Frank has worked very hard to overcome shortcomings in this area, and he has
succeeded. He has done an outstanding job with many groups: Busse Park, Deerfield,
Lakefront Park, and Timothy Ave.
., .Frank knows the importance of keeping the public as informed as possible on issues.
The "Frankly Speaking" must continue...
His participation in Rotary and other civic organizations is commendable.
The community survey was a big hit towards giving staff direction.. .
3
7. Interagency Relations
Category Scores:
4.7,3.5,4.0,4.0,3.0
(Average = 3.84)
I feel the council and the city staff are much better "plugged in" to other governmental
agencies, especially Scott County.
The handling of the Cable Television issues with the school district was very positive.
Frank, in my opinion, "sets the standards" for other City Managers to follow.
8. Professional/Personal Development
Category Scores:
4.3, 4.0, 4.33, 3.0, 2.33
(Average = 3.65)
Frank has developed a very effective management style that capitalizes on his
strengths, and minimizes his weaknesses.
The attributes that Frank brings to the city already is above average.
It is imperative that as the city moves forward in a positive way that Frank be permitted
to be educated on the advances needed in government.
Overall Rating: The overall rating for the City Manager which is arrived ~t by averaging
all of the category scores for all five Councilmembers is 3.65.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
4
fj)
fj)
07
(;)
,,~ ..,
MANAGERS EVALUATION SCORE SHEET
Evaluator:
.f)JiiJ /Alil~
Date:
11/3D/qq
Please rate the appropriate areas as follows:
5 - Well above standards (please comment)
4 - Above standards
3 - Meets standards
2 - Below standards
1 - Well Below Standards (please comment)
I. Organizational Management: '. l '/In. ^ . It ^ ^n ill fL M
A) 1 ~ ~ 0>> ~^'-f) .
B) 1 .. vk~rJj~~'~
~~ 1 ~,~~c~ fZlL ~
II.FiscallBusinessManagement: - IJ j'.li1'11{}J~O ,AI) JJ.-c",/J 11.0 ('~ tu.Q...
A) 5 -:Jk _~J P-I,tfj/ r/~'---v~ cthv~ U ~ Q
B) 4 .,.L_l/^~)-~~t>..d) ^,.a~, PJwe ~ ~ - ~ w jJ~J&
C) J-./ v-rw V~~' . Yl'''Cr - J} . n .JJ I n m n d~~
D) '-I ~l4Q,~ LA ~ ~ (JdeJ- ~,U/
E) 5 ~~ bJsd ~.JL.
ill.. P~ogram Development: ^ lJ . .n. }uu~ Ct-f\. ~ ()...~
A) :; ~ J.Jv;, fA. ~'2I . '.. ':. .'L.~~h
B) - ~ it) I~ .~Lt. ~ VTV""'...,.... _.~
C) J./ ~ J < ~ ~ - PV .
D) 1 ~~~-
IV. Relationship with Council: h .",p.17 ..J '" ~, D" ^ WI. 60<'-< ~ ~r
A) t./ ~ f\M u~ ()JWAILt~ JI ^
B) 1 - ,n._ w'1'~~ d :1.An~ia ( WJl. ~
C) r-J U\- ~W vv-v-a,] . v ,- . " Q.6 0/ fiio
D) 'i )Uo ~ \ cuiQ UL - r1 ~
jOt A)f\,o JI1\oAh. ~ ~ ~
~.~
@
9
@
@
1; L4.gRangep]a~ /1M ~ a ~# ~ ~
~ii ~(J~~~~. 1~':~iM~ I
D) Aj Cuuf ~-- ~ :--:CJ t~ .~() A
E) q ( , .4f}N. ~ 11~1 /JJ ~ OI'Jllj./L.
F) 5' ~" '1
;J R~tionShiP W~cfPnn:c R~ WJl 'kJ ('j()-W.l3tJlf)
B) ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 o.-tJ.i) N- AM ~ < ,
C) J \{Q ha6 ~ CL/\ fJt c# vx:f.tf:!r ~.JJ.Ob
VII. Interagency Relations: ~ M) . f ~\!J f .~/~<VJ
A) -5 ::) .DooD~. ~ ~ f'lrJl~ ~1 04L~.~
B).y "~U:' W ~ w"}- .~.~,~
vm. ProfessioaJ/Personal Bevelopment: G9~ . , .
~j 4 ~bMch~CL~~~
C) 5' .A~~.On ~ tl\~~ ~ hIo ~ I J
~~.~.
