The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.b. City Administrator's Performance Evaluation� s City of Rosemount City Administrator Performance Review Name: Date of Review: z MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19, 2001 TO: Mayor Busho, Council Members Cisewski, Edwards, Klassen, and Riley FROM: Paula Graff, HR Coordinator RE: City Administrator's Performance Evaluation At the April 11` Committee of the Whole meeting, Council indicated that they would like to proceed with their annual performance evaluation for the City Administrator, Tom Burt. Attached is the performance evaluation form that Mayor Busho has provided to Council the last several years. It is my suggestion that you complete the form and review it with Tom at his evaluation session. At this time, I would also request that the Council consider increasing the salary range for the Administrator position. If Council recalls, last year I completed a market study of all non -union positions except for the City Administrator position. Since last year I have compiled data regarding City Administrator's salaries for the same cities that were studied in the 2000 market study i.e. Shakopee, Chaska, Chanhassen, Hastings, Lino Lakes, etc. Results (see Attachment 2) indicate that the average maximum compensation for City Administrators among these cities was $87,184 (2000 data). This indicates that currently we lag over $5,120 behind comparable cities when it comes to administrator compensation. The 2000 Stanton Survey also showed that Staton VI cities average maximum for administrators in 2000 was $85,680 with an average car allowance of $318 per month. I would recommend that Council consider raising the range for the Administrator for three reasons. First, pay equity analysis of all city positions has calculated that Administrator compensation is below what it should be considering the points assigned to the position. Also, as compensation for positions below the administrator continue to increase there is an increasing amount of compression of positions with substantially lower points. Finally, the City has already demonstrated a tendency to compensate its positions at a level that is average for other Staton IV cities. I believe that it is appropriate to continue this practice with the Administrator's position as well. My recommendation would be to increase the range of pay for the Administrator at the average for other Staton VI cities with the top of the range increased to $88,436 (a 3% increase over the 2000 average amount of $85,860). The 2000 Staton information is attached for Council review as well (Attachment 3) If acceptable to Council, this would establish a 2001 salary range as follows: Step 1 Step,2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 $73,960 $76,855 $79,750 $82,646 $85,541 $88,436 However, if Council wishes not to increase the compensation range for the Administrator position, I would at minimum like to have a 3% market rate increase imposed upon the range. Unlike the rest of the City's non -union employees, the Administrator did not receive a 3% market rate adjustment on January 1, 2001 because traditionally increases to his compensation have been made following the completion of a performance review. A 3% increase to the 2000 range would establish a salary range as follows: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 $73,960 $76,073 $78,186 $80,300 $82,413 $84,526 Should Council have questions, please contact me at 651- 322 -2002. - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Y City Administrator Performance Review PLANNING - ability to anticipate and analyze problems; maps effective solutions. