The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-08-17 PACKET 02.C.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Joe Fischbach, Human Resources Coordinator Date: August 16, 2011 Subject: Wages and Benefits Memo t The intent of this item is to review with Council the status of 2011 labor contracts and future negotiations. For 2011, Patrol, 49ers, AFSCME Clerical and Non - represented employees have terms and conditions settled. Sergeants and Fire have not settled as of yet. We have met with the Sergeants a few times and believe we are close to a deal. Currently, there are no contracts settled for 2012. Wages 2011 Non - represented, AFSCME Clerical and 49ers received a 1% COLA on January 1, 2011. We also did a market study in 2011 to see where the market is at. The results of the market study would be effective July 1, 2011. Below is the language from the contract. On July 1, 2011 the City will conduct a market comparison for all public works bargaining units, AFSCME bargaining units.. and LELS police patrol bargaining units of cities with populations between 20,000 and 60,000 that have wage amounts established as of June 1, 2011. The City will determine the average market comparison rate of all three (3) bargaining units by the recorded increase in the settled contracts. If the City's bargaining units are below the average of the three (3) bargaining units it will apply that percentage to the 2011 rate for all AFSCME positions effective July 1, 2011. The cities used in comparison are cities that the Met Council estimates are between 20,000 and 60,000 in population in 2007. Specifically, the cities are: Andover, Blaine, Fridley, Ramsey, Chanhassen, Chaska.. Apple Valley, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Rosemount, South St. Paul, Brooklyn Center, Champlin, Crystal. Edina, Golden Valley, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, New Hope, Richfield, Shoreview, St. Louis Park, Maplewood, New Brighton, Roseville, White Bear Lake, Prior Lake, Savage.. Shakopee, Oakdale and Woodbury. The cities used in comparisons will be those from the above list that have a settled 2011 contract prior to June 1, 2011. The results of the market study showed that the average increase for 2011 for the above named union groups and cities was 0.79 %. Thus, no COLA above the 1% received on January 1, 2011 was given. Through arbitration, the Patrol union was awarded a 1 % COLA on January 1, 2011 and an additional 1% COLA on July 1, 2011. As mentioned above, Sergeants and Fire do not have settled contracts for 2011. Thus, wages have not been determined yet. It should be noted that we have offered the Sergeants the same wage language as Non - represented, AFSCME Clerical and 49ers. We intend to offer the same when we meet with the Fire union. For background purposes, the Fire union consists of only two employees, the Fire Marshal /Paramedic and the full -time Firefighter /Paramedic. Historical Wages The City belongs to a group called TUG. TUG is a group of local government human resources professionals that gets together to discuss timely human resources topics. This group also maintains a COLA spreadsheet. Below is an analysis of COLA increases for the last 8 years. It compares the City increases versus the TUG cities we compare ourselves to. Over the past 8 years the City has provided 20.25% in COLA and the comparison group has provided 19.54% in COLA, a positive difference of 0.71 %. Cottage Grove % TUG