112607 CC WS AgPCITY of sxoREwooD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
B. Review Agenda
Mayor Lizee
Woodruff
Turgeon
Callies
Wellens
COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS (Att. -Administrator's memorandum)
HEALTH INSURANCE DISCUSSION
ROAD RECONSTRUCTION DISCUSSION (Att. -Engineer's memorandum)
CITY ENGINEER POSITION (Att. -Staff memorandum)
ADJOURN
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
CITY F
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator ~.
°~
DATE: November 21, 2007
SUBJECT: City's Compensation Plan; Economic and Performance Adjustments
The City adopted a new compensation system in July 2006. The primary goal in the new systemis to
reward employees for superior performance over time -that is, for doing work that is beyond
meeting expectations. Other goals were to establish a salary structure that was simultaneously
competitive with neighboring or similar city organizations, and having internal pay relationships to
be in compliance with the State's Pay Equity Act (sometimes called the "Comparable Worth Law").
Pay System: The City's former pay system was a simple step plan, with prescribed adjustments with
tenure in a position up to a maximum pay level, and a small additional percentage based on
significant longevity. This system did not allow differentiation between expected performance and
superior performance among any of the steps. The Council wanted to change to a system that
recognized superior performance and did not place as much emphasis on one's tenure with the. City.
Under the new plan, the beginning of a salary range begins at 76% of the "market" salary, and one
can move through the salary range to 100% in five years by "meeting expectations" One can move to
this level more quickly with superior performance, or take longer if performance is wanting. Once
someone has reached the 100% level, he/she can earn incremental permanent increases with superior
performance up to a maximum of 10% above the "market" salary in the range for that position.
Performance increases are granted only after an annual performance review has been completed by a
supervisor and approved by the city administrator. Ratings on individual items are on a 9-point scale,
where 5 is "meets expectations", 7 is "above average", and 9 is "excellent". Employees are not
eligible for performance pay unless their overall score is at least 5.75, meaning that they have to score
above average on a significant number of responsibilities.
Under this system, with an overall average of "meeting expectations" (i.e., 5.74 or less), an employee
would receive only an economic adjustment -the annual or semi-annual increase in the pay range.
The City currently has one labor agreement, with AFSCME for public works maintenance
employees. That agreement has astep-plan pay structure, and not one with a performance
component; hence, these employees are not included in the City's system for performance
adjustments at the present time.
®s
j®pe PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . P .•'"°~
d
-~ - ,..,~
City's Compensation Plan; Economic and Performance Adjustments
November 26, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 2
Pa~quity: The State audits the City's pay plan every three years for compliance with the Minnesota
Pay Equity Act. It determines whether there is "equity" in pay between male-dominated positions
and female-dominated positions. If there is not compliance, the State may order that the City make
pay adjustments and begin to pay the affected positions at higher rates. The City's 2006
compensation system, which included updating of all position descriptions and calculating new job
evaluation points, was carefully done to comply fully with pay equity. It is important that changes in
the pay ranges for individual positions, either through economic or contract adjustments, be the same
or very similar so that the City's wage/salary schedule remains in compliance with the Pay Equity
Act.
Pages: In developing the 2006 compensation plan, neighboring cities and similar cities in the
metropolitan area were surveyed for their pay ranges for job positions that were like Shorewood's.
The averages of pay ranges for these positions in other cities were determined, and the averages were
adopted for Shorewood. In some cases, these changes to reflect the area's municipal labor market
needed further adjustment for internal pay relationships, in order to comply with pay equity
requirements. Shorewood's pay ranges are now in the middle of the municipal market for
comparable organizations and positions.
Budgeting Changes in PaX: For the 2007 budget, individual program budgets showed the Council-
approved 2.0% increases for January 1 and July 1, as well as an amount that would cover 1.0%
performance increases should they occur. In the 2008 proposed budget, the program budgets show
instead only an economic adjustment of 2.0% on January 1 and July 1 (an overall increase in outlay
of 3.04%). The amount for performance pay adjustment's in 2008 -- $20,000 -now has been placed
in the City Administrator program budget. Performance adjustments will be distributed from here to
other program budgets on a merit basis, not a competitive one, and the entire amount does not have to
be distributed.
Bases for Economic Adjustments
Since the beginning of my tenure with the City in 2001, the economic adjustment has been made
annually during the budget process. Adjustments have been proposed based upon an understanding
of inflation (such as the consumer price index [CPI]), what other cities were generally planning for
their pay adjustments, and budget realities. During this time, economic adjustments have been made
on January 1 and July 1 of each year, and have been 2.0% at each adjustment except during 2004. In
that year, the semi-annual adjustments were 1.5%, as part of the City's response to the State's budget
crisis strategy that included withholding revenues from cities and imposing levy limits on them.
When one does the math, a 2.0% increase on January 1 and a 2.0% increase on July 1 result in the
City paying 3.04% more in wages/salaries throughout the year. The general 3.0% increase in pay
received by employees has kept up with inflation and labor market adjustments, although employees
with dependent health insurance coverage have had difficulties seeing much change in take-home
pay.
While the City's practice has been to have semi-annual adjustments, it is not a precedent that the City
must continue to observe. Beginning-of--the-year adjustments are the norm for cities in the
metropolitan area.
City's Compensation Plan; Economic and Performance Adjustments
November 26, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 3
CPI: The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a plethora of price indicators, and one set used
commonly is the Consumer Price Index, or CPI. CPI looks backward in time, and does not project
what changes in costs will likely be. There are several indicies compiled within the CPI set. One that
is most commonly followed is the CPI-U (Consumer Price Index -All Urban Consumers). It is
tracked nationally as well as for several major metropolitan areas, including Minneapolis/Saint Paul.
Another index is the CPI-W (Consumer Price Index -Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers [all
items]). It is tracked nationally, regionally (e.g., the Midwest), and for some major metropolitan
areas (but Minneapolis/Saint Paul is not among them). This is the one used by the Social Security
Administration for the cost-of-living adjustment for its beneficiaries.
In its website (www.bls.gov) glossary, the BLS has the following description:
"Cost of Living Index: A cost of living index measures differences in the price of goods and
services, and allows for substitutions to other items as prices change. A consumer price index
measures a price change for a constant market basket of goods and services from one period
to the next within the same city (or in the Nation). The CPIs are not true cost-of-living
indexes and should not be used for place-to-place comparisons." [Emphasis added.]
CPI Adjustment Data: The tables below show the changes for several reporting periods.
CPI-U
Mpls United
St. Paul States
1St Half 2006 195.1 200.6
1St Half 2007 200.627 205.709
Change 2.83 2.55
Oct. 2006 201.8
Oct. 2007 208.936
Change 3.54
CPI - W
Midwest U.S.
1St Half 2006 187.7 196.3
1St Half 2007 191.591 201.069
Change 2.07 2.43
June 2006 198.6
June 2007 203.906
Change 2.67
July 2006 190.00 199.2
July 2007 194.219 203.700
Change 2.22 2.25
2.3% cost-of-living increase used for SSA
City's Compensation Plan; Economic and Performance Adjustments
November 26, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 4
(CPI - W)
Midwest U.S.
Oct. 2006 187.0 197.0
Oct. 2007 194.384 204.338
Change 3.95 3.72
In using CPI data, one needs to be consistent with series in the CPI that is used, as well as the periods
for annual comparisons. Data for the area closest to home are preferable, as they better reflect local
conditions.
Other Cities' Adjustments: For the past decade or so, neighboring cities and cities throughout the
metropolitan area generally have made economic adjustments at or near 3.0%. Planned adjustments
for 2008 (attached) continue this pattern.
As mentioned earlier, the Council's approach to determine economic adjustments has been to review
data annually related to inflation (such as the CPI), to what other cities were generally planning for
their pay adjustments, and budget realities. Given the generally stable economic and labor market
conditions of this decade, the resulting economic adjustment has been consistent for nearly every
year. The Council may wish to continue this practice or policy, or it may opt for another basis for
guidance.
CITY OF
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City
DATE: October 19, 2007
SUBJECT: City's Pay Plan
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
SHOREWOOD
Administrator
During the General Fund budget discussions, Council asked for some information at a later time
about how the City's pay-for-performance system works.