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: ORGANIZING - ability to arrange work and efficiently apply resources. Q unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: SUPERVISION builds and motivates a team, provides direction, monitors and adjusts performance as necessary. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment DELEGATION - effectively assigns work to others and builds their skills. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment TIMING, i.e. opportunist - makes decisions when sufficient information is available, implements action when conditions are ripe for success. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - accurately and concisely reports (and projects) the financial condition; manage - ment practices and policies are designed to maintain (or achieve) a sound long range financial condition uses debt cautiously, plans for the long term replacement and maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment FORGES COMPROMISES - has the ability to resolve the numerous conflicts inherent in municipal government - is a good negotiator. D unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment ANALYTICAL - in making decisions considers the best available facts, projections and scientific evidence. To the extent that resources permit, insures that these tools are available. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment. SENSITIVITY - listens and understands the positions and circumstances of others; communicates that understanding. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor Q acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Commcna . • Y f Explanations and Directions Evaluation as Team Building If a performance review is to be, in the truest sense, a means of team building, certain conditions must prevail. The two processes must be compatible and interrelated in the following ways: 1. Evaluation is basically a means, not an end in itself. 2. The trust level between the evaluatee and the elvaluators must be high. 3. The roles each are to fulfill must be clearly indicated and accepted. 4. Responsibilities are matched with pre - determined standards of performance. Definition of Roles A. City Council 1. Conduct annual assessment of performance of the City Administrator. 2. Respect the prerogatives of the City Administrator insofar as operational management function of the City is concerned and the policy function of the City Council. 3. Make assessments in general terms except in instances where specific improvements are needed or when explicit commendations are due. B. City Administrator 1. Accepts the prospects of annual evaluations. 2. Understand the scope and thrust of the evaluations. 