Group % 2004 2 2004 2.78 2005 3 2005 3.02 2006 2.5 2006 2.97 2007 3.5 2007 3.10 2008 3 2008 3.20 2009 3 2009 3.07 2010 2 2010 0.68 2011 1.00* 2011 0.72 Total 20.25% Total 19.54% `note: Police Patrol received an additional 1% in 2011 The result of the above is that Cottage Grove employee's compensation has improved slightly relative to the market over the past eight years (primarily the gains have occurred over the past two years during which we took a position of not freezing wages, while other cities were, in order to ensure we at least maintained market position). Health Insurance Below is language that was presented to Council in October 2010 regarding health insurance for 2011. By and large, staff is recommending that the health insurance program remain unchanged for 2012. We believe the changes made for 2011 have been effective in keeping costs down for both the City and the majority of employees. Staff believes that the increase in premiums over 2011 will be at or near market trend. The exact renewal amount is not known at this time. Typically, we receive this information in September. We are working with our benefits consultant, FCI, to get this information as soon as possible. In 2011, the City made changes to the health insurance program. There were increased enrollment options for employees. For many years employees had the choice of single or family coverage. For 2011 employees had 4 choices; single, single + one, single + children and family. All employees that carry coverage other than single will see their monthly premium decrease. Employees that carry single coverage have never paid a premium under the HDHP plans. The City also increased the HSA contribution from $700 to $1,000 single and from $1,400 to $2,000 all others. 2010 Costs ER EE Total MIC Choice Single 688.37 76.48 764.85 H S A Single 594.31 0.00 594.31 H S A Single Elect 546.77 0.00 546.77 MIC Choice Family 941.78 677.04 1,618.82 H S A Family 941.78 313.93 1,255.71 H S A Elect Family 866.43 288.81 1,155.24. 2011- $2500 EE Pays 10% After Deductible ($450/$900) full -time waivers 225.00 Note: employees formerly on MIC Family coverage can save from $4,695 to 5,984 per year in premium. Employees formerly on HSA Family can save from $310 to $1,626 per year in premium. Employees formerly on MIC Choice Single can save up to $918 per year in premium. The result of the above is that the majority of City employees received a significant improvement in take -home compensation during 2011 from the prior year due to the City taking on significant, but manageable, risk for out of pocket claims expense. The increase in gross income (before taxes) typically ranged from 1% to 3% with a few individuals experiencing much greater improvement in gross earnings. We should note, however, that employee contribution toward premiums is adjudged to be reasonably close to that found within the marketplace. Below is the cost break out for the City for 2010 and 2011. It assumes that same number of employee enrollment from 2010 to 2011, which effectively is what we experienced. Employer Costs ER EE Total H S A Single 340.20 0.00 340.20 H S A Single Elect 312.98 0.00 312.98 H S A EE + 1 500.09 214.33 714.42 H S A Elect EE + 1 460.09 197.18 657.27 H S A EE + Children 452.47 193.91 646.38 H S A Elect EE + Children 416.27 178.40 594.67 H S A Family 666.79 285.77 952.56 H S A Elect Family 613.45 262.91 876.36 full -time waivers 225.00 Note: employees formerly on MIC Family coverage