I've attached the memo that went to all employees last summer after the Council approved the new
compensation system. The explanation in "Performance Evaluation and Wage Adjustments" on Page
2 summarizes the process about as succinctly as possible. Each position has its own custom
performance assessment form, based on the position description for it. The City Administrator
reviews the supervisor's scoring if it would result in a performance adjustment, in order to maintain
consistency from department to department. The system does not apply to employees affected by a
labor agreement.
.s
~®*0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CI'T'Y ~F
E
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Staff (full- and part-time regular employees)
FROM: Craig Dawson, City Administrator
DATE: July 24, 2006
SUBJECT: New Compensation Plan
You may notice some additional changes in your paycheck today. These reflect the. new
compensation and classification plan approved by the City Council on July 10.
You may remember that well over a year ago we started a process to update our job descriptions, and
you filled out questionnaires about what you really do on the jo'o. After several reviews and revisions
by you and your supervisor, we used them to revise the job points for pay equity (within the City),
survey other cities for individual jobs similar to ours, identify adjustments in pay based on pay equity
and other cities' data, and develop a new compensation plan that would be based on performance.
Ann Antonsen of Labor Relations Associates (now part of Springsted, Inc.) coordinated the study for
the City throughout the process.
All of our staff is affected by the new job descriptions and pay equity points. At this time, pay
adjustments and the pay-for-performance system do not affect union employees, as those items are
addressed in the current labor agreement.
Generally speaking, most of our jobs were paid less than the cities and/or positions they were
compared with. With the internal pay equity review, some jobs compared higher to other positions
that where they have been, and they will have a pay equity adjustment as well.
With the Council action, most positions are having the full market and pay equity adjustment made
effective July 10. For a few positions needing larger adjustments, one-half of their increases are
being made starting July 10, and the remainder will be in place January 1, 2007. None of these
adjustments were included in the 2006 budget, so the City Council is being very generous to approve
any increases that will take effect this year.
New Pay Ranges: The Council also approved a new pay system. It replaces the system we've had in
place for over two decades: a step system, where an employee generally received "step" increases
based on time spent with the City until reaching the top step. If an employee stayed with the City for
many, many years, he/she could receive "stability pay", an additional one or two percent above the
top step. Overall, the system really did not have a way to reward individual employees who
consistently performed very well.
vs
~®«' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
New Compensation Plan
July 24, 2006
Page 2
The new system is known as a "band" system, and an employee's movement through the pay range is
flexible. We surveyed and averaged other cities' salaries, in order to develop a pay range-an
average minimum wage and an average top, or "market", wage-for each position in Shorewood.
The minimum of each range is 76% of the market wage. With "meets expectation" performance, an
employee would reach "market" (100%) wage in five years. If an employee performs above
expectation, he/she could have greater wage adjustments and achieve the market wage in less time.
There is also a new maximum that is 10% above the market wage, which an employee would be able
to achieve with "above expectation" performance over several years after reaching the market wage.
There would still be an economic adjustment to wages (usually every year or six months).
Performance Evaluation and Wage Adjustments: The speed with which an employee moves up to
market wage, or works toward the maximum wage (i.e., 10% above market), will be based on how
well he/she does the job.
The City's performance evaluation forms use a point system:
9 Excellent
7 Exceeds Expectations
5 Meets Expectations
3 Needs Improvement
1 Unsatisfactory
The points on each item in the individual evaluation form is added up and then averaged fora "total
rating". The performance-pay part of the wage adjustment will work as follows (barring other budget
realities):
Total Under Mkt At/Above
Rating Wage Mkt Wage
7.75 - 9.00 7.5% 2.0%
6.75 - 7.74 7.0% 1.0%
5.75 - 6.74 6.0% 0.5%
4.75 - 5.74 5.0% 0.0%
3.75 - 4.74 4.5% 0.0%
2.75 - 3.74 4.0% 0.0%
1.75 - 2.74 2.5% 0.0%
0.00 - 1.74 0.0% 0.0%
Supervisors will conduct the performance evaluations and submit their recommendations to the City
Administrator. The City Administrator must agree with any evaluation scores outside of the 4.75 -
5.74 range before they would be approved and the wage adjustments made. Continued poor
performance would trigger the process for an employee to improve performance or look elsewhere
for income.
Survey of Neighboring Cities -- 2008 Budget Planning for Wage/Salary Adjustments
August 2007
Chanhassen 3.5%
Deephaven 3.0%
Excelsior 2.0% Janl, 2.0% Julyl
Minnetordca 3.0%
Mound 2.5%, plus contingency for additional if necessary
Victoria 3.0% + up to 1.0% for performance
Waconia 3.0%
p8/1U/2o07 10:20 FAX 95247204i2o CITY QF -iOUND
~umm~ry' of ~UO~ BOLA I~espons~s
Note: All responses are pre(irninary and could change as the budget process manes forward.
GQVernment Entity
Three Rivers Park Clistrict
City of Minnetonka
City of ('golden Vatiey
City of Crystal
City of Medina
Metrppatitan Airports ~Cammissian
C'sty of Mound
City of Maple Grove
Southwest Transit
City of Bloomington
' ~ City of White Bear Lake
Sherburne County
City of Andover
Anoka County
City of Arden Hiils
City of Ham Lake
City of Eagan
City of Mounds View '
City of Lina Lakes '
City of Farmington -
Clty of East Bethel
CiCy of Fridley
City of Andover
City of Victoria
State of Minnesota
City of Shakopee .
City of Rosemount
City of WesC St, Paul
City of Prior Lake
City of Cottage Grove
White Hear Township
City of North Branch ~ '
Ci of Circle Pines
Anticipated CGIA Notes
Increase
3.00°/a
3.00°l0
3.00%
3.00%
3.50%
3.00°10
2..50°!0
3.00%
3.00°1°
3.50%
3.00°/a
3.00°l°
2.5% to x.00°l0
2.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00°Io
3.00%
3,00°!a
2.30%
3.00%
3.00°!0'
3,00°l0
3.25%
3.Ot~%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00°10
3,25°10
3.00°1q
CPI currently around 2.7°10.
Recommended ~% based on desire tb
maintain competitiveness with other
agencies. In addition, the difference
between 2.7% and ~% does not justify
deviating from past history or 3°I° COLA,
Based on Union Contract Negotiations.
Market Analysis may add additional
amount for some positions,
Cne Union Contract Settled at 3°!°
"Guess" based on History
CPI through Nov. 1, 207 - (currently
running at 2.7%) •
Based on May CPI for Midwest Region
Largest Increase in 10 years
Union Contracts settled far 20os at 3%
Based on CPI in December
r~oo2
.:r.,
0 o O [~ C7 u7 h o~ h d' O O cD O C7 C*J O O CO (O O c0 M O O
o C` 7 N O h 'ct M O C7 N O'> Cfl 0 0 C7 c0 c0 N N V
y, O ~ CO O CO CL~ C'7 ~ ('~ ~ n .- m O CO d' C7 O N N (h
C O o~ N I~ h h CD GO to tI) ti') d' d' d' rY ~F ~ C~7 (h N
r t
'o r
O N O to O N N O O 07 O O O O O O O O O O O O O a0 t17 °° `~
o 0
°
o ° V V C~] O 'd' 00 h V h CO m ~ tC) O N ~h 07 O N i
a O c 0 ~ m CO ~ N V N I~ O O O) O O , C'] (~'J O r T M o
O
r t M W r h h h cD CO tf) tf1 to d' V d~ d' d' V C7 c~ N L w .-~
N O N (O CO to c0 O~ O O C7 O h h O O to CO O .- O O V °
o ° C O h t1') M h O~ N 7 h O O tC1 N (O CO O ~,
p, 00 r V' M to ~ N d' ,- f~ O O ~ (O (O M N O .- r P7
O
r t W c0 r r h r t0 CO ~ LCi to V' ~ V V- V d' Ch ch N u
h ~ c0 O> N 6) N N V O CD c0 O to tt'7 O O~ h 0 d- O O N
°
o ° 00 ~ W O O V In O') h GO m N O O d' h 7 V OJ
O G h C O C''J h 'cY V r C7 ,- t0 ~ m M Ln to C7 N m r ~ N
r t ~ ~ n ~ r h CO (fl tf) to V c1' ~ d' d' d' C'7 C*3 M N
t t~ M N CO O 01 V m N 0 0 O N N O O t.() h O h 0 0
o ° O O> V' c0 O) h V c0 N N h O C7 r ,- c0
Z O Cfl Ch r C7 Crl O N O (O to O h to ~ N N ~ r- r N
t M M h h i~ h CO CO to lf) d' d' <f' ~ d' ~ C7 P7 CJ N
r
v~ rnco ~ohcfloococoornrno o~hoo 0
°
o ° N f7 C'') N h V' CD CO O (h h h M CO O~~ V
~ to t o to N (O M N O N O ~ d_ a? ~ d^ <Y N *- O) O O N
~ t N o~ h h h h t0 tD ~ to ~t d' ~t d' V d' M co co CV
° C7 CO h h o] O O C*) 07 O CO O h h 0 0 ~t W O C7 N N a0
'
'
O
o
.a Q ~' ° ) to
7 m N O t!