3. Expects the evaluations to adhere to the established procedures for evaluating the performance of the City Administrator. Pre- Determined Performance Standards A performance standard is defined as the condition that will exist when a responsibility of function is successfully performed. It is essential that a performance standard is established, at the outset, for each of the eight major areas of responsibility of the City Administrator. This is necessary in order to use the rating scale effectively. Major Areas of Responsibility It should be reiterated that in determining the appropriate level of expectations, actual performance must be measured in relation to the indicated standard of performance. Several major Areas of responsibility are identified as the basis upon which assessments are to be made. EIGHT MAJOR AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY I. Organizational Management U. Fiscal Management III. Program IV. Relationship and Communication with the City Council V. Long -Range Planning VI. Relationship with Public and Outside Organizations VII.Interagency Relations VIII. Professional /Personal Development COMMUNICATIONS WITH GOVERNING BODY - accurately interprets the direction given by the governin body; keeps you well informed with concise oral and written communication. ❑ unacceptable 0 poor 0 acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC - is open and available to the public, takes their concerns an problems seriously, recognizes the publics right and need to be well informed; is visible in the community. 0 unacceptable 0 poor 0 acceptable 0 good 0 excellent Comment COMMUNICATIONS WITH EMPLOYEES - provides sufficient information to keep the employees productiv, motivated and part of the team; understands their concerns. ❑ unacceptable 0 poor 0 acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: CREATIVITY - ability to reach for effective, and when necessary, inventive solutions. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor 0 acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: HONEST -FAIR - consistently open and straightforward; impartial. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor 0 acceptable 0 good ❑ excellent Comment: ADAPTABLE - responds positively to a changing world and changing local conditions; does not cling to the status qt: for its own sake. ❑ unacceptable 0 poor 0 acceptable 0 good ❑ excellent Comment: RESILIENT - energy and motivation maintained in spite of constant demands; handles stress well. ❑ unacceptable 0 poor 0 acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment. HUMOR - maintains and shares an appropriate sense of humor to lighten the load. ❑ unacceptable 0 poor 0 acceptable 0 good ❑ excellent Comment. HIRING - recognizes the value of excellent employees and uses all reasonable efforts to insure that the best availab• individuals are recruited and hired. 0 unacceptable 0 poor 0 acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: RISK MANAGEMENT - implements effective programs to limit liability and loss. 0 unacceptable ❑ poor 0 acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: LEADERSHIP - guides effectively. O unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment•. ACCEPTS DIRECTION - aggressively responds to the direction of the majority of the governing body - n sidetracked by the minority but recognises their concerns. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment ETHICAL - conforms to the high standards of the profession; if a member of ICMA, knows, follows and promotes t "ICMA Code of Ethics." ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: JOB KNOWLEDGE - has a solid understanding of all phases of municipal government. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable C got: ❑ excellent Comment: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT - takes action to acquire new knowledge and skills - encourages employees do the same. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: SUCCESSFUL - in spite of limited resources, makes it happen. — ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: QUALITY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES - how well do the direct services provided meet the needs of t. community. (CEO to correct the following list prior to distribution) Street Maintenance Police Services Fire - Emergency Medical Parks Recreation Services Water & Sewer Land Use Animal Control Construction & Engineering Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Good Excellent ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ O ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C O ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ O ❑ O C ❑ ❑ O ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ O ❑ C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C ❑ Y O.REI2ATIONAL EFFICIENCY - obtains the best possible end result for the money spent. _ ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor Q acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: CREDITS GOVERNING BODY - credits municipal accomplishments to the policy makers; does not feed a Personal ego. 0 unaccepable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: COMPLETION OF PRIOR OBJECTIVES - considering the resources available, how well CEO implemented prior objectives. ❑ unacceptable ❑ poor ❑ acceptable ❑ good ❑ excellent Comment: NEW OBJECTIVES - list new priorities (the CEO then will prepare draft action plan for your review). OTHER WEAKNESSES - list other areas in need of improvement. OTHER STRENGTHS list other strengths. signacure of ewlwwr evaluation period dace •J .1 r n t A� r ti _ 9s o� A o ^ 0 S o �CD 03 �!0) ' � �;�,o � XI =:C y 0 ; N y i y -3 g - cr CD l 0 CD 31 �p 3i� 3 ! 0 CD CD CD m .4 Fl! ; 3 x W CD O W I N co cc); (3) y N -a -+ i N Co 31 CD O -4 : CD CD CD V M i , CL M D f 0 C 3 CD �' CD 4' 4 i CA X CD. 03 n 3 o' -� v, Ca w o'er rn a) cn $ CD aa CD O Co Co AO:A.I n I� CD oCL CL 3 CO 3 x CO .i 0) v (1 @ CD O n 3 N' A O CO o A' O• C); O O a - CA O `G CA Cn co .p N (p .A A ; O • y D Q I o . 'D K X CD co co 0) ! y -, CD v n 3;�. W CA O rn N� n _ CD CD CD i CD � m 4 4� CD mim N �;V cc 3 Cn 1 m CD CD �'N' CD!CD Cn (m V W A,'Cn CA v j Xi cr cr :3 j Cp COQ -41 3 N Cni I O ;N!aa�Cv �� Vi O Oi ?ICD � j � co 3 . M N CD (D o OD N N � cn I CD - `G O;O CD cm 4,co ; � D 3 rCD C, m y x co co rn CD 13) n 3'w � $ - o : _. C) CO;O w w 0 . , Co --4 . `< O :.A I .A. CD Cb : v O O N CD W co co CS)! CD N CA W v _v O t N N CI7'Cn O!OOy OI�'co SURVEY JOB TITLE: City Manager /Administrator /County Administrator JOB N0. 175 Skill Level - Top administrator in municipality, county or related government unit. Example of Duties - Carries out the policies established by the Board, Council or Commissio Duties include coordinating n for the efficient administration of the county's or municipality's business. 