can save from $4,695 to 5,984 per year in premium. Employees formerly on HSA Family can save from $310 to $1,626 per year in premium. Employees formerly on MIC Choice Single can save up to $918 per year in premium. The result of the above is that the majority of City employees received a significant improvement in take -home compensation during 2011 from the prior year due to the City taking on significant, but manageable, risk for out of pocket claims expense. The increase in gross income (before taxes) typically ranged from 1% to 3% with a few individuals experiencing much greater improvement in gross earnings. We should note, however, that employee contribution toward premiums is adjudged to be reasonably close to that found within the marketplace. Below is the cost break out for the City for 2010 and 2011. It assumes that same number of employee enrollment from 2010 to 2011, which effectively is what we experienced. Employer Costs 2011 2010 Premium 440,951.60 758,395.44 H S A deductible contribution 117,000.00 63,700.00 HRA projected liability 150,000.00 Waiver 54,000.00 54,000.00 HRA 3rd Party Admin Fee 6.000.00 767,951.60 876,095.44 Difference 108,143.84 Recommendation For information only at this time. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA Date: August 16, 2011 Subject: 2012 Staffing Background During the 2012 budget process the Finance department solicited budget additions which included staff positions. Below is the list of requests received and /or changes made in 2011. One full -time equivalent (FTE) equals a 40 hour per week position. The requests that are underlined below are those that are included in the City Administrator recommended budget. 1. Add; Part -time Accountant to full -time; .7 FTE to 1 FTE; Finance 2. Add; Facilities Manager; 1 FTE; Administration 3. Add; Economic Development Specialist; 1 FTE; Community Development 4. Add; Engineering Intern; seasonal; Public Work 5. Add; Part -time Police Transcriptionist Police previously temporary- retain as regular employee 6. Add' Part -time Property Room Technician 5 FTE to 725 FTE Police reclassify and increase hours from 19.75 to 29 per week 7. Add; Public Works Receptionist; .375 FTE; Public Works 8. Add; Public Service Worker - Storm Water; 1 FTE; Public Works 9. Add; Public Service Worker- Utilities; 1 FTE; Public Works 10. Add; Part -time Tournament Director- Ice Arena; seasonal; Parks & Recreation 11. Add; Parks & Recreation Director 1 FTE* Parks & Recreation 12. Add; Office Clerk II; 1 FTE; Administration 13. Eliminate; Economic Development Coordinator; 1 FTE; Administration 14. Eliminate: Part -time GIS Specialist; .6 FTE Community Development 15. Eliminate; Public Works ManaRementAnalyst; 1 FTE; Public Works 16. Eliminate; Community Service Officer 475 FTE; Police; eliminate 19 hours per week of C50 coverage The City has been maintaining staffing comparison numbers with comparable cities for the past several years. Recent comparisons are included below. There has been a general decline in staffing per capita in both the general marketplace (8.42% decline) and at the City of Cottage Grove (6.69% decline). A portion of this decline is due to population growth with the balance resulting from staffing reductions both at the City of Cottage Grove and in the general marketplace. In 2007 Cottage Grove staffing was at 89% of the market mean. By 2010 Cottage Grove had moved up to 94% of the market mean with a slight drop for 2011. In 