Overall Evaluation:
Considering the above ranking collectively, I believe that the City Manager's performance over the
review period has been:
_5 - \Vell above standards
4 - Above standards
3 - Meets standards
2 - Below standards
_1 - \VeIl Below Standards
Evaluation Comments:
~~ -- - -~~---~----- r- - -
" '11:'.
EVALUATION CATEGORIES
1. Organizational Management:
A.4
B. 3
~
~:l':)
Organizes the work that goes into providing services established by past
and current decisions of the Council.
Plans and organizes work that carries out policies adopted by the Council
and developed by Staff.
C. Y Evaluates and keeps up with technology.
D. Lf Selects leads, directs and develops staff members.
II. FiscalIBusiness Management:
A.L1
Prepares and organizes a budget that conforms to the guidelines adopted
by the Council.
B. U Plans, organizes, and supervises the most economic utilization of
! manpower, materials, and machinery.
~oLP
c. y
D.o]
E. '3
Plans and organizes a system of reports for the Council that provides the
most up-to-date data available concerning expenditures, revenues, and
investments.
Plans and identifies new and updated means of financially managing our
City's facilities, buildings, and equipment.
Recommends actions to strengthen fiscal condition of the City.
III. Program Development:
A.'j
/'
.-=? ' -z..:::.
Maintains ongoing programs and services which are responsive to the
organization's needs.
B. l1 Plans, organizes and monitors work involving research programs directed
by the Council and reports results.
C. 03 Follo\vs through on plans and organizes work assigned by the Council for
completion in a timely manner.
D. J{ Makes effective use of available staff resources.
'3
IV. Relationship with City Council:
A.y
B. Y
/'
'=5 .-1 ~
c. ~I
Effectively and clearly communicates with Council by appropriately
utilizing materials, reports, and presentations.
Communicates with Council in a timely, forthright, ongoing and open
manner.
Presents adequate and accurate information to the Council to enable an
appropriate decision.
D."::' Responsive to the City Council's needs for current plans, activities and
events.
V. Long Range Planning:
A. ~
B. 4
c. ~
3,g?:> D. Cf
E. 3
F. Y
Maintains a well constructed long-range (strategic) plan that is currently in
operation.
Maintains an on-going monitoring process that attains a quality assurance
in program and projectimplementation.
Program evaluation and personnel evaluation are inter-related \'lith the
strategic plan.
Pursues completion of goals adopted and approved by the Council.
Keeps Council advised of new and impending public policy legislation
and developments.
Assures maintenance of existing infrastructure and planning for new or
replacement infrastructure.
VI. Relationship with Public/Public Relations:
q.D
A.L{
B.3
Maintains and active role in timely communication with the media/public.
Maintains a liaison with non-governmental agencies, organizations, and
groups involved in the community.
c. 5 Communicates with the public on a regular basis in an effort to achieve
good feedback from the public.
VII. Interagency Relations:
A.~
Demonstrates a positive role in the cultivation of professional relations
with other agencies.
/'
~.~
B. '3 Provides the Council with necessary tools to promote and enhance good
communications, and program development with other agencies.
VIII.
Professional/Personal Development:
A.~
Demonstrates management techniques that show innovation, imagination,
and decisiveness.
A.D
B. ~ Demonstrates effective leadership performance.
C. ~ Demonstrates effective verbal and written communication skills.
A
?.
V. Long Range Planning:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
VI Relationship with PubliclPublic Relations:
A)
B)
C)
Vll. . Interagency Relations:
A)
B)
VITI. ProfessioallPersonal Development:
A)
B)
C)
Overall Evaluation:
Considering the above ranking collectively, I believe that the City Manager's performance over the
review period has been:
5 - Well above standards
~4 - Above standards ~..-, I
3 - Meets standards
_2 - Below standards
1 - Well Below Standards
Evaluation Comments:
r<<- (J77iJcA &?
/liMJ
MANAGERS EVALUATION SCORE SHEET
Evaluator: Pete Schenck
Date: Monday, December 06, 1999
I. Organization Management: Frank has consistently provided equal and
timely to Council Members when the need arises. With the volume of issues
that arise, Frank has been very informative and concise in his evaluation of
every aspect. Its good to have the City on the Internet finally but more needs
to be done to keep that technology up to date. The loss ofBret Woodson has
set the City back. It's imperative that a replacement be found soon. The
ability of the City Manager to handle those responsibilities solo is long gone.