V' CO CO O ~ Q) C*7 C
V' In (O tf)
~t ,- tc7 N N ~ r W ~ V c0 c0 d' d: .- r a0 O O N
J O
O r t cp c0 r h h CO CO to to ~ d' V V' V' d~ V C7 M 07 N
U
o ° N O~ h N N O c0 O O) t(y O d' ~}' O O d' o~ O CO N N h
~y o ° CO h O) N C7 OD N O CO ~ O V O O~ tt~ 00 N N N 07
O O
x ~ O r
Ch O ~ ,- r dO r O d' M M (O M M '- O N
Z r t W N h I~ r O (O tf') tt7 to ci' d' d' V V' 7 C7 Cr! Cr1 N
J
d o
° O) h CO ~' N to h V' O C~ O O O O C7 N O O) Ch G`') (O
~Y 0 0 CO O ~ if) r 7 N Q~ O) h
C
r~ Z N D
N O N +- (D
N O) V_ r O a0 O a0 V (') r O m c*~ r O r O O *-
O ~ t c0 r h h i~ CO O~ tf) to V d' <t ~t d' V m N N N
Q
z o
° O M h~ h N CO V' N O CO to O O m O O (~ m O d' ~ d'
~ to O O h O ~ CO CO ~f7
'
'
'
O o~ to
O) ~!
07 N d
d
O m r
C7 M O O
M N h
H r r
~
,- O M O Q~ n O h
0 a ~ t ~ h h h CO CO CO t!') tf) to ~t ~f d' V 'ct cr C'7 N N N
O~
~ *''
o
W V W N CO h d' O M O V O O (O ffl O) N C'7 m 0 d' d' V (rl
'7 CO C7 C~ C7
~ h
O O
Q
O Y ~. C
O 6) CO CO (O CO
+- d' h h N 00 ~t C
Q) O) +--
- O m
9
', x ~ O ~ O
' (4 r
*
*- ~ N Q1 m CO W r C7 N CO CD ~ N N N C
N
' V V
'
*
y V
'
N ~ ~
~~ ~ 0 d N
J (~ N
d
C
V d
~ h h (D (O CO ICJ to ~ t1
V V d
~
d r
N
X O° v rn ~n co h m in rn N co c~ o h ~n ~n co m o o m h h m
O O o~ O) ~ of C'7 C7 O) O) N d' h CO V
~ LL Q ~ c
O i
t6 rn N M O~ V
r ~ O CO CO d~ r ~ O m to <i' co .- O O N O o0 0~ ~ o~ 00 O
t7
Q lD
T d h h (O CO CO CO Lf7 tf') t.C) d' d' V V' V V V ~ ~ C7 C7 M N N N
F W
U a M h O) O) of to V N r m~ O N N M O N O O O O
,_ 07 C7 N d' O h 0 N Cri ~t O o~ N O) N h o7 h h~
p, to r- A C~ r (D M ch O ~t N o7 n d' N .- O M a0 O O> CO O M CO f0 O)
~ C) d h h CD CO c0 c0 u7 ~ V V' rt V d' V C7 cYi V M C7 M C7 N N +-
Q N ~i' h to t(7 ~ OJ O N O m O O O V M N ('1 O V' C'7 07 V'
~ ti ~ M d' to O to d' ~ N~ h h h 0 t0 (D h O) CD O> N N C'~
'
'
c0
W O ) W
) ~ N O M M CO O m r V V r to tf
U~ r N O O ti f m tf
}
O d (O O O O tf) to tt) <t V ~t ~h i' C7 C7 M C~ M M C7 M C7 N N *-
Q
a
Z CO N C7 N m r- ~ N 7 N O N CfJ (O Cfl O) N CD tf1 O O h h W
Q c L, h Lf) 01 t(') O V' m C7 O~ tf') CO tf) to ~ h (D O h h N
~
Q J r tC Cfl N N .-- r O r~ V c0 (O N N O C7 M r
B M W CO CO ~
p„ °0 O CO (~ ~ t!') tCJ to ~ d' d' 7 ~ M M C(! C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C~ C~ N N r
d O O Q7 C'7 C7 h h~ m N h m 00 m N N O~ t.C) (O O M O O
°
\ O
A N N
~
X 0
N N
N
O
O
~
~ m
b
U t°
D ~ t
0
[')_ V~
f)_
i W t
t
[') M N
O
~f) C
~
h CO Ln In tCJ tf) to ~ d' <1' C7 C*) C7 C7 C'7 M M C'7 f7 C7 C7 N N N r
N
`..' O I~ IIO N h N ,- h t.(') N C7 ~ to CO C7 07 'ct V' N C7 C7 h h ~ O
O .".. 1 O r (h0 ~~~ C~ C~ CND M N N N N O O~ O~ 07 0~ h h~ d' V N
'S
Y r
a Y ~ O
~ W
~- d O v Y
~ ro
U ~ s ~ L ~ ~ Y
-fl ° ~ ~ ~ ~ c ° ~ ~ Q Q c a~i o °' a ~ ~ ~ d
o n. a~ °' ~ ~ a~i '~ a~i d ~ ~ `o o. n in ~ Q ~ ~ o ~ U U Y
a~ _ ~
0 o in °' °' °c' O a~i °' m ~ J °~ m ° g ~ Q ~ ~ °' Q Q, ~. U
'N N E L~~ y ~ a~ ~ o 'w -_ Q U O U U s E°~ U ~
O O a ~~ a' X~ C O '- O W N N '- o~ O O a~ "' ~~ O.
d Q ~ W d U J W OJ W Q J (n Q J CL. W S J CJ Q U O W LL J
0
E
~ O
O V~ p 0
E
O O
O O ~
(f
t 0
N
h
o C
O
o
C
O O
0
t
i
o
V
C
'
a O 7
h d' 00 t() 'ct N ~ r h (fl O (b CO CO Ch N O r .- (
~ 00 00 r h r h O CO to to ~ d' ct V d- ~r 7 C~ M N
~n ~n m o rn ~~ h o o rn rn rn o rn m m m
'
o ~ h
h M h tf') O M M N CO Cn (n N lf) to O~ M C7 C
pi ~ CO C7 h d' d• r ('7 r M~ m W M~ C*J N O r r N
~ M M r r h h O CO t1) ~ ~ d- d~ d <t d- cq c i M N
o (fl d' V M N C J N M Ch O d' to h h O N O C'7 h h O
o m O O N P7 I`~ (A M O ct h h O C9 O O to
C7 O N O CO to m r ~ t1') N N ~ r r N
t(1 C+')
C
p, G
r, r
1
W W h h h~ M CO ~ t0 d' V d' ~ V V' C7 C7 M N
o p h N O~ M V r «') M lfl u7 O Ch O M M M M
(A C7 h h CJ p m h h C7
O t
'
p o
C o
7 CO O M
N C
A N CO C7 N O N O~ V W h d' ~ N .-- M O O N
r M N r r h h c0 c0 in to V V d= d~ V d' cn co M N
o h o CO N CO tip m d' N h C'7 C*J to O O O) m h
M C7 C7 m N O V' d'
O
'
z o
CO M
h tf) O
C~ M M~ m d
d' ,- to N r O) r p m V~ W M ~ d' r r M O O N
O
r ~ Ln h h r CO O tf) to to V' d' d' d' <f' ~t C7 C~ C7 N
o h M O c0 M h W 6i h c~ h C~ N N (O O C4 p
'
o ) O d' CA 6i to M N N N O
to h m N N h .- 6~ 4~ t!