2007 the City had 3.67 full and part -time regular staff per 1,000 residents. This is compared to an average of our comparables of 4.12 staff per 1,000 residents. This puts Cottage Grove at 89% of average. In 2008 the City had 3.50 full and part -time regular staff per 1,000 residents. This is compared to an average of our comparables of 4.07 staff per 1,000 residents. This puts Cottage Grove at 86% of average. In 2009 the City had 3.52 full and part -time regular staff per 1,000 residents. This is compared to an average of our comparables of 4.03 staff per 1,000 residents. This puts Cottage Grove at 87% of average. In 2010 the City had 3.48 full and part -time regular staff per 1,000 residents. This is compared to an average of our comparables of 3.70 staff per 1,000 residents. This puts Cottage Grove at 94% of average. In 2011 the City had 3.44 full and part -time regular staff per 1,000 residents. This is compared to an average of our comparables of 3.80 staff per 1,000 residents. This puts Cottage Grove at 91% of average. From a departmental perspective Public Safety is currently staffed at 97% of market mean, Public Works is at 91 % of the mean and General Government staffing is at 80% of market. Those relative comparisons have been stable over the past several years. The above proposed changes for 2012 from the adopted 2011 budget are generally either already in place or minor in scope (hour expansion of existing position). The one recommended change that we would need Council to affirm in order to begin recruitment would be for the Economic Development Specialist. We are requesting this position for 2012 and have funding capacity in 2011 due to other staffing changes that have been affected. If Council affirms this position we would target a recruitment date sufficient to have the position in place in October 2011. Over the past several years the City Council and staff have made a concerted effort to keep regular, part and full -time staffing sufficient to maintain a consistent service level. During occasions or seasons of peak demands for service we add itinerant staff. The main examples of this are seasonal maintenance workers in the Public Works department and at the golf course. For 2011 the City hired 28 seasonal workers in the Public Works department to complement the full -time staff. The average tenure for these workers is two years and eleven of the 24 seasonal maintenance workers have more than one year of experience. Of the 4 interns, which we expect to only work one year, one of them has two years of experience. The approach the City has taken is to only add regular, part and full -time staff when pre- existing staff complements cannot absorb typical workloads absent significant overtime expense at a cost approximating a regular position. Each year, each department and the City Council work very hard to come up with a balanced budget with minimal taxpayer impact. It has been a goal to maintain or reduce what the average taxpayer pays in City property taxes each year. Adding regular staff creates both a demand on the current budget as well as future budgets resulting in ever increasing difficulty in an era of stable to declining revenues. Staff is recommending Council affirm the City Administrator recommended staffing changes for 2012. 