Show me the money (and benefits)
America’s average public works directors are aging slightly, but, at least in some cases, they are getting paid a little better, too. Five years ago, when American City & County asked public works directors about their compensation, the average respondent was 49 years old and male. Males continue to dominate in the field, according to a current American City & County survey, but their age has creeped up to 51. Also, like five years ago, county employee salaries are higher than their municipal counterparts, but their city cousins are catching up.
County public works directors who responded to the 1999 salary survey were paid an average of $77,600, while municipal respondents received $61,000. In 2004, municipal respondents receive an average of $64,830, and county workers’ salaries have dropped to $72,891.
Also measured in this year’s survey are the factors that could affect how top public works officials are paid, including population size, budget managed, education and staff size. Similar to the survey results five years ago, the higher the number in each category, the larger the salary.
For example, in cities with less than 10,000 people, the respondents make an average of $49,285 compared to the cities with 50,000 residents or more, which pay the head of public works an average of $74,999. County workers fare the same. In counties with less than 25,000 people, the top public works job pays an average of $47,500, whereas counties with more than 100,000 people pay $95,000.
Budget size in counties also affects compensation. Communities with less than a $5 million public works budget pay an average of $49,999 vs. $89,999 for counties with a budget greater than $5 million. Similarly, cities with $2 million to $4.9 million budgets pay $62,500, but, if the budget is greater than $10 million, the head of the department receives an average of $83,333.
Education makes a significant difference in salaries. For example, city respondents with an associate college degree or less make an average of $51,500, but if he or she had post-graduate study, a master’s or Ph.D. degree, his or her salary jumps to an average of $76,666. Top county public works officials — who tend to be a little better educated than their municipal counterparts — are paid $44,999 on average if they earn an associate college degree or less, but if they have post-graduate study, a master’s or Ph.D. degree, their average salary catapults over the highest city salary to $94,000.
Salaries also increase as the staff size multiplies. If a city respondent manages only one to three people, his or her average salary is $44,999, but if the staff size is 30 or more, the salary leaps up to $74,167. The head of a county public works department with 10 to 29 employees earns an average of $48,333, but those with more than 30 employees average $72,500.
Furthermore, the majority of municipal respondents (79 percent) received a salary increase over the past year, with an average increase of 3.5 percent. Similarly, most county respondents (70 percent) received a salary increase, with an average increase of 4.2 percent.
Benefits and staffing
Benefits are a large part of public works officials’ compensation, and there is very little difference between those received by city and county respondents. Public Works Directors receive a variety of fully or partially paid benefits, including vacation (98 percent), holidays (97 percent), medical insurance (93 percent), pension plan (88 percent), training expenses (88 percent) and life insurance (80 percent). Less common benefits include short-term disability (30 percent), long-term disability (41 percent), vision insurance (43 percent) and tuition reimbursement (49 percent).
The average number of holidays (11), vacation days (19), sick days (13) and personal days (3) varies little between city and county respondents, and virtually no one receives pay days off in lieu of vacation, sick leave, personal days or holidays.
Not having enough money or people is a common theme in this year’s responses to the question, “What is the most important issue facing you in your job?” (See sidebar on page 45). Virtually all of the survey’s respondents (98 percent) directly supervise employees, and the typical respondent supervises an average of 32 people.
To the all-important question of if the respondents thought the size of their staff would change in the next 12 months, the majority (67 percent) say that their staff will stay the same. Conversely, 24 percent of the respondents say their staff will increase, and only 8 percent say it will decrease. Overall, county officials are more pessimistic about staffing, with nearly three times as many saying that their number of employees will decrease vs. their municipal counterparts (15 percent and 7 percent, respectively).
Respondents’ profile
Slightly more than two-thirds (67 percent) of the respondents to this year’s salary survey are working for a municipality, with the balance employed by a county. Most of the municipal officials work in communities of less than 25,000 residents (74 percent), while respondents from counties are spread evenly through most of the population categories. Correspondingly, city employees’ budgets are smaller, with 64 percent of those respondents reporting $4.9 million or less, while 65 percent of county respondents say their budgets are between $5 million and $24.9 million. The average budget for municipal respondents is $8.4 million compared to the county respondent’s average of $14.5 million.
The amount of time the respondents have spent in their present position is virtually identical, with an average of 10 years. Most respondents are male (94 percent in cities and 98 percent in counties). Far more county respondents have earned a bachelor’s degree than municipal employees (42 percent vs. 25 percent). Also, more county officials have a master’s degree or Ph.D. than their municipal counterparts (21 percent vs. 15 percent).
Like other professions, public works must continue to attract new talent to fill its top ranks. County workers participating in the survey have the largest number of the oldest respondents — nearly half of them are 55 years old or older compared to less than one-third of those who work for municipalities. Indeed, municipal respondents in the 40 to 49 year old category significantly outnumber county workers (41 percent vs. 24 percent). As a result, the average age of municipal respondents to the survey is lower at 50 vs. 53 for county workers.
Finally, most respondents acknowledged that they felt they were being fairly compensated. Possibly, that can be explained by the respondent who replied, “I love my job.”
| Government unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal | County | All remaining | Total | |
| Less than 10,000 | 47% | 11% | 33% | 35% |
| 10,000 to 24,999 | 27% | 14% | 0% | 22% |
| 25,000 to 49,999 | 12% | 23% | 0% | 16% |
| 50,000 to 99,999 | 7% | 17% | 33% | 11% |
| 100,000 to 249,999 | 5% | 18% | 33% | 9% |
| 250,000 to 999,999 | 1% | 14% | 0% | 5% |
| 