~ o mo~rrcoro~~rm mm c~o~ ro o~oor
"
~ ri ri ai cv
co aS h" r~ r co co ~ iri ui ~ ~ v v d
o h M W ~• O r 0 C'~ to N m O O N h O h N N u7
'
Q o M O p h
h p .- M M V O O CO m ~ to r d
O'1 r 0 h (A to r
h~ C
N 0 00 d
,a J ~
O T 7
^ ~
N 6) d: r O
0) h h h ti (O (fl ~ to X17 d' V d' d' V d' C7 N N hl
U
0 0 M d' M M N M O M Ch V
(n O) h CO N CO h C''7
M O O h O ~ CO M UJ
'
'
'
o
CV _
O M «7 ~
O d
p d
d
C*) P7 O O h p O r
`"
Q
x M ) N h to
~ C7 O O r O h C
,--
~
O
Z .- CJ N N CV
of r h ih CO M cfl tf> t.c'7 tIl V V ~t V d' d
J
O' o _
W N M h d' O C+l O O O CSC M M m O V V V C'7
O O M M M C'~ M c~ Ch CO
'
'
r~ Z N h h N tp d
Ch
r d
r (b N (l1 (A C.t) Q~ r Ch N M to N N O (n r 6~ O +-
O ~ c0 h r CO CO CO u~ to ~ to V' ~t d' d- d' C7 Ch CV N N
a
o m tf') V CA (fl tt7 u7 d' O (n V CU ~ ~ C7 O O M to ~ N
O O
Z
o r
C~ M 0 0~ M h V V N M N N (P Ch h
O O) m r'
m Q
'
H LJ
1 N N
?
O h N~ M CO ~ M N r (4 d
N
~
D
.
p, ~ d' d' d' C7 ('~ M N N
W n r CD Cfl (O to ~ to ~ d
O
O O
""' o
U (n O M m O CP c0 t`~ N N 00 N h N N~ d' O h h
h M M
h
Q
x Lll
O ~ O 0 O
N O m N ~ of a
O M to ct
O> CO m~ r~~ CO
W
~ h h h CO (O CO t17 to In to V' d' ~ d' V ~ d' d C`') P7 C~ N N N
=
T ~
a
~ 0~ Cp h h h C7 C7 (A V M M~ p C(') M CO m M t1') O O N N M
LL ~ O o ~t ~ d' (O W (n O 00 01 ~ ('n rY tf7 d' CO O Ch p M (fl O
h h 0
O O
C7 O Q 0 r 6) h h <t
CO m CO Sri ~A N~ c~ O) M~ M N O
O h h M M C4 CO to ~ rt d' ~ d 7 ~ V V d' C7 C~ C7 C`7 N N N
~
W
_
Va' mh u~moNC~rnrnu-,m~ mmm~nm ovmmco
d' O m N h O O r N M N M N C7 O O d' O> V' O
to C
CO O
O (Y
p, W f m
7
J M
N p 'cF N r tT C~ .- h (O C7 r O p W OD
d7 h (O (O (fl CP lfl to to d' d' d' V' ~Y C'7 0') C'7 ~ C7 C`7 Ch M N N r
~
a M N V' Ch 00 N r N m d' 00 h C7 O h h h P7 O CO O N d' V N
c V C'7 M M C7 C7 M 0.7 00 C'7 O Q> (b m N O 7 C~ h h O
~rrrh
m
o
w ~,
0 r
~~n~nmhv_
mcormcomoo~vcorrnm
0
Q 0 CO CO M ~ ~ t0 to d' V d' d~ M M C'7 M C'7 M C'M C7 M M N N r
c
Z h Cn Cn W to O O m (A 00 N h W (b M p N N 0 0 0 0 d'
a ° M ~ (M7 M Cp0
p
O
M
M
M~ N
N O~
N O
j
0
im
Q J ~ l
0
N
l
f)_ C
O
r
N
7_ r
N r t
~ C
V
p. O ,
CO p t1) tf) tf"J to d ~t ~t d' ~ C~ P') C7 M CrJ C'7 f7 C7 C7 N N N +-
d b O O O h V M h O h M CO m
'
"
c N (
! O m h N 0 0 d
p C`
V V' N m tf) h N h~ h h h M V h h N to O M M CO OJ M
- to
lT h
'
U 0
h r .
7 V .-- r~ C7 O
0 N V r r CA d' N~ 00 r d' C
CO to ~ U') lf') ~ V' V' 07 C7 Ch Ch f7 f7 C7 C7 M ('7 C'7 CV N N N +-
N
Q 2
E O N h N .- h ~O N C7 V tf) M C'~ M~ d' N M m h h V O
00 h h V ~F ~t N
'
d'
'
'
'
~ L 7 O m 6~ (n CO
9 C
7 h (O N d
C
co h d' C
-
'
p
O C
U o r r r r r
) N N N N *- r .- r ,
h 0 M ~O M C'7 C7 C`
r
~
ro
U
•
c Y d'
L>? _
CUB ~~O
d a O p J Y
L
,~- 01 L U ~
c
~
~ O
U CJ ro ~ ~~.
- d C
U p O V O Y _ a~ C C C Y Y Y a
~ T O N
O~ N~ Q U U (0 > Y~ O +~ Q N~ ~~ U O y U U Y
O LL
~ N m ~ a~ n
~ o a u, ~ ~ Q ~ o, ~ •
•~
~
_
_
~
.
o a
~
~ ~~ o
mp~ m~ c
U g~
o ° `~ o
~c ~
c U
a
i
~
'
q
'~
Q W ~
C
~
U~ W~
C C W p UJ •.
C
O- C iq >.
O .Q (~ J J O
N ,~+
Q
C N .aT. p- X '~ ~ ~ -
~ CT N N - ~ O U N ~ ~ ~ Q'
~
O
p_ a
_ _
Q ~ L1.. O.. U J W [f] W Q~ (/) Q J~~~ J U Q~ O LL LL J
m
r-I o
N ~
N N
N M
N ~
N ~
N r
N w
N m
N o
M .-~
M N
M M
M ~r
M ~n
M .v
M r
M a~
M m
M o
d~ ~
d' N
d~ M
d' ~
<i' in
~M io
d~ r
d' m
d' rn
d' o
~
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
vw~
oc.t
00
.°C n
~ ~.
O B h
O O
h
m
m
O
M
~
O
O
o O W C
O
O~ M N C
V' M C~ M M N to C
D
O
O r h r 00 h ~}' CO V O N N O h h t1') ~t r N N C'7
r-- Q) M M h h h CD CD ti7 to to ~ ~ 'ch V V' V' M M N
a ~
o O O) m M O -h h C~ O d' O p7 C7 O
~ O M Ch O (A N N N °° a
o
T N 07 Cn O) N O h m
O I~ O r (fl V: O M M h O
r 0 V V
h h M
~~ N (fl CO h
r N N C'7 y
c
~ CA c0 N h r h CO CO t.C) to u7 u7 d' d- d' ~ ~ CrJ C7 N N ti
z
o
~
c
.
,
m
o co O) t17 CO CO O) h C7 O N O ~t o7 O O W O O N N O N N N O
' o
o
O ~ C7 aD N In a' M N
m O O O M m ti') M N h V O
r O O) O
CO CO V h
d' C~ CA C7 C
7 ~
O N N C7 i
~ a0 W c0 h h h CO CO to «~ tf1 ~' d' ~' r1' <}' ti' C~ C'O N u
o O O tf) h M V (t~ tf7 O CD N O CO CD 0 0 N O~ d' N N N
o CO ~ V' ~ O~ o~ M M h O N CO ~ O C'7 S O O N
O O c0 tf) W M tf) N ~t N r M O O CO CO V M O N N Ch
N 07 h h r ~ CO CO C(1 ~ t(') V' d' a' ~ ~ d' C'7 M N
r
o h 0 M V h C~ ~ (O N O a0 M O N N O O O O M m M M
'
2 o
tD h h CO V OJ N N O P
) N 'd' h O O)
h~ O~ to V N <t' r h CO O OJ CO CO 07 N h h 0
O r r Ch
O
T O aD h h h ~ M CD to In to ~i' d' 7 d' d' d' C~ C'7 N
O O O~
O 00
O
O
O
O CO CO
~
Cc 1 CO 07 h CO
m CA m h
O c~ ~~ M
~ C (p C'7 ti ~Y rt r M r M «'7 O c0 to C[') 07 N 6~ r r N
O O h h r n ~ CO t1') u7 to V' ~ ~' ~ V f7 f7 C7 N
r
o N O) o~ N to CO V' O C'7 CD O C'7 cr O to Ln 0 0 0 0 0 C7 m m
~~ .]