II. Fiscall Business Management: Perhaps this is an area that Frank excels and
he has a responsible Staff to provide all of the information necessary. There
probably isn't an issue that comes before the Council that Frank has not
looked into for a financial impact. Ralph Teschner provides very complete
reports to the Council as required and with no errors. New, creative and very
positive bidding practices have been established with the playground
equipment for example, the keeps playground equipment on budget, with
quality equipment and the residents getting the most out of their tax dollar.
Granted we could go cheap for cheap sake but the citizens deserve better and
that is what Frank, Paul Hokeness and the City Council have provided. The
work on the Public Library was incredible! Despite shortfalls in the project,
some labor problems and other issues not the responsibility of the City, we
now have a "show case" open for the public use.
ID. Program Development: The only aspect that I would like to see more use of
is the "Tactical Turtle Team". The use of that team to communicate more
between departments has served the city well in cost savings and a more
efficient operation. Staff meetings and status reports have proven useful.
IV. Relationship with City Council: Frank has done an incredible job with his
relationship with the City Council. Often we are to blame for any of the
problems or confusions that may arise. I think an education for Council
Members on the roles in the City Government should be used to permit Frank
to operate more efficiently and effectively. Micro Managing by Council
Members only hurts the process and ends up costing the city more. That only
tends to be a disservice to the public.
Jt: Long Range Planning: Again, the city is fortunate to have a city Manager
with a "vision of the future" for Prior Lake. He recognizes that the decisions
made by the Council today will affect residents and businesses twenty or more
years into the future. Often the Council looks at issues only for today and
fails to address the future impact. Franks helps keep that in perspective. The
2010 Comprehensive Plan is just such a tool that takes a lot of time and effort
to peer into the future. I would like to see a little more legislative feedback on
issues as to how State decisions affect the city. Perhaps however, its time for
the City Council to assign a member to the AMM and LMC so that the City
has a better idea of legislative issues.
VI. Relationship with PublicIPublic Relations: Again, Frank knows the
importance of keeping the public as informed as possible on issues. There are
some that cannot be discussed in an open forum and Frank has been sensitive
MANAGERS EVALUATION SCORE SHEET
to that as well. Those that want to misunderstand the message that Frank is
trying to convey will continue to misunderstand or misinterpret his words.
The Frankly Speaking must continue and I applaud Frank for trying to find a
more effective way to communicate with the residents and businesses through
The Wavelength. His participation in the Rotary and other civic organizations
is commendable.
VIL Interagency Relations: Frank, in my opinion "Sets the Standards" for other
City Managers to follow. The public often doesn't see the dedication this man
has for the City of Prior Lake. Often, when I drive by City Hall, after 10:00 at
night, the City Manager's office lights are on and Frank is inside working on
issues involving the City. Its well known that he, as has some of his staff,
have not taken vacations when issues or events transpired. His dedication to
the city is well known when I've participated in AMM and PMC conferences.
This city is very fortunate to have person as dedicated to his profession as is
Frank Boyles. I may disagree with him at times but I know that he has done
the work necessary to keep us in the positive position the city is in today.
VIIL ProfessionallPersonal Development: I'm not sure as to how much
additional training there is available for City Managers. The attributes Frank
brings to the city already is above average. Its imperative that as the city
moves forward in a positive way that Frank be permitted to be educated on the
advances needed in government.
Salary Discussion: Several things need to be taken into account when the salary
adjustment is determined.
L Frank has spent nearly half of the year without an Assistant City Manager.
That doubles his responsibility and he has not let the city down one step. That
is an incredible accomplishment.
IL The salaries of Staff that Frank has to manage are slowly catching up with the
City Manager salary. We'd be hard pressed to find a quality city Manager
such as Frank for anything less. I encourage a minimum 4% salary increase.
w)
Pete Schenck
2
-w
12/06/99 MON 11:05 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
It! 006
t
~
MANAGERS EVALUATION SCORE SHEET
~.
Evaluator,lQOn K9dVOw':,k'"
. .
Dat.:_\~ -1- q1
Please rate the appropriate areas as follows:
~
~.
,,~
5 - Well above standards (please comment)
4 ~ Above standards
3 . Meets standards
2 - Below standards
1 - wen Below Standards (please comment)
L Organizational Management:
A) J../
B) .5
C)S:
D)~
U. FiscallBusiness Management:
A)5
B)J1
C)5
D)'i
E) b
m. Program Developm:nt:
A) ;.f
B)4
C)1
D)i
IV. Relationship witb Council:
A) '-I
B) t1
C)5
D)~
q,l~
I-J.b
)-1.0
L) . Z {"
RECEIVED TIMEDEC. G,
11' r.~A'i/
.. , . ... _ f!