2011 Staffing Comparison Most staff, does not include golf, assessing, legal, etc Population" Name If of Staff StafflPopulation (thousands) 30,598 30.60 Andover 53 1.73 Police service contracted with Sheriffs office 55,954 55.95 Lakeville 1652 2.95 23,089 23.09 Champlin 72.7 3.15 23,668 23.67 Ramsey 74.72 3.16 22,952 22.95 Chanhassen 75.75 3.30 Police service contracted with Stange office 57.186 57,19 Blaine 193.5 3.38 37,076 37.08 Shakopee 126,025 3.40 separate water utility- #'s not included 61,567 61.57 Maple Grove 210 3.41 34,589 34.59 Cottage Grove 119.125 3.44 22,796 22.80 Prior Lake 80.5 3.53 27,378 27.38 Oakdale 96.85 3.54 23,797 23.80 White Bear Lake 844 3.55 20.160 20.16 South St Paul 72 3.57 49,084 49.08 Apple Valley 177.25 3.61 33,880 33.88 Inver Grove Heights 122,5 3.62 21.874 21.87 Rosemount 82.9 3.79 49,734 49,73 Minnetonka 190.5 3.83 26,911 26.91 Savage 1041 3.87 21,456 2146 New Brighton 84.75 3.95 38,018 38.02 Maplewood 151 3.97 61,961 61.96 Woodbury 248.93 4.02 22,151 22.15 Crystal 94 4.24 33,660 33.66 Roseville 146.9 4.36 30,104 30.10 Brooklyn Center 133 4.42 20,339 20.34 New Hope 91 4.47 47,941 47.94 Edina 215.5 4.50 27,208 27.21 Fridley 125.5 4.61 45,250 45.25 St Louis Park 218.25 4.82 22,172 22.17 Hastings 108 4.87 35,228 3523 Richfield 176.75 5.02 20,371 20.37 Golden Valley 116.9 5.74 average 3.80 '2010 Census Population 2011 Staffing Comparison General Government (Admin, Finance, IT, Community Development) Population* Name 31,023 31.02 Andover 49,983 49.98 Apple Valley 23,983 23.98 Champlin 34,017 34.02 Cottage Grove 54,328 54.33 Lakeville 51,756 51.76 Minnetonka 59,932 59.93 Maple Grove 20,250 20.25 South St Paul 24,679 24.68 White Bear Lake 27,230 27.23 Oakdale 58,430 58.43 Woodbury 48,169 48.17 Edina 23,445 23.45 Ramsey 20,860 20.86 New Hope 33,917 3192 Inver Grove Heights 22,511 22.51 New Brighton 33,969 33.97 Shakopee 36,717 36.72 Maplewood 56,888 56.89 Blaine 26,852 26.85 Savage 22,917 22.92 Prior Lake 30,330 30.33 Brooklyn Center 26,422 26,42 Fridley 22,167 22.17 Crystal 22,590 22.59 Chanhassen 20,956 20.96 Rosemount 22,491 22.49 Hastings 33,676 33.68 Richfield 34,345 34.35 Roseville 47,221 47.22 St Louis Park 20,326 20.326 Golden Valley *2008 Met Council Population Estimates # of Staff Staff /Population (thousands) 16 0.52 32 0.64 15.6 0.65 22.575 0.66 362 0.67 35.5 0.69 42.5 0.71 14.5 0.72 17.8 0.72 19.75 0.73 43.97 0.75 36.5 0.76 18.22 0.78 16.5 0.79 27 0.80 18 0.80 28.125 0.83 30.5 0.83 48 0.84 23.1 0.86 20.75 0.91 28 0.92 25.5 0.97 21.5 0.97 22 0.97 20.9 1.00 23.5 1.04 35.5 1.05 38.65 1.13 53.25 1.13 25.6 1.26 average 0.83 2011 Staffing Comparison Public Works (Arena, Engineering, Streets, Utilities, Parks, Recreation) Population* Name # of Staff StafflPopulation (thousands) 23,445 23.45 Ramsey 25.5 1,09 27,230 27.23 Oakdale 29.85 1.10 24,679 24,68 White Bear Lake 2715 1.10 23,983 23.98 Champlin 26.6 1.11 31,023 31,02 Andover 35 1.13 54,328 54.33 Lakeville 62 1.14 33,969 3197 Shakopee 38.9 1.15 separate water utility- #5 not included 56,888 56.89 Blaine 67 1.18 36,717 36.72 Maplewood 45.5 1.24 34,017 34.02 Cottage Grove 42.5 1.25 20,250 20.25 South St Paul 26.5 1.31 59,932 59.93 Maple Grove 79.5 1.33 34,345 34,35 Roseville 46.75 1.36 22,917 22.92 Prior Lake 31.25 1,36 33,917 33.92 Inver Grove Heights 47.5 1.40 26,852 26.85 Savage 38.5 1.43 30,330 30.33 Brooklyn Center 45 1.48 20,860 20.86 New Hope 31 1,49 22,167 2217 Crystal 34 1.53 22,511 22.51 New Brighton 34.75 1.54 22,491 22.49 Hastings 35 1.56 26,422 26.42 Fridley 41.5 1.57 49,983 49,98 Apple Valley 78.75 1.58 47,221 4722 St Louis Park 77 1.63 51,756 51.76 Minnetonka 85 1,64 33,676 33.68 Richfield 