Q o
er O~ N O h N Ch N N N h
~ frJ 1~ ~' t*S O C~ O M ti) CD ~ to t17 N N e r r Cp
O) r r N
O O
r O 00 h h r r CD C4 u'i ici ~t V d' ~ ~Y rt f7 Ch Ch N
U
e o
o 0 0 V ~ O C`7 O O~ C'rJ O CO N O N N O O h O O N C7 C7
h o~ 00 M h O W O 7
O
O O
~G ~y M N M ct C7 h ~ N C
C
C
~ N O m N O N O to ~ m h ~' ~' N r W O O N
Z ~ c0 N r h n h CO CD t!') u7 ~t rt d' ~ rt ~t (~ C'7 Ch N
Q
J
p, o
o CO W O Q) V' O C7 N t17 O O OD N O N o0 O O CO O) O cr M C'7 O)
h ~ O to CO CO to O C'7 C~J O N O ~ tfy
'
rj Z N d
~
cF r In N N W r 0) I.~j 'ct M M '~t V' r r O] O O N
O ~ a0 O h r n CO CO tf) tf1 t(7 d' d' ~ V ~= V M Ch CO N
F-
Z o C'O O tD N Ch N N ~' h 0 0 fD O~ tf1 0 0~ 0) O CO c~ ('~ h
'
o ) OJ
O h 01 O~ C7 dD N O CO to ct M d) lf N N N O)
H
w r CO O ~Y r r O r O) ~ CrJ 00 CO C7 C7 r O CO O O r
O O ~ 00 00 h h ~ CO Cfl to to In cr V' V ~ ct ~t Ch M f7 N
.
r2
V d~ Q) h C'O ~h N ~.f') h cr 00 f7 O CO M O M N O O Ch C'7 CO
'
~( W O ,Y o O O a0 CO O rY to ui C7 u7 r 7
a0 O N r O CO d
O
0
~
CO
''
7
`') V N
'
' N m m h
O) Q)
x D O S O r
r 0
0
J V C
7 r h
(
) C
C
N O) <!
~
~ r
r
N N
m 0 ~ N ~ ~ <t 7 d' d' d
of h r h h f0 CO to to to d' ~t ~t
~ (~ N
~ G
c
_
.
~( O O> m~ N O m r O N c0 N O O h h O O m O O h Cri C7 m
W ~~' 0 O ° N h h
M ~ W
h
h
~
O O
m
m
N ~ O m
~ ~ O
C7 O Q CD c0 CO
0^ t
f)_ d_
C7
C
h
C
0_ c
0
~ Q7 h h h CO CO CO tf) to Cn tf) rh rF rY d' d' ~ ~ 'ch M M Ch N N N
_ W
Ua ~nrnc*~coh ornohrn~coooooocovomvvo
C~ h tf) h N O N N O C'7 CO O O (O 00 O ci' OJ V' N N 07
p„ N r tfy N h <t V: N to C'7 CA CO V_ C7 r O O) ~ r O r CO V h h m
tlJ 01 r h (O CO CO CO ~ ~ V V- V d' V' 'd' M Ch 7 V' Ch M C'7 N N r
Z
Q O) N V O M h 0 h CO CO ~ N N V a' h N 0 eD ~ d'
~ c N h CO N h M N to CO to O H O V' V~ h m of to h h h
W } O r N m r O N N 0 CO to C7 O O m r r O N to ~
' N to to O
Q O 7 C+1
h O CO CO CO t17 ~ to d' d' V' V M C'7 CrJ M d' C7 C C'7 N N r
a_
Z h O ,- tC) O~ O to O) (fl 07 CO CO CO ~ u7 CO CO N O O m d' d' N
Q c O h M N C'7 h 0) to N f7 N N N~ C~ h CO N N CO
Q J r h V 0 r h to CA r C7 N N ap r N to to O r M N O <I' V h
p, O CO CO (O to tf> In ~ rt ~t ~ ~ CM C~7 C7 C7 C7 M M C7 C'7 C7 N N r
}
a C'7 m O Q) 00 O h N O) d' O CO O h h O O M h O O to to V'
-
U c
O O h d' O CO h 0 V' O C7 N N O N O O h O N h
N O O d: C7 r Cp ~ r O~ M~ to C7 M CO <t r O ~
h h h u
OJ N N CO
h M CO to ~ ti') to ~ d' ~ V 0") C7 M C7 C'7 CO C'7 C7 C7 M N N N r
G 1 O N h N r h~ N M d' u7 c0 co M~ d' N M C7 h h rt O
~q ~~ 0 CrJ h rt C7 h CO N V' C'') Cpl O Q) W m M N h h V d' V N
O ~.
U O r h CO ~ tt) r} C7 C7 Ch M N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r
`m
U N
C ~ V'
N
" ~ Y N O
O. n- ~ p J ~c
O a ~ v N
Y .-. - ~ ~ in ~ N ~ U ~
s f cn °- L v a~
~ ~ U ~ U Y ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ Y J ~
(SS
0 0~ ~ .~ c o O r a E~ ~ ~~ s p a
o d ~ °' ~ ~ a~i '~ ~ N ~' Y ~ O ~ ~ °.' E .~ U o N U U ~
~ ~ p ~ a. 0 O ~ n. ~ m o .a .~ .c c ,a ~ m ~ ~~ a~
o `n `o U °' m O a~i °' ~ ro J ~ J W o o~ w ~ c a~ Q Q Q U
~ c c W m c °- °- E~~ a~
.O a .~_ C_ tS3 .~ Q X '6 ~ ~ ~.~. ~ h m (U N {- O O O >N "- ~ ~ .S
a Q ~ W D.. U J W d7 W Q~ Ln Q J CC CC ~ J U Q> O W W J
SAMPLE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FORM
City of Shorewood
Performance Improvement Plan
Who, what, One of Shorewood's values is "~°espect for City employees, who with fair t~~eatment,
when & proper training, and a willingness to let them excel, will take p~~ide in association with
why the City and seNVe the people well. "
All employees deserve to meet with her/his supervisor to discuss City, departmental
and personal objectives, mutual expectations, personal improvement plans, and how
well the employee is doing in the eyes of the supervisor, at least annually. The
Performance Improvement Plan should be done as close to the employment anniversary
date as possible.
Objectives The Performance Improvement Plan, although it includes a "performance review"
element, is intended to do much more. The objectives are:
~ To provide a formalized method of 2-way communication;
~ To identify and discuss department objectives;
~ To identify and discuss employee expectations and concerns in relation to
department objectives;
~ To identify what employee and supervisor can do to improve job performance;
~ To identify weals areas for employee to improve and areas where training would
help employee meet expectations;
~ To identify areas of strength and finds ways to reinforce them;
~ To "brainstorm" to find ways to keep the job challenging and keep the
employee interested;
~ To measure performance for any performance based pay adjustments; and
~ To be used several times during an employee probationary period to assure that
permanent status is appropriate.
The Plan There are three sections to the Performance Improvement Plan. The first two sections
evaluate where we are at now. The third section identifies what we need to do to
improve.
Section 1 Specific Duties and Requirements -This section is intended to evaluate the employee
on the duties and requirements of the position as established in the job description. It is
customized for each position. See reverse side for rating definitions.
Section 2 General Employee Expectations -This section is intended to evaluate the employee on
general expectations of City employees such as initiative and ability to work with co-
workers.
In these first two sections, the employee is rated and an average score is determined to
establish an overall rating. These sections are utilized in working on Section 3.
Section 3 For this section the employee and supervisor jointly review a checklist to be sure the
objectives of the process are met. High and low ratings are explained, personal
objectives and an action plan are discussed, established, and summarized in writing.
The employee and supervisor should sign the document and commit to carrying out the
action plan and meeting established objectives.
(over)
11/19/99
Section 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Position: Deputy Clerk/Administrative Assistant
Rating Description
9 Excellent
7 Above Average
5 Meets Expectations
3 Needs Improvement
1 Unsatisfactory
All numbers in the range (1-9} maybe used to most accurately reflect performance (i.e. 6 may be
slightly above expectations).