PRiNT TIMEDEC. 6. 11:10AM
12/06/99 MON 11:05 FAX 6124474245 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~ \' ~ KQdyoG-"\\<!
IaJ 007
v. Long Range Planning:
A)S"
B)_iJ
C) 7; i\ .~3
D~- '1
E)tj
i F)fI
VI Relationship with PublidPublic Relations:
A)5
B)4 ~_:):J
C)'-f
~j.
vn.q IDteragency Relations:
A)
B)Lf
~-o
vm. ProfessioallPenonal Development:
A) lJ
B)?
C)5
j
e:
~
,,<
.~
.~
4.~1-
Overall Evaluation:
~ Considering the above ranking collectively, I believe that the City Manager's performance over the
,- ,: review period has been:
5 - Well above standards
LS:4 - Above standanls t.\ .'31-
_3 - Meets standards
_1- Below studanls
_1 - Well Below Standards
,
;~
Eval..atioo Comments: --. ,
. 1\ .1 c J,... \ .;L <Sn X- / ..~ C <A. \ - ~ ~ ~ rJ -eO .
K 0.;:, (} ()"e.. \.., II OOn \GW. \ "c\. ~ U0
\"dJ:i;,\.~ ~J.C'-~~ ~, Y00r ():)O. A'O 4-\t 6,
WQd\'{ 0 t(\life~. '.
, Co mtr\.u r\ ~ S0.. fVtl W<>:S A-. t;.>.- h.-\-- \0<A..lv v6.s
~~i V\'l'I'O s+~~ ~i\le'-\-\ClV\U OY1~ f-\~~~.~
(J /')J. I ..' I 1
l.)L/V ~ \ ~ . '. \~.\
,~ ,\--Q \r\f'qIl~\'I'~ cJA ~k CAJollL I'V, IS~\~ u ,-\Jh
;i_Sc ~0~ L_ v.?~l~~LEt ~ME~C-JJ' llVJ~Mi rdSI\'~~~ T~MEDIbJ'o~) lOAM
_ rlu'J dovte. (.t Cpt:,~ ~~ u-J ,'+k .. s \--i4-~; -
W;.~ C?(?O~l9-- W~ IC)~ ~i\fJJV>tkov &"Q~7i~,
(]Q{~~S ~I'\\; eJ ~ VI . 3f Shou--lJ, ~h~t( i s ~it1i1l
~.Q~<0V I () -t If\ ~L-,;t .
'.l- . DQ..\l' e.~ --r ,Oh \< h M IA- \ a-t cJn h ,,S
GlCA'd oV\~ dOQ[) ACC(9J'Vl(f/;S,h <-i o'{~+ ~h.lVv\hvr
'b G(O~~Gts, -r SJ2-~ ~ ci irl.'cA--iVGO,
~ ~~ ~ts ~+ Uirt~ 4uchu.
.. R\D-'L6 ~ .~~ * ~ to A I ~ C1!J --f-k-
~'~ U5LJ~\ m+T \~ ~
1 GU bV-K.
~~AGERSEVALUATIONSCORESHEET
Evaluator: \/; M ,11:. lei-- 5 ~ ^I
Date: /)- - I - r '7
Please rate the appropriate areas as follows:
5 - Well above standards (please comment)
4 - Above standards
3 - Meets standards
2 - Below standards
1 - Well Below Standards (please comment)
I. Organizational Management:
A) ~
B) '3
C)J
D) 3
3.25"
II. FiscallBusiness Management:
A):x
B)3
C) '-/-
D)3
E) "1
3~1
ill. Program Development:
A) "2
B) 3
c)3
D) 3
3.0
IV. Relationship with Council:
A) "3
B) 3
C):3
D) :3
3.0
V. Long Range Planning:
A) 3
B) :3
C) 3> \(
3..1
D) 3
E)3
F) Y
VI Relationship with Public/Public Relations:
A) 3
B) 11' ~ .lQ"l
C) :Y
VIT. Interagency Relations:
A)~ ~.O
B) 7'
VITI. Professioal/Personal Development:
A) "3
B) 3
C)3
:,~O
-----=\
~ '~L'?:>
OOV
Overall Evaluation:
Considering the above ranking collectively, I believe that the City Manager's performance over the
review period has been:
5 - Well above standards
4 - Above standards
>< 3 - Meets standards "3..-0\
2 - Below standards
1 - Well Below Standards
Evaluation Comments:
..