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. Minimum Qualifications - Requires managerial, administrative and educational experience necessary for the management of a governmental unit. All Rates Quoted Monthly P After WTD MEAN RATES indicates pending rate WTD WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION # OF 0 YRS # OF MEAN EMPL TRANSPORT / OF JURISDICTION EMPL RATES 2918 5546 6965 8230 +DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE MET AIRPORT COMM 1 9461P 1 M.P.A. 475 CAR PROV N 15.0 EXEC DIRECTOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 1 9150 1 N ADMINISTRATOR • - Multiple range ------- - - - - - - -RANGE DATA------- - EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCL. LONGEVITY YRS YRS YRS # OF TO # OF TO TOP MIN MAX STEPS MAX MAX STEPS MAX ADMIN 9150 27.0 GROUP STATISTICS: - ----- -- --------------- 9150 Q1: 9150 Q2: 9150 Q3: 9150 HENNEPIN COUNTY 1 -- -- --- 9999-- -------------------------- ' 9999 -- ------------------- Average: 9150 RAMSEY COUNTY MINNEAPOLIS 1 1 .9524 9487 10173 1 B.A. 3400 .31 /M11:1- N N 1.0 ---- ------ CNTY ADMN CIY -- -- --- ---- --- 9524 - - -- --- 9999 9999 9674 - 9999 --- 9999- 14 18 1 B.S. B.S. 4350 200 /MONIII N 7.0 MANAGER COORDINATOR 8110 10253 7 7 1 .0 9383 10371 4 6.() GROUP STATISTICS:.. ----- - - 9728 Q1: .9487 Q2: 9524 Q3: 10173 - - -- ----- ----- DAKOTA COUNTY 9 728 - --- - --9487 --- -------------- 9999 -- 9 999 - 9999- -- -- -- Avera e: 8 8747 10049 10721 ANOKA COUNTY 1 1 9483 9445 1 M.P.A. 1659 -- --- 300 /MONTH - -- -- 9999 N 8.0 -- -- ----- - -- - -- ---- ADMINISTRATOR ------10208 - 0208 ---------------------------- ST LOUIS COUNTY 1 8 1 M.A. 1720 .325 /MILE N 18.0 CTY ADMIN 6542 9813 8.0 WASHINGTON COUNTY 1 925P 8925 M.A. 2453 32.5 /MILE N 1.0 COUNTY ADM 5 18013 COUNTY 1 8871 1 1 M.A. 984 .325 /MILE N 6.0 CO ADMINISTRATR 6488 9591 4 3.0 DULU TED DULUTH SCOTT COUNTY 1 7 449 1 M.A. B.S. 963 982 .31 /MILE /MILE N 26.0 CTY ADMINISTRAT 5917 9452 6.0 CARVER COUNTY 1 1 7525 8342 1 M.A. 504 •325 350 /MONTH N N 0.0 2.5 ADMIN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 26.8 0.0 1 M.A. 496 275 /MONTH N 13.0 COUNTY ADMIN 5961 5371 8843 11.0 8342 11 10:0 GROUP STATISTICS: 8577 Q1: 7525 Q2: 8871 Q3: 9445 --------------- - 9999 -- Average: 60 56 g 375 1 0013 ti SURVEY TITLE: City Manager /Administrator /County Administrator (Cont.) JOB NO. 175 ---- - - - - -- - RANGE DATA-------------- EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCL. LONGEVITY WTD WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION # OF' 0 YRS YRS YRS YRS # OF MEAN EMPL TRANSPORT / OF # OF TO # OF TO TOP JURISDICTION EMPL RATES 2918 5546 6965 8230 +DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE MIN MAX STEPS MAX MAX STEPS MAX ADMIN BLOOMINGTON 1 9086 1 M.P.A. 524 350 /MONTH N 9.0 City Manager 14.0 BROOKLYN PARK 1 8357 1 M.P.A. 315 350 /MONTH N 4.5 CITY MANAGER PLYMOUTH 1 8306 1 M.P.A. 244 300 /MONTH N 7.0 City Manager 8306 COON RAPIDS 1 8167 1 M.A. 242 350 /MONTH N 3.0 CITY MANAGER 29.0 EAGAN 1 8687 1 M.P.A. 215 563 /MONTH N 24.0 CITY ADM 7509 8835 10 9.0 28.0 BURNSVILLE 1 9004 1 M.A. 257 400 /MONTH N 9.0 City Manager 9.0 MINNETONKA 1 8246 1 M.P.A. 212 425 /MONTH "N 7.0 CITY MANAGER 7421 8246 26.0 EDEN PRAIRIE 1 9346 1 M.A. 245 650 /MONTH N 1.5 CITY MANAGER 8372 12180 1.5 EDINA 1 9106 1 B.S. 275 450 /MONTH N 1.5 CITY MGR 9106 1.5 MAPLE GROVE 1 8222 1 M.A. 192 350 /MONTH N 3.0 CITY ADMINIST 6849 8557 6 5.0 3.0 ST LOUIS PARK 1 86651 1 M.P.A. 234 750 /MONTH N 7.0 CITY MANAGER 7791 9166 5.0 25.0 BLAINE 1 8319 1 N.P.A. 146 325 /MONTH N 4.0 CITY MANAGER 11.0 APPLE VALLEY 1 7717 1 M.P.A. 187 385 /MONTH N 1.0 CITY ADMIN 6792 7717 10.0 LAKEVILLE 1 7999 1 NONE 185 400 /MONTH N 11.0 CITY ADMIN 6274 7835 6 5.0 26.0 WOODBURY 1 8051 1 M.A. 1S5 310 /MONTH N 12.0 Administrator 6325 8214 5 4.0 12.0 MAPLEWOOD 1 8557 1 M.A. 162 450 /MONTH N 13.0 CITY MANAGER 6743 9084 27.0 RICHFIELD 1 8001 