Task # Task Description Rating
A Performs the duties of the City Clerk.
1 Responsible for management of the day-to-day operation of the city office, to
include supervision of two full-time staff, two part-time staff and temporary
staff. Serves as a member of the City's management team.
2 Oversee the recording, transcribing, and distribution of all City Council
meeting minutes.
3 Maintains all official records and the records retention schedule of the city,
including but not limited to Minutes, Resolutions, Ordinances, Contracts and
Agreements, Oaths of Office, Deeds, Easements, and Leases
4 Coordinate the preparation of the City Council meeting agenda; prepare and
distribute agenda packets to Council, Staff, Commissions and others as
necessary.
5 Prepares notices and legal publications for publication in the newspaper and
complies with State Statutes and local Ordinances regarding public notification.
6 Administer all licenses and general permits, such as liquor, tobacco, waste
haulers, tree trimmers, fertilizer applicators, fireworks, therapeutic massage,
dogs, kennel and stable permits.
7 Supervises the administration of elections (primary and general) of the City,
including hiring and training of judges, organizing polling sites, and
maintenance of election records and election equipment
8 Performs miscellaneous duties such as notary public and document
certifications.
The "performance review" section is intended to tell us how well we are performing our job. The rating
scale has a numerical range of 1-9. The ratings are defined as follows:
9 Excellent - A level of performance demonstrating excellence in the scope and quality of the
achieved results. Results are obvious to ail, and their contribution to the goals and objectives are
extraordinary and highly effective.
7 Above Average - A performance level consistently higher than the "meets expectations" level
and occasionally "excellent." Achieves results, meets performance objectives and standards and
occasionally makes an extraordinary and highly effective contribution.
6
Meets Expectations -Performance level demonstrates solid performance in the full scope of the
job. Employee takes initiative, plans and follows through on all responsibilities, work habits, and
relationships. Achieved performance results are compatible with goals and objectives.
4
Needs Improvement - A performance level poorer than the "meets expectations" level.
Achieved results are not compatible with goals and objectives and require the redirection of
resources from other areas. It is unacceptable performance for a qualified and experienced
employee.
2
Unsatisfactory - A performance level that is significantly poorer than the "meets expectations"
level. Does not meet basic job standards or cover the scope of the job. Does not comply with
currently accepted principles, methods and practices in regard to job responsibilities, work habits,
and relationships. Performance results are disruptive of goals and objectives. An employee with
this rating should be recommended for removal from the position.
Overall Performance Score
Average Performance
Score
8.00 - 9.00 --~-~--
6.00 - 7.99
4.00 - 5.99
2.00 - 3.99
1.00 - 1.99
Rating
Excellent
Above Average
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
11 /19/99
Deputy Clerk
Page 2
B Performs Administrative Duties.
9 Answers a variety of public inquiries regarding municipal practices, policies,
procedures, licensing and applications
10 Administers the City Code Book annual ordinance codification.
11 Oversees the preparation, production and maintenance of City
communications including Newsletter, Website and other informational
materials.
12 Prepares and administers the City Clerk, Elections and City Hall Municipal
Building budgets.
13 Purchases and maintains office equipment, including consulting with vendors
on technological equipment purchases, repairs and service.
14 Assist with software training.
15 Provides assistance to the City Administrator including preparation of
correspondence, reports, resolutions and ordinances.
16 Oversees city hall custodial service
Employee: TOTAL
Evaluator: Average Score
Date:
Name:
Section 2
City of Shorewood Performance Evaluation
General Employee Expectation (I)
Evaluation Period:
Instructions: Rate each category utilizing the number next to the description which best describes the employee during
this evaluation period. Record your rating to the right of the category. Add the ratings for all 20 categories and divide by
20 to determine the average rating for this category. All numbers in the range (1-9) may be used to most accurately reflect
performance (i.e. 6 may be slightly above expectations).
Overall Performance Score
Average Performance Score Rating
9 Excellent
7 Above Average
5 Meets Expectations
3 Needs Improvement
1 Unsatisfactory
A. Productivity: D. Degree Of Supervision Required:
1. Tends to be a bottleneck in getting work 1. Requires constant supervision or direction.
out. 3. Goes to his/her supervisor for help more
3. Not quite as productive as expected to be. often than seems necessary.
5. Handles the normal workload. 5. Acts independently in activities that are
7. Turns out more work than expected. usual to his/her work.
9. Handles an unusually large volume of 7. Requires very little direction or
work. supervision.
9. Goes ahead independently.
S. Quality Of Work:
1. Work frequently contains an unacceptable
number of errors or shows evidence of poor
judgement.
3. Doesn't seem to have enough concern
about the quality of his/her work.
5. Quality of work is as expected of the
position.
7. Nearly always turns out a very good job.
9. Anything he/she does is almost to
perfection.
C. Knowledge Required S~ The Job:
1. Performance quite often suffers due to
lack of knowledge, understanding or
information.
3. Isn't quite up to expectation regarding the
knowledge or information required by the
job.
5. Has adequate knowledge for a satisfactory
job.
7. Has considerable job-related information
at his/her fingertips.
9. Frequently has knowledge or information
not expected or required to have.
E. Initiative:
1. Frequently shirks duties and
responsibilities.
3. Somewhat lacking in drive.
5. Accepts and carries out delegated duties
willingly and as expected of the position.
7. Is able to assume additional duties even
beyond the current grade level.
9. A "self-starter" who generates work and
takes on greater responsibility.
F. Ability To Learn:
1. Responds slowly and with poor
understanding.
3. Has difficulty in catching on.
5. Learns new things readily and as expected.
7. Not likely to miss the point; learns easily.
9. Has extraordinary ability to learn and
comprehend the significance of new things.
Section 2
City of Shorewood Performance Evaluation
General Employee Expectation (I)
Name: Evaluation Period:
G. Attempts To Improve:
1. Content to drift; enjoys the status quo;
unresponsive to efforts to help his/her
improve.
3. Tries to improve when repeatedly asked to
do so.
5. Shows normal interest in trying to correct
his/her deficiencies or perform as expected.
7. Quite often goes out of his/her way to try
to improve.
9. Constantly tries, both at work and off
work, to learn new things that will aid in
his/her work or career.
H. Cooperation:
1. Completely selfish, impossible to handle.
3. Reluctant to cooperate, difficult to handle.
5. Generally willing to help.
7. Always willing to help; considerate.
9. Exh•emely cooperative; excellent influence
on others.
L. Attendance:
1. Abuses leave privileges.
3. Takes long or frequent breaks; requests
time off on short notice.
5. Takes the usual amount of time for breaks;
requests leave in advance.
7. Always makes sure that his/her breaks and
leave do not inconvenience others.
9. Extremely conscientious about his/her
attendance.
M. Punctuality:
1. Excessive tardiness in reporting for work,
attending meetings, keeping appointments.
3. Occasionally tardy in arriving at work or
starting.
5. Normally here on time and ready to
prepare for work.
7. Occasionally early and ready to work at
the prescribed starting time.
9. Extt•emely conscientious about being
punctual.
I. Interest In Work:
1. Always appears bored with his/her work.
3. Gives the impression of lack of
enthusiasm.
5. Seems interested in present job.
7. Almost always engrossed in work.
9. Seems to fmd work extremely fascinating
and stimulating.
J. Persistence•
1. Fails to finish work he/she has started.
3. Has a tendency to give up if things don't go
right.
5. Can be depended on to follow as expected.
7. Persistent in trying to do the work in spite
of problems.
9. Just won't give up and gets work done
even in the face of overwhelming obstacles.
K. Industriousness:
1. Tries to get out of work.
3. Tends to dawdle or socialize too much.
5. Works well without prodding.
7. Works hard and steadily on assigned tasks.
9. Puts every possible effort into his/her
work.
N. Personal Interests:
1. Puts his/her own interests first, frequently
to the detriment of the job.
3. Has a tendency to waste working time
attending to personal business.
5. Occasionally allows personal and outside
interests to enter the work situation.
7. Usually pushes personal interests aside and
concentrates entirely on his/her work.
9. Will disregard personal interests and
welfare, if necessary, to accomplish his/her
work.