. .
"71.
MANAGERS EVALUATION SCORE SHEET
Evaluator:
Date: JZ/S/'C)
Please rate the appropriate areas as foHows:
5.. WeB above ItaIIdanls (please coinment)
4 - Above standards'
3.. Meets studardl
2.. Below stalldards
1 - WeB Below Standards (please comment)
L Orpuizational MaDagement: 3, ~'
A) 3
B) 3
C) .3
D) -3
R Fiscall.Busiaess Management: \. 4-
A) 3.
B) I
C) 1
D) .J
E) ~l
DL PreiramDevdOpmeifi "'%.S'
A) 3
B) 3
C) 2-
. D) 2-
IV. Relatioaablp with Couucil: %.0
A) Z
B) ,
C) Z.
D) .3
...
- .
. <
V* LoBg Range PhmDiRg : 3, "
A) J
B) .3
C) J
D) 3
E) -3
F) 3
VI Relationship with PubliclPublic Relations: %.0
A) .3
B) Z.
C) I
VB. IDterageueyRefatiOUS: _
A) !
B) 3
vm. ProfessioallPenoDaI Development: 2.333
Al r
B)
'. 2
C) 4.
OveraD Evalu.tlon:..
Considering the above ranking collectively>> I believe that the City Manager's performance over the
review period has been:
_5 - WeD above standards
_4 - Above standards
3 - Meets standanb
X 2 - Below staDelards 2. "I
_1 - Well Below Standards
I'.v....n Comments:
SURVEY JOB TITLE: City Uanager/Adminis~rator/County Administrator
JOB NO. 175
tllllH Luvul. lUll IHIIl11111l1l'lIlu.' III A1I1I1JdIIlIHly, GUllllly III' .'ullllull III1Vnrllll\!I11 111111.
EXallple of Duties . Carries out the policies established by the Board, Council or Couission for the efficient administration of the
county's or municipality's business. Duties include coordinating the administration of all county or municipal departments, developing the
annual budget, preparing for and attending board or council meetings, providing information to the public concerning government business,
supervising the maintenance of records and making recommendations for the improvement of efficient administration of the affairs of the
governmental unit.
Uinimum Qualifications - Requires managerial, administrative and educational experience necessary for the management of a governmental
unit.
All Rates Quoted Uonthly.
P After WTD UEAN RATES indicates pending rate
. - Uultiple range
- - - - - - -- -- - -- . RANGE DATA--. - -. -- -.. - --
EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCL. LONGEVITY
WTD WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION # OF 0 VAS VAS VAS VAS
# OF UEAN EUPL TRANSPORT / OF # OF TO # OF TO TOP
JURISDICTION EUPl RATES 2918 5155 6500 7867+DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE UIN UAX STEPS UAX UAX STEPS UAX ADUIN
UET AIRPORTS COUU
9461
U.P.A. 475 CAR PROV N 14.0 EXEC DIRECTOR
26.0
GROUP STATISTICS:
9461 Q1: 9461 02: 9461 Q3: 9461
Average:
9524
14
18
21.0
15.0
1.0
RAUSEY COUNTY
UINNEAPOLIS
HENNEPIN COUNTY
9051
9285
9424
B.A.
B.S.
3000 .31/UILE N
3757 200/UONTH N
11017 .315/UIlE N
13.0
4.0
1.0
COUNTY IIGR
City Coordinato
CTY ADIIN
7836 9761 7
9074 10029 4
11414
7
6.0
GROUP STATISTICS:
9253 Q1: 9051 02: 9285 Q3: 9424
Average:
8455 9895
10469
DULUTH 7339 U.A. 951 .31/UIlE N 0.7 ADUIN ASSISTANT 0.7
SCOTT COUNTY 7167 II.A. 494 350/UONTH N 1.5 COUNTY ADUIN 5743 8606 10.0
CARVER COUNTY 8071 U.A. 464 275/UONTH N 12.0 COUNTY ADIIIN 5241 8071 11 9.0
DAKOTA COUNTY 9000 II.P.A. 1657 300/UONTH N 7.0 CO ADIIINISTRAT 6008 9008 7.0
ANOKA COUNTY 9170 II.A. 1677 .31/UILE N 17.0 ADIIINISTRATOR 6352 9527 9727 3 15
ST LOUIS COUNTY 8419 II.A. 2094 .325/IIILE N 3.0 CNTY ADII 6769 7836 4 3.0 3.0
WASHINGTON COUNTY 8623 II.A. 964 .31/IIILE N 5.0 CO ADIIINISTRATR 6291 9312 5.0
OlUSTED COUNTY 8202 II.A. 951 .31/UILE N 25.0 COUNTY ADIIIN 5690 9088 25.0
GROUP STATISTICS: 8249 Q1: 7705 Q2: 8311 Q3: 8812 Average: 6013 8778 9727
..................................... .............. ............ .................. ................... .......................... ................................ .'... ........ .... .... ....................... ............................ ............ .... .. ...... .............. .. ............................. ...... ........ ....................