56.75 1.69 20,956 20.96 Rosemount 35.5 1.69 48,169 48.17 Edina 87 1.81 58,430 58.43 Woodbury 114.91 1.97 22,590 22.59 Chanhassen 49.25 2.18 20,326 20.33 Golden Valley 47.05 2.31 average 137 *2008 Met Council Population Estimates Staffing- PW 2.50 2.00 d a N d 0 1.50 O O d 6 w 1.00 W F LL 0,50 11f z 3 a 2011 Staffing Comparison Sworn Police Officers Population* Name 31,023 31.02 Andover 22,590 22.59 Chanhassen 54,328 5433 Lakeville 49,983 49.98 Apple Valley 23,445 23.45 Ramsey 22,917 22.92 Prior Lake 56,888 56.89 Blaine 48,169 4817 Edina 23,983 23.98 Champlin 51,756 51.76 Minnetonka 20,956 20.96 Rosemount 27,230 27.23 Oakdale 58,430 5843 Woodbury 59,932 59.93 Maple Grove 47,221 47.22 St Louis Park 22,511 22.51 New Brighton 33,917 33.92 Inver Grove Heights 34,017 34.02 Cottage Grove 26,852 26.85 Savage 24,679 24.68 White Bear Lake 20,250 20.25 South St Paul 22,491 22.49 Hastings 34,345 34.35 Roseville 22,167 2217 Crystal 36,717 36.72 Maplewood 33,676 33.68 Richfield 33,969 33.97 Shakopee 26,422 26.42 Fridley 20.860 20.86 New Hope 30,330 30.33 Brooklyn Center 20,326 20.33 Golden Valley Y. of Staff Staff /Population (thousands) contract with Sheriffs office contract with Sheriffs office 52 0.96 49 0.98 23 0.98 23 1.00 58 1.02 50 1.04 25 1.04 54 1.04 22 1.05 29 1.07 63 1.08 65 1.08 52 1.10 25 1.11 38 1.12 39 1.15 32 1.19 30 1.22 26 1.28 29 1.29 46 1.34 30 1.35 50 1.36 46 1.37 47 1.38 38 1.44 31 1.49 46 1.52 31 1.53 average 118 *200S Met Council Population Estimates 2011 Staffing Comparison All Public Safety Support Personnel (not including dispatch) Population* Name # of Staff Staff /Population (thousands) 31,023 31.02 Andover contract with Sheriff's office 22,590 22.59 Chanhassen 2.5 0.11 contract with Sheriffs office 36,717 36.72 Maplewood 7 0,19 22,917 22.92 Prior Lake 4.5 0.20 20,956 20.96 Rosemount 4,5 0.21 24,679 24.68 White Bear Lake 5.35 0.22 54,328 54.33 Lakeville 12 0.22 22,511 22.51 New Brighton 5 0.22 23,983 23.98 Champlin 5.5 0.23 51,756 51.76 Minnetonka 12 0.23 59,932 59.93 Maple Grove 14 0.23 33,917 33.92 Inver Grove Height: 8 0.24 20,250 20.25 South St Paul 5 0.25 48,169 48.17 Edina 12 0.25 47,221 47.22 St Louis Park 12 0.25 56,888 56.89 Blaine 14.5 0.25 23,445 23.45 Ramsey 6 0.26 58,430 58,43 Woodbury 15.05 0.26 34,345 34.35 Roseville 9.5 0.28 22,491 22.49 Hastings 6.5 0.29 49,983 49.98 Apple Valley 14.5 0.29 33,969 33.97 Shakopee 10 0.29 26,852 26.85 Savage 8.5 0.32 34,017 34.02 Cottage Grove 11.05 0.32 33,676 33.68 Richfield 12.5 0.37 27,230 27.23 Oakdale 10.25 0.38 22,167 22.17 Crystal 8.5 0.38 30.330 30.33 Brooklyn Center 13 0.43 20,326 20.33 Golden Valley 10.25 0.50 26,422 26.42 Fridley 13.5 0.51 20,860 20.86 New Hope 12.5 0.60 average 0.29 *2008 Met Council Population Estimates 2011 Staffing Comparison Other Police Department Personnel (not including dispatch) Population' Name #of Staff Staff /Population (thousands) 31,023 31.02 Andover contract with Sheriff's office 22,590 22.59 Chanhassen 2.5 0.11 contract with Sheriffs office 36,717 36.72 Maplewood 6 0.16 24,679 24.68 White Bear Lake 4.35 0.18 54,328 54.33 Lakeville 10.4 0.19 22,917 22.92 Prior Lake 4.5 0.20 22,491 22.49 Hastings 4.5 0.20 33,917 33, 92 Inver Grove Heights 7 0.21 51,756 51.76 Minnetonka 11 021 23,445 23.45 Ramsey 5 021 20,956 20.96 Rosemount 4.5 0.21 59,932 59.93 Maple Grove 13 0.22 48,169 48.17 Edina 10.5 0.22 22,511 22.51 New Brighton 5 0.22 58,430 58.43 Woodbury 13.05 0.22 23,983 23.98 Champlin 5.5 0.23 47,221 47.22 St Louis Park 