1 M.A. 250 400 /MONTH N 1.0 CITY MANAGER 8.0 ROSEVILLE 1 8237 1 M.P.A. 147 275 /MONTH N 11.0 CITY MANAGER 6664 9732 20.0 COTTAGE GROVE • 1 7083 1 M.P.A. 117 300 /MONTH N 3.0 CITY ADMIN 11.0 BROOKLYN CENTER 1 7917 1 J.D. 220 300 /MONTH N 5.0 CITY MGR 7917 9.0 FRIDLEY 1 8509 1 Ph.D. 172 287 /MONTH N 11.5 City Manager 7736 9670 7 10.0 24.0 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 1 7214P 1 M.A. 107 54000 /ANN N 7.0 CITY ADMIN 32.0 SHOREVIEW 1 7601 1 M.P.A. 75 375 1MONTH N 7.8 City Manager 7074 7991 5 3.0 7.0 WHITE BEAR LAKE 1 7287P 1 M.P.A. 99 300 /MONTH N 16.0 CITY MANAGER 16.8 OAKDALE 1 8198 1 M.P.A. 89 345 /MONTH N 7.0 ADMINISTRATOR 6043 8198 5 4.0 _7.8 GROUP STATISTICS: 8321 Q1: 8001 Q2: 8246 Q3: 8665 Average: 7046 8797 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL 1 7083 1 M.P.A. 93 400 /MONTH N 0.0 _ CITY MANAGER 7055 8466 6 0.0 NEW BRIGHTON 1 7103 1 M.P.A. 84 300 /MONTH N 7.0 CITY MANAGER 12.0 ANDOVER 1 7064 1 M.P.A. 50 300 /MONTH N 6.0 CITY ADMINIST 5937 7515 7 6.5 7665 3 20 10.0 NEW HOPE 1 8100 1 M.P.A. 93 650 /MONTH N 18.0 CITY MANAGER 18.0 GOLDEN VALLEY 1 8837 1 M.A. 122 456 /MONTH N 16.0 CITY MANAGER 22.0 CHAMPLIN 1 6915 1 M.A. 87 200 /MONTH_ N 0.0 CITY ADMINISTR 6661 7401 4 3.0 0.0 SOUTH ST PAUL 1 7292 1 M.P.A. 106 440 /MONTH N 8.0 CITY MANAGER 5433 7966 26.0 WEST ST PAUL 1 6920P 1 M.P.A. 100 165 /MONTH N 13.0 CITY MANAGER 5645 7056 13.0 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 1 6614 1 M.A. 140 350 /MONTH N 4.0 CITY MANAGER 23.0 ANOKA 1 6491 1 M.P.A. 153 325 /MONTH N 13.0 CITY MGR 5706 7133 6 5.0 13.0 RAMSEY 1 6906 1 M.A. 46 .325 /MILE N 2.0 CITY ADMINISTR 5'849 7133 7 6.8 10.0 HASTINGS 1 7007 1 M.A. 100 325 /MONTH N 10.0 CITY ADMINISTR 5802 6370 6 5.0 7076 3 15 18.0 CHANHASSEN 1 6848 1 M.P.A. 69 475 /MONTH N 2.0 City Manager 5093 7639 13.0 HOPKINS 1 7303 1 B.S. 114 300 /MONTH N 10.0 CITY MANAGER 5878 7940 8 11.0 i Z SURVEY TITLE: City Manager /Administrator /County Administrator (Cont.) JOB NO. 175 3 -- ----- - --- -- -RANGE DATA----------- --- EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCL. LONGEVITY WTD WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION # OF 0 YRS YRS YRS YRS # OF MEAN EMPL TRANSPORT / OF # OF TO # OF TO TOP URISDICTION EMPL RATES 2918 5546 6965 8230 +DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE MIN MAX STEPS MAX MAX STEPS MAX ADMIN ,TILLWATER 1 60101 1 B.S. 81 300 /MONTH N 21.0 CITY ADMINISTR 6010 21.0 SAVAGE 1 7510 1 J.D. 123 335 /11ONTH N 6.0 CITY ADMIN 5933 7510 8 6.0 11.0 1HAKOPEE 1 5783 1 M.A. 80 300 /MONTH N 4.0 CITY ADM 5756 7195 8 7.0 17.0 :HASKA 1 7217P 1 M.P.A. 95 100 /MONTH Y 16.0 ADMINISTRATOR 5882 7640 22.0 .INO LAKES 1 6922 1 M.P.A. 60 250 /MONTH N 1.0 CITY ADMINISTR 5768 7210 6 4.6 3.0 'RIOR LAKE 1 6878 1 M.A. 74 425 /MONTH N 7.0 CITY MGR 4813 7220 7.0 ZOBBINSDALE 1 7175 1 M.A. 90 350 /MONTH N 4.0 CITY MANAGER 6087 8010 7 17.0 /ADNAIS HEIGHTS 1 5032 1 B.S. 23 150 /MONTH N 22.0 ADMINISTRATOR 4025 5032 6 4.0 22.0 iOUNDS VIEW 1 6843 1 M.P.A. 50 300 /11ONTH N 4.0 ADMINISTRATOR 5474 6843 5 3.0 10.0 4ORTH ST PAUL 1 6833 1 M.P.A. 59 CAR PROV N 2.0 CITY MANAGER 2.0 20SEMOUNT 1 6473 1 M.A. 65 300 /MONTH N 6.0 CITY ADMIN 5984 6839 6 5.0 7113 4 16 10.0 JAM LAKE 1 5465 1 NONE 15 .325 /MILE N 14.0 ADM /CLERK /TREAS 4370 5465 5 3.0 iENDOTA HEIGHTS 1 5637 1 M.P.A. 44 175 /MONTH N 4.0 CITY ADMIN 4.0 PARMINGTON 1 6393 1 M.P.A. 66 300 /11ONTH N 4.0 CITY ADMIN 5654 6774 GROUP STATISTICS ----- ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 6860 - Q1 - 6614 - - - Q2 6906 Q3: 7103 -- -- aY � G- $ �`b� �1(Wt��L- Average: - --- -- -------- 5646 ---- 7140 -- ---- -- - -- --- 7285 MOUND 1 6050P 1 M.A. 42 DAY USE Y 0.0 CITY MANAGER 5142 6426 6.5 ARDEN HILLS 1 4792 1 M.P.A. 21 275 /MONTH N 1.0 CITY ADMIN 4406 5874 6 5.0 9.0 LITTLE CANADA 1 6045 1 M.P.A. 14 .325 /MILE N 10.0 CITY ADMINISTR 5027 6045 6 5.0 20.0 ST ANTHONY 1 6194 1 M.A. 81 158 /110NTH N 5.0 - CITY MANAGER 15.0 )RONO 1 6500 1 M.A. 49 300 /MONTH N 9.6 ADMINISTRATOR 5724 6735 4 18.0 IAHTOMEDI 1 5674 1 12 200 /MONTH N 1.5 CITY ADMINISTR 4957 5973 9 8.0 SPRING LAKE PARK 1 5401 1 NONE 42 .325 /MILE 'N 5.0 ADMINISTRATOR 4579 5871 6 5.0 28.0 FOREST LAKE 1 5627 1 M.P.A. 30 250 /MONTH N 6.0 CITY ADMINISTR 23.0 LAKE ELMO 1 4588 1 NONE 11 100 /110NTH N 8.0 ADMINISTRATOR 3917 4608 3 8.0 iUGO 1 4567P 1 M.P.A. 7 245 /110NTH N 8.0 CITY ADMIN 16.0 :ORCORAN 1 4875 1 M.A. 8 .31 /MILE N 0.0 ADMINISTRATOR 6 6.0 8.0 1 FALCON HEIGHTS 1 5167 1 M.A. 6 250 /MONTH N 9.0 CITY ADMINISTR 9.0 DAYTON 1 5093 1 NONE 11 .325 /MILE N 10.0 CITY ADMINISTR 3617 5093 8 ST PAUL PARK 1 6100 1 M.P.A. 19 300 /110NTH N 25.0 CITY ADMINISTR 6160 26.0 4ACONIA 1 5208 1 M.A. 18 225 /11ONTH N 6.0 CITY ADM 3897 5845 9 6.0 :IRCLE PINES 1 5165 1 M.P.A. 33 .325 /MILE N 13.0 CITY ADMINISTR 3959 5279 5 6.0 22.0 4AYZATA 1 5914 1 B.S. 59 350 /MONTH N 16.0 CITY MANAGER 22.0 )AK PARK HEIGHTS 1 7340 1 M.A. 22 300 /MONTH N 2.0 ADMINISTRATOR 6796 7340 4 16.0 iINNETRISTA 1 5321 1 M.P.A. 17 .31 /MILE N. 2.0 CITY ADMIN 4257 5321 5 3.0. 5.0 iEDINA 1 4740 1 M.P.A. 15 .325 /MILE N 4.0 ADM /CLERK /TREAS 3808 5138 11 10.0 4.0 iT FRANCIS 1 4917 1 B.S. 23 .31 /MILE N 8.0 COORDINATOR /PLN 3781 4917 6 4.0 8.0 )EEPHAVEN 1 5019 1 M.A. 21 .325 /MILE N 4.0 CITY ADMIN 4541 5975 6 5.0 4.0 INDEPENDENCE 1 3525 1 NONE 6 .31 /11ILE N 3.0 CITY CLERK -TREA 3322 4485 10 15.0 11.0 JORDAN 1 4973 1 B.S. 19 150 /11ONTH N 3.0 ADMINISTRATOR 4021 5291 9 8.0 13.0 3AYPORT 1 6306 1 M.A. 13 300 /MONTH N 8.0 ADMINISTRATOR 4478 6306 8 7.0 8.0 3 a ff a a IN a I all SURVEY TITLE City Manager/Administrator/County Administrator (Cont.) 14- # OF Vi I u MEAN WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION # OF - ---------- RANGE DATA... - EXCING E �y JURISDICTION EMPL RATES 2918 5546 EMPL TRANSPORT 0 / OF LONGEV(TY �OAIA YRS 5 INCL. � LONGEVI 6965 8236+DEGREE SUPV ALLOWANCE T EXP TITLE # OF TO yks r 0 OF NEW PRAGUE 1 4738P MIN MAX STEPS MAX TO TC MAX STEPS MAX AN LAUDERDALE WATERTOWN 1 1 4266 I 1 B•A• M•P.A. 51 225/MONTH N 25.0 CITY ADMINISTR 3539 OSSEO 1 4004 4871 1 1 B.A. 5 16 31.5/MILE 88/MONTH N 2.0 CITY ADMINISTR 3792 4738 4740 8 8 5 25 EXCELSIOR 1 4910 1 M•A. 17 40e/MONTH N N I-e 6.0 ADMINISTRA TOR 3754 5255 3.0 7 7.0 4 SPRING PARK GREENFIELD 1 3094 1 M.P.A. NONE 12 200/MONTH N 3.0 CITY ADMIN CITY MANAGER 4871 S 12 ROGERS 1 I 2918P 5856 I B •A• 3 4 .30/MILE N 6.0 CLERK/TREASURER 3 HANOVER 1 3036 1 I NONE 26 .32/MILE .325/MILE N N 1.5 19.0 ADM-CLERK , TREAS 2877 3929 8 10.0 6 NONE 4 .30/MILE Y 1.0 ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR 4802 5856 7 5.0 1 19 GROUP STATISTICS: 5151 QI: 4792 2600 3977 1 -------------------------- ---------------- Q2: 5129 Q3: 5856 OVERALL: 89 6 919 22 ----- - - - - - ----------------------------------- Average: 4162 5494 22 2 2 ------- 23 -- -------- --- 7340 JOB RATES DISTRIBUTION: PIG= 4871 5599 7328 ------------------- Ql= 5627 Q2= 7e07 Q3= 8237 P 9086 14-