BlOOIIINGTON 8417 II.P.A. 523 350/UONTH N 8.0 CITY IlANAGER 14.0
BROOKLYN PARK 8114 II.P.A. 306 350/UONTH N 3.5 CITY IlANAGER
. '. 'III I" " JIJ .. " " N " " " " " ~ rr II Ir: rJl r
- , :: '.
U~L.I
II
II'
III
y
y
III
w
..
III
..
-
~
...
-
-
w
w
y
JOB 110. 175
SURVEY TITLE:
city Uanager/Administrator/county Administrator (cont.)
. _.' _ _ _ _ _ _. - - -RAtlGE DATA-..... -. - - -' -'
EXCLUDIIIG LOIIGEVITY INCL. LONGEVITY
WTD WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIOII # OF 0 YRS YRS YRS YRS
# OF UEAN EUPL TRANSPORT / OF # OF TO # OF TO TOP
JURISDICTIOII EUPL RATES 2918 5155 6500 7B67+DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE UIII UAX STEPS UAX UAX STEPS UAX ADUIN
SURVEY TITLE:
City uanager/Administrator/county Administrator (Cont.)
JOB NO. 175
- -. - -- - -. - -. --RANGE DATA- - - - - -. - -- -.--
EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCL. LONGEVITY
WTD WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION /I OF 0 YRS YRS YRS YRS
/I OF UEAN EUPL TRANSPORT / OF /I OF TO /I OF TO TOP
JURISDICTION EUPL RATES 2918 5155 6500 7867+DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE UIN UAX STEPS UAX UAX STEPS UAX ADUIN
HOPKINS 7126 B.S. 113 300/1I0NTH N 9.0 CITY MANAGER 5734 7746 10.0
CHASKA 6872 II.P.A. 78 400/UONTH N 15.0 ADUINISTRATOR 5683 7382 21.0
PRIOR LAKE 6378 U.A. 69 425/1I0NTH N 6.0 CITY MANAGER 4813 7220 6.0
ROBBINSDALE 6833 U.A. 90 300/1I0NTH N 3.0 CITY IIANAGER 5910 7777 6 16.0
SHAKOPEE 6257 II.A. 70 300/1I0NTH N 3.0 CITY ADU 5588 6985 8 7.0 16.0
LINO LAKES 6107 II.A. 54 250/1I0NTH N 0.3 CITY ADUIN 5600 7000 6 4.0 0.3
ROSEIIOUNT 6538 II.A. 61 300/1I0NTH N 5.0 CITY ADIIIN 5810 6640 6 5.0 6905 4 16 9.0
UOUNDS VIEW 6644 B.A. 49 300/UONTH N 3.0 CITY ADUIN 5315 6644 5 3.0 9.0
NORTH SAINT PAUL 6333 U.A. 59 CAR PROV N 1.5 CITY MANAGER 1.5
VADNAIS HEIGHTS 4933P B.S. 20 150/1I0NTH N 21.0 ADUINISTRATOR 3946 4933 6 4.0 21.0
UENDOTA HEIGHTS 5473 II.P.A. 44 175/UONTH N 3.0 CITY ADIIIN 3.0
GROUP STATISTICS: 6758 Ql: 6333 02: 6708 Q3: 6931 Average: 5629 7296 6877
-- --.. -- --.... --...................... -.. -_...... -.. -- -- --- -- -- -- -- --...... -- -- --......... --.. -- -- --...... -- --.......................... --...... --....................... -- -- -- -- --....- -- -- --.... --....... --.... --.. -.. --............ ---...... -- -.-.