11 0.23 20,250 20.25 South St Paul 5 0.25 34,345 34.35 Roseville 8.5 0.25 56,888 56.89 Blaine 14.5 0.25 33,969 3197 Shakopee 9 0.26 49,983 49.98 Apple Valley 13.5 0.27 26,852 26.85 Savage 8.5 0.32 34,017 34.02 Cottage Grove 11.05 0.32 33,676 33.68 Richfield 12 0.36 27,230 27.23 Oakdale 10.25 0.38 22,167 22.17 Crystal 8.5 0.38 30,330 30.33 Brooklyn Center 12 0.40 26,422 26.42 Fridley 12.5 0.47 20,326 20.33 Golden Valley 9.75 0.48 20,860 20.86 New Hope 12.5 0.60 average 027 '2008 Met Council Population Estimates Staffing- Non -sworn PD Personnel 0.70 v 0.60 c m :2 0.50 rn m 0 0.40 0 0 0.30 L d 0.20 N W LL 0.10 MM 2 > o m b o o s a E = m = ry a a= o -° E E (9 w m m a N a H m - > > C7 " U . a` > x 1 0 C N O n m N m O = o z 2 iN 0 m 2011 Staffing Comparison Full -time Fire Population* Name # of Staff Staff /Population (thousands) 22,167 22.17 Crystal contract with West -Metro Fire 20,860 20.86 New Hope contract with West -Metro Fire 20,250 20.25 South St Paul contract with South Metro Fire 20,956 20.96 Rosemount 0 0.00 23,983 23.98 Champlin 0 0.00 30,330 30.33 Brooklyn Center 1 0.03 22.917 22.92 Prior Lake 1 0.04 54,328 54.33 Lakeville 3 0.06 33,969 3197 Shakopee 2 0.06 33,917 33.92 Inver Grove Heights 2 0.0E 49,983 49.98 Apple Valley 3 0.06 31,023 31.02 Andover 2 0.0E 26,852 26.85 Savage 2 0.07 51,756 51.76 Minnetonka 4 0.08 23,445 23.45 Ramsey 2 0.09 22,590 22.59 Chanhassen 2 0.09 22,511 22.51 New Brighton 2 0.09 56,888 56.89 Blaine 6 0,11 34,017 34.02 Cottage Grove 4 0.12 20,326 20.326 Golden Valley 3 0.15 59,932 59.93 Maple Grove 9 0.15 24,679 24.68 White Bear Lake 4 0.16 34,345 34.35 Roseville 6 0.17 58,430 58.43 Woodbury 12 0.21 26,422 26.42 Fridley 7 0.26 27,230 27.23 Oakdale 8 0.29 36,717 36.72 Maplewood 18 0.49 47.221 47.22 St Louis Park 24 0.51 22,491 22.49 Hastings 14 0.62 48,169 48.17 Edina 30 0.62 33,676 33.68 Richfield 26 077 average 0.19 "2008 Met Council Population Estimates FT Firefighters .4 0.90 0.80 °- 0.70 N �+ 0.60 c 0.50 0 0.40 0.30 a 0.20 to 0.10 f- 0.00 LL �. 0 a o f a�i J v o O B o> p r ' o, r _@ N P J l] "O O d _" , N E E (� Y Y N a N O E N m e, 0> 0 N O LL (0 N ✓_+ N w U N g K L m m o m m c O O` 4 U 2 O O �` At (!� U o U L m � 2011 Staffing Comparison Fire Support Staff Population* Name #of Staff Staff /Population (thousands) 22,167 22.17 Crystal contract with West -Metro Fire 20,860 20.86 New Hope contract with West -Metro Fire 20,250 20.25 South St Paul contract with South Metro Fire 27,230 27.23 Oakdale 0 0.00 22,917 22.92 Prior Lake 0 0.00 56,888 56.89 Blaine 0 0.00 23,983 23.98 Champlin 0 0.00 34,017 34.02 Cottage Grove 0 0.00 31,023 31.02 Andover 0 0.00 20,956 20.96 Rosemount 0 0.00 26,852 26.85 Savage 0 0.00 22,590 22.59 Chanhassen 0 0.00 22.511 22.51 New Brighton 0 0.00 33,676 33.68 Richfield 0.5 0.01 59,932 59.93 Maple Grove 1 0.02 51,756 51.76 Minnetonka 1 0,02 49,983 49.98 Apple Valley 1 0.02 47,221 47.22 St Louis Park 1 0.02 20,326 20.326 Golden Valley 0.5 0.02 36,717 3672 Maplewood 1 0.03 34,345 34.35 Roseville 1 0.03 33,969 33.97 Shakopee 1 0.03 54,328 54.33 Lakeville 1.6 0.03 33,917 33.92 Inver Grove Heights 1 0.03 48,169 48.17 Edina 1.5 0.03 30,330 30.33 Brooklyn Center 1 0.03 58,430 58.43 Woodbury 2 0.03 26,422 26.42 Fridley 1 0.04 24,679 24.68 White Bear Lake 1 0.04 23,445 23.45 Ramsey 1 0,04 22,491 22.49 Hastings 2 0.09 average 0.02 *2008 Met Council Population Estimates f s •. �= N 0.10 w a 0.08 N d 0 0.06 0 0 0.04 L 0 Q 0.02 N W LL 0.00 M E c6 0 E m m c5 > a >; z o ' Q m U U m