O. Ability To Work With The Public:
1. Tends to create problems, rather than solve
them.
3. Occasionally has difficulties in dealing
with the public.
5. Gets along well and up to expectations in
telephone and personal contracts with the
public.
7. Does a commendable job of dealing with
the public.
9. Has an unusual knack for public relations;
is exceptionally successful in dealing
diplomatically with complaints in eliciting
cooperation from others.
Section 2
City of Shorewood Performance Evaluation
Name:
General Employee Expectation (I)
Evaluation Period:
P. Ability To Work With Co-Workers:
1. Definitely not a teamworker.
3. Wants to do things his/her way more than
is desirable; resists being part of a group.
5. An average teamworker.
7. Quite cooperative; able to mesh his/her
work with others to accomplish a joint effort.
9. Regarded as an excellent teamworker; has
a noticeably good effect on the work group.
p. Flexibility.:.
1. Very rigid and opinionated.
3. Difficult to get him/her to adapt to new
ideas.
5. Can make changes to adjust to new
circumstances or ideas.
7. Adapts well to changing circumstances.
9. Unusual ability to accept new ideas or to
recognize when he/she is wrong.
R. Resourcefulness:
1. Has considerable difficulty in dealing with
anything out of ordinary routine.
3. Tends to rely on someone else when
problems arise.
5. Has no problems dealing with usual
problems that arise in the course of work.
7. Can figure out how to handle alt but the
most difficult problems with which he/she is
confronted.
9. Rarely stumped by any problems in his/her
work.
S. Originality:
1. Definitely not imaginative; waits for others
to furnish ideas.
3. Somewhat of a routine worker who
infrequently contributes anything new.
5. Comes up with a new idea now and then.
7. Has more imagination than most in his/her
type of position; frequently thinks of new
ways of doing things.
9. Has lots of ideas; can almost always be
counted on to provide a new approach._
T. Judgement:
1. Very en•atic in his/her ability to reach
logical conclusions.
3. Has quite a bit of difficulty in analyzing a
variety of facts to arrive at sound
conclusions.
5. Tends to be logical in his approach to
problems; only occasionally makes poor
decisions or judgements.
7. Can discriminate between relevant and
irrelevant detail to arrive at sound
conclusions.
9. Invariably arrives at correct conclusions
even in the most difficult problems.
Date:
Total Points:
20 = Avg Score:
TOTAL POINTS Sections 1 & 2:
AVG SCORE Sections 1 & 2:
Section 3
Review Check
(For Supervisor & Employee)
1. ^ Has this process provided a good opportunity for 2-way communication?
2. ^ Have you reviewed department and City objectives?
3. ^ Have you discussed employee expectations and concerns in relation to
department and City objectives?
4. ^ Have you specifically identified what both employee and supervisor can
do to improve job performance?
5. ^ Have you identified areas for the employee to improve and areas where
training would help employee meet expectations?
6. ^ Have you identified areas of strength and found ways to reinforce them?
7, ^ Have you "brainstormed" together to find ways to keep the job challenging
and interesting?
COMMENT ON HIGH/LOW RATINGS:
Section 3
PERSONAL OBJECTIVES:
PLAN OF ACTION:
Signatures:
Employee
Date
Evaluator
ciTS' nF
~ SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
FROM: James Landini, City Engineer
Larry Brown, Public Works Director
DATE: November 21, 2007
RE: City street standards
Due to the recent Amlee Rd., Manitou Lane, and Glen Road street reconstruction cancellation, staff
would like to discuss standards and procedures for future street projects.
Below are some of the codes that are in place regarding roadway widths
Current 2006 Fire Codes adopted by the State of Minnesota under Statute 299F.011:
• 503.2.1 Dimensions "... shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet..."
• 503.4 Obstruction of fire apparatus access roads. "... shall not be obstructed in any mam~er,
including the parking of vehicles."
2004 City of Shorewood Ordinance 401:
• Adopts Appendix D Fire Apparatus Access Roads 2000 International Fire Code.
• D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus
access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet (7925 MM).
• D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet in width. Fire apparatus access roads 20 to 26 feet wide (6096 to
7925 mm) shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane.
Current City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan:
• "...in no case shall streets be reconstructed at a width less than 20 feet."
• "Specifically, existing streets maybe rebuilt to their existing width (but not less than 20 feet)."
• "For local streets the following criteria should be used to evaluate appropriate widths: 24-foot
street ..., 28-foot street ..., 32-foot street ..."
o.
~. «0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Current City of Shorewood street standards:
Wedgewood, Mallard, Teal roads were reconstructed to 28.66 feet back to back of edge control.
That provided a 24-foot unobstructed driving width and prohibited on street parking.
2001 City of Shorewood Standard Detail Plates RDW-002 exhibits a 25.34-foot back to back of
curb. That provides a 20.67-foot unobstructed driving width.
Staff would like to streamline the reconstruction process. There is a balance that is needed between
allowing input into the process, while keeping progress moving forward on the projects. There were
soiree good ideas from the residents along the previous street project. Some of the ideas were:
• Commission a design committee that includes a few adjacent residents to input ideas into the
reconstruction project.
• Mark the proposed street construction limits to assist with the visualization of the project
during the early stages of the project, after the preliminary design has been completed.
• Photographic renderilsgs of the project can be helpful. Staff will continue to evaluate just how
helpful these are in providing visual aids in how the project will be completed.
Staff has put together some thoughts on what it might take to have the process streamlined for the next
roadway project. These are listed below and will be presented during the work session on Monday.
evening.
Of primary importance is for Staff and the City Council to arrive at an initial expectation as to how the
process should proceed.
• Design standards: Currently, the City does have adopted design standards which state what
width the roadways are to be reconstructed to and what the typical sections are to consist of.
However, throughout the process the standard that is in place gets cast aside to try to meet
expectations of those along the project. Ideally, the City Council and Staff should have a
standard in place that is agreeable and meets code requirements. It would appear that this task
alone would save countless hours of debate.
• Compile an information packet listing out the "Top 30 Frequently Asked Questions."
• Select project area based on Infrastructure Matrix.
• After project selection distribute a survey to collect information and ask for volunteers for the
design committee.
• Convene design committee and perform preliminary design phase.
• Determine feasibility of other infrastructure needs such as watermain, ponding or other
drainage needs.
• Mark the proposed design one week before hosting a public information meeting.
• Host a public information meeting.
• After the design meeting proceed to final design.
While there are bound to be variations in this process, it is hopeful that the basics of the process can be
arrived at so all parties know what to expect.
Staff is interested in the Council's feedback and direction on this issue to formulate a better public
involvement and design process.
CII1' OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
Larry Brown,. Director of Public Works ----
DATE: November 21, 2007
SUBJECT: Action on Regular Appointment of City Engineer
In July 2007, after completing asix-month probationary employment performance assessment, we
recommended the regular appointment of James Landini to the position of City Engineer. After
considering the recommendation, the Council decided to extend the probationary period an additional
six months. Since that time, Mr. Landini has continued to perform at or above expectations. The
Council will consider action regarding the appointment at its December 10, 2007, meeting.
The addition of a staff city engineer has been cost-effective when one compares the 0.8-time contract
city engineer arrangement in 2006 with the full-time (and overtime exempt) in-house position in
2007. There has been a cost saving between $15,000 and $20,000, with at least 25 percent more
productive time realized as well.
Throughout the year, Mr. Landini has met and generally exceeded expectations in all areas of
responsibility for the City Engineer. When someone is new to a job, much of the first year involves
becoming familiar with the organization and one's job responsibilities. In addition to making
satisfactory progress on these dimensions, Mr. Landini has made significant accomplishments and
initiated others. The following is a list of representative, but not all-inclusive, achievements during
2007.
Infrastructure Matrix: Staff had proposed the concept of an infrastructure matrix to assist
Council and staff in identifying priorities for various needs on a macro scale. Progress on this
important project had lagged due to inadequate time to focus on getting it done. Mr. Landini
spearheaded this project soon after he was hired, successfully completing it within a few
months, and placed the matrix on the City's website.
• Capital Improvement Program: Mr. Landini developed the schedule of improvements in
related to public works in this year's five-year CIP, and successfully did the constant juggling
of projects with funding mechanisms available to them.
r ~~..