1I0UND 1 6180 U.A. 43 DAY USE N 13.0 CITY MANAGER 4992 6239 4 22.0
ARDEN HILLS 1 5703 B.S. 22 320/UONTH N 4.0 CITY ADUIN 4278 5703 6 5.0 4.0
LITTLE CANADA 1 5812 II.P.A. 15 .325/IIILE N 9.0 CITY ADUIN 4833 5812 6 5.0 19.0
ST ANTHONY 1 5843 U.A. 81 150/1I0NTH N 4.0 CITY UANAGER 14.0
IIAHTOUEDI 1 5391 II.A. 12 200/1I0NTH N 0.8 CITY ADUIN 0.8
ORONO 1 6410 U.A. 47 200/1I0NTH N 8.0 CITY ADIIIN 5611 6603 4 3.0 17.0
SHOREWOOD 1 5487 II.P.A. 30 .31/IIILE N 8.0 CITY ADIIIN/CLK 4390 5487 5 3.0 21.0
FOREST LAKE 1 5463 II.P.A. 27 250/1I0NTH N 5.0 CITY ADIIIN 22.0
SPRING LAKE PARK 1 5240 NONE 43 .325/IIILE N 4.0 ADIIINISTRATOR 4716 5240 3 2.0 19.0
LAKE ELIIO 1 4342P NONE 11 100/1I0NTH N 7.0 ADIIINISTRATOR 3567 4417 7.0
HUGO 1 4567 II.P.A. 6 245/UONTH N 7.0 CITY ADIIIN 15.0
WACONIA 1 5000 II.A. 18 225/1I0NTH N 5.0 CITY ADU 3712 5568 9 5.0
FALCON HEIGHTS 1 5015 II.A. 13 250/1I0NTH N 8.0 CITY ADIIIN 8.0
DAYTON 1 4708 NONE 14 .31/IIILE N 9.0 CITY ADIIIN 3512 4943 8 9.0
ST PAUL PARK 1 5808 II.P.A. 19 300/1I0NTH N 24.0 CITY ADIIIN 25.0
CIRCLE PINES 1 5015 II.P.A. 33 .31/IIILE N 12.0 CITY ADIIIN 3959 5279 5 6.0 21.0
IIINNETRISTA 1 4583 II.P.A. 10 .32/IIILE N 1.0 CITY ADIIIN 4052 5065 5 3.0 4.0
NEW PRAGUE 1 4739 B.S. 58 225/1I0NTH N 24.0 CITY ADIIIN 3539 4739 8 7.0 24.0
WAYZATA 1 5150P B.S. 60 350/1I0NTH N 12.0 CITY UANAGER 12.0
ST FRANCIS 1 4529 B.S. 20 .31/UILE N 7.0 COORDlNATOR/PLN 3584 4529 6 4.0 7.0
OAK PARK HEIGHTS 1 6266 II.A. 22 300/1I0NTH N 1.0 ADIIINISTRATOR 6830 4 16 15.0
IIEDINA 1 4095 II.P.A. 15 .315/IIILE N 3.0 CLERK-TREASURER 3697 4989 11 10.0 3.0
DEEPHAVEN 1 4272P II.A. 17 .31/IIILE N 2.0 CITY ADIIIN 3906 4856 5 5.0 2.0
JORDAN 1 4393 B.S. 18 150/1I0NTH N 2.0 CITY ADUIN 3303 5239 9 8.0 12.0
VICTORIA 1 4054P B.A. 9 2 N 4.5 CITY ADUIN 3519 4491 6 15.0
ROCKFORD 1 3274 NONE 8 .30/IIILE N 1.0 ADIIINISTRATOR 1.0
- - .... - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lrll U
Itli
II
1;1.. ll-H-Il' ~J;-I-I~l I-I. "1:-1 'IJ' U ,-, -I;' J-'J 1J ~ITI (Ill
iii ; . Wi III ..... .: .. W' iii: ... III: iii.: .!
,.,
.\
-1\
SURVEY TITLE:
City Manager/Administrator/county Administrator (cont.)