~®«~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~` _~
Action on Regular Appointment of City Engineer
November 26, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 2
• Amlee Road/Manitou Lane/Glen Road Project: This project expanded in scope with the
addition of Glen Road, and extended in duration as there were more residents to meet with and
provide information, and to contact regarding easements and construction matters. Mr.
Landini was the staff project manager, working with the consultant and residents. He had
extensive conversations with residents, in person, on the phone, or in emails, and delivered
prompt and professional service, regardless of a resident's sentiment on the project.
• MacMat Project (Slurry Seal): This year, staff proposed and Council agreed to apply the
MacMat product-a slurry seal-in lieu of a seal coat or overlay on Old Market Road and
Smithtown Circle. Mr. Landini successfully performed this project from start to finish.
• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP): Storm water management is one of
Mr. Landini's strengths. He has completed two versions of the SWPPP required by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency this year, both of which were completed on time, and
conducted the Annual Meeting part of the mandate. He has also written articles for the
ShoReport and organized and conducted the educational class (this year, on "green roofs") to
meet mandated requirements. Previously, the bulk of the SWPPP work was performed by the
consultant.
Development and Site Plan Reviews: Review of development and site plans is one of the
more time-consuming tasks in City's activities. It includes examining the plans; examining
the site, taking into account the impacts in and around the site; reviewing applicable
regulations and standards of the City and others. The Planning and Building Inspections
divisions have appreciated the availability of having an in-house engineer to confer with for
these reviews.
• Drainage Complaints: These matters are also time-consuming, as they become balancing
acts-persons raising concerns are almost always impacted by their neighbors or
neighborhood. These cases often involve considerable involvement of multiple property
owners as well as other government agencies. Mr. Landini has been able to provide timely
service on all drainage complaints, which is an improvement in what the City has been able to
deliver. Mr. Landini has reviewed all of the drainage projects listed in the Drainage Problem
Areas Reports (2005 and 2007) prepared by WSB & Associates. Each of the higher priority
projects was evaluated and programmed in the City's CIP.
Letter-of-Credit Administration: This is an important responsibility and takes time to insure
that the City is protected, and that the improvements have been completed satisfactorily along
the way, before releasing any portion of the letters-of-credit. A single development typically
has several releases that occur for each part of the project, as the developer is entitled to
periodic reductions when discrete things are completed. What maybe released takes time to
document, process, and insure that the City is protected throughout the project. Mr. Landini
has remained current with all of the subdivisions and improvements subject to letters-of-credit,
and improved the City's timeliness in reducing or releasing them.
Action on Regular Appointment of City Engineer
November 26, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 3
• Lift Station Rehabilitation Project, Christmas Lake Point: Mr. Landini has successfully
managed the Lift Station No. 12/Christmas Lake Point project to this point. These activities
have included pre-construction conferences, shop drawing review, and contract administration.
Construction of the project will occur in 2008.
• Sanitary Sewer Televising and Grouting Project: This item is part of the City's efforts to
address inflow and infiltration (I&I) into the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Landini administered
the process for quotes for this work, and the project is now under contract.
• Radio-Read Water Meters: Mr. Landini has successfully performed the administration of
this project, which is nearing completion. The project has been a very smooth one, and staff
has received comments from residents that they welcome the improvements.
• Right-of--Way Ordinance: Mr. Landini took up the updating of the City's right-of--way
ordinance, and the final version is being placed for action on the agenda for the Council's
November 26 meeting.
• Information Technology: This is an area where Mr. Landini has volunteered his knowledge
and skill outside of his job responsibilities. The City's lp otter failed earlier this year, and he
was able to rebuild it for reuse as parts are no longer available for our plotter. An inexpensive
new plotter costs around $4,000. The move of the network server involved rerouting some
cable drops and some computer router configuration. Mr. Landini indicated he could do the
work, and saved the cost of contracting out the wiring and reconfiguration.
Badger Football Field Lighting Project: Mr. Landini handled construction, construction
administration, and change order status with the contractor and field personnel. This well-
organized project was completed ahead of schedule.
Site Inspections: He has used the latest technology to perform site inspections. Many times,
staking and surveying were performed that would have otherwise needed to be completed later
by the engineering consultant.
• Easement Administration: Mr. Landini has performed research and processing on
dedication and vacation of easements.
Again, this list is a representative one. We have been impressed with the integrity, dedication, and
energy that Mr. Landini has consistently shown in all of the tasks presented to him and for which he
has volunteered. He has proven to be a good fit and a valuable member of the City staff team. His
performance and achievements continue to meet and exceed expectations, and affirms our
recommendation that James Landini be appointed to the regular position of City Engineer.
Action on Regular Appointment of City Engineer
November 26, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 4
Background on the Evolution of the Public Works Department: The Public Works Department
consists of two divisions: Public Works Services and Engineering. The history of the positions in
the Department is as follows:
Through 1994: 10 positions
1 Director of Public Works
1 Public Works Foreman
6 Light Equipment Operators
2 FTE's -Munitech, contract for water & sewer utilities
1995 11 positions
Engineering
1 City Engineer
Public Works Service
1 Director of Public Works
1 Public Works Foreman
6 Light Equipment Operators
2 FTE's -Munitech, contract for water & sewer utilities
2001 11 positions
Engineering Division
1 Director of Public Works/City Engineer
1 Engineering Technician
Public Works Service
1 Public Works Foreman
6 Light Equipment Operators
2 FTE's -Munitech, contract for water & sewer utilities
2002 10 positions
Engineering Division
1 Director of Public Works/City Engineer
1 Engineering Technician
Public Works Service
6 Light Equipment Operators
2 FTE's -Munitech, contract for water & sewer utilities
2004 10 positions
Engineering Division
1 Director of Public Works/City Engineer
1 Engineering Technician
Public Works Service
5 Light Equipment Operators
3 LEOs/Utility Operators (includes 1 Utility Lead)
Action on Regular Appointment of City Engineer
November 26, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 5
2005 11 positions
Engineering
1 City Engineer (position filled in 2007)
1 Engineering Technician
Public Works Service
1 Director of Public Works
5 Light Equipment Operators
3 LEOs/LTtility Operators (includes 1 Utility Lead)
In 1995, the City Council decided to add the position of Director of Public Works/City Engineer, as it
was far more cost-effective to bring this capability in-house than to continue to spend $200,000-
250,000 annually for general city engineer consulting services.
In the 2001 budget, the City Council decided to add the position of Engineering Technician. This
position would be involved in day-to-day permitting and inspection activities, as well as to begin the
organization and conversion of the City's engineering drawings and records to electronic form. The
decision was made to bring this position in-house, as these activities could be done more cost-
effectively and more timely-for both external and internal customers-than by an engineering firm
or on the increasing time demands and workload of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The
Engineering Technician was hired in November 2001.
The Public Works Superintendent resigned late in 2001, and the position was left vacant, with the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer adding responsibility to direct the Public Works Service
Division. The superintendent position has since been removed from the authorized staff positions in
the City.
In 2004, the City brought responsibilities to maintain the water and sewer utilities in-house after
terminating its contract with Munitech, Inc., to provide these services. This change added to the
workload and responsibilities of all staff in the Public Works Department. During that year, the City
Council authorized a separate City Engineer position for the 2005 budget, thus restoring the Public
Works Department complement to what had existed prior to 2002. This decision was based on
balancing the workloads to manage Public Works and Engineer responsibilities, and to lessen the
reliance on (and expense of) a consulting engineer firm to perform general city engineer work.
En ing Bering in a Growth vs. an Established City: In a city in a growth stage of development, a
significant amount of work for engineering is required on aproject-by-project basis; generally, the
costs can be tracked straightforwardly and charged back to the developer. New systems are designed
on a larger scale and few nearby properties are affected. In-house staffing for engineering needs to
be sufficient to coordinate new projects. In a city that has matured, engineering issues are typically
ones that are more intricate and time-consuming, and the costs are fully absorbed by the city. They
deal with maintenance and improvement of existing systems, usually with more property owners who
are affected and participate in coming to solutions. Records need to be maintained and updated. All
cities are being affected by State and Federal reporting requirements on a variety of infrastructure
(e.g., Federal Clean Water Act with its SWPPP mandate). They all are labor-intensive. In-house
engineering becomes acost-effective approach to fulfill these less-glamorous and less-visible, but no
less important, responsibilities.