JOB NO. 175
. - -- -- . - -- - -- . RANGE DATA- - -- - . -- - . - - - -
EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCL. LONGEVITY
WTD WAGE FREOUENCY DISTRIBUTION II OF 0 YRS YRS YRS YRS
II OF UEAN EUPL TRANSPORT / OF II OF TO /I OF TO TOP
JURISDICTION EUPL RATES 2918 5155 6500 7867+DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE UIN UAX STEPS UAX UAX STEPS UAX ADUIN
BAYPORT 5898 U.A. 14 300/UONTH N 7.0 CITY ADUIN 4369 6152 8 7.0 7.0
INDEPENDENCE 1 3423 NONE 6 .31/UILE Y 2.0 CITY CLERK- TREA 3323 4486 10 15.0 10.0
NORWOOD YOUNG AMERICA 1 3863 U.P.A. 8 .315/UILE N 6.5 CITY ADUIN 2773 3962 7 6.0
AFTON 1 4167 U.P.A. 4 .325/UILE N 3.5 CITY ADUIN 3328 4248 5 3.0 16.0
LAUDERDALE 1 3835 U.P.A. 5 .315/UILE N 1.0 CITY ADUIN 3610 4512 5 3.0 3.0
EXCELSIOR 1 4767 U.P.A. 12 200/UONTH N 2.0 CITY UANAGER 2.0
LONG LAKE 1 4275 U.P.A. 7 .32/UILE N 5.0 ADUINISTRATOR 8.0
SPRING PARK 1 3004 NONE 3 .30/UILE N 5.0 ADUINISTRATOR 16.0
GREENFIELD 1 2918 B.A. 2 .325/UILE N 0.0 CITY ADUIN/CLER 2600 3557 8 8.0 0.0
HAU LAKE 1 5155 NONE 13 .31/UILE N 12.0 ADU/CLERK/TREAS 4122 5155 5 3.0 12.0
FARUINGTON 1 5911 U.P.A. 61 200/UONTH' N 3.0 CITY ADUIN 5409 6479
GROUP STATISTICS: 4871 01: 4275 02: 5000 03: 5703 Average: 3987 5181 6830
~ .. - .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - - - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ..
OVERALL:
91 6612 20
23
24
24
5379 7022
JOB RATES DISTRIBUTION: Pl0= 4393
01 = 5463
02= 6708
03= 8025
P90= 8575
a~otPriol'Lake
1999a~Staffl.ooompll&hmen_
- Acquired 38.4 acre Busse property. Rough grading complete.
- Lakefront Park Improvements (85% complete)
- Library / Resource Center constructed and opened.
- Completed Ponds Park Expansion project.
- Completed first comprehensive Community Survey.
- Contracted for Downtown Redevelopment Plan (75% complete)
- Updated Police Policy Manual
- Implemented Geographic Information System software.
- Developed Y2K action plans.
- Improved building permit process.
- Reformatted and Republished City Code and Zoning Ordinance.
- Proposed and received approval for 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment.
- Installed entry monuments.
- Established Web page and E-mail availability.
- Renegotiated cable television ordinance and agreement.
- Programmed three major TH 13 intersections for improvement in 2000 - 2004 Capital
Improvement Program.
- Proposed draft 2000 budget allowing 4% levy reduction.
- Concluded 1998 Public Improvement projects.
- Proposed and Implemented three tax-saving measures for City Council consideration.
- Initiated approval for installation of EVPs at six high volume intersections.
- Revised format and method of distribution for Wavelength newsletter.
- City Bond Rating improved from A-1 to A-2.
- Purchase Kop property for inclusion in Lakefront Park.
- Initiated Phase I of inflow/infiltration program.
- Transferred Responsibility for on-site sewage maintenance program to County.
- Negotiated short-term lease of old library building with Scott-Rice Telephone.
~-
.
City of frior Lake
City Staff Potential Projects for 2000
~ Complete and begin implementation of Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
~ Negotiate Turnback Agreement that improves streets before received by City.
~ Complete acquisition of 25.5 acres for last athletic complex development (Spring Lake
Park).
~ Prepare, bid and initiate athletic complex construction (Spring Lake Park).
~ Complete Lakefront Park development.
~ Prepare and receive approval for Ring Road alignment and construction schedule.
~ Conduct deck seminar.
~ Conduct a building permit feedback forum.
~ Initiate feedback cards for customers.
~ Conduct town meetings.
~ Complete construction of the park on the Busse property.
~ Receive approval from City Council to adopt new subdivision ordinance.
~ Receive approval from City Council to adopt new engineering design manual.
~ Recommend at least one proposal for improving effectiveness of agenda conveyance
process to City Council.
~ Conclude PEG Agreement between City and School District.
~ Complete plans for Police Academy program.
~ Conduct one Developer Feedback session.
~ Complete Storm Water Fee Justification Study.
~ Initiate Park Support Fee Justification Study.
~ Upgrade six neighborhood parks and build CIP specified trails.
~ Complete 1999 public improvement projects.
~ Develop at least one new applications for GIS.
~ Receive Bond Rating upgrade.
~ Make at least one improvement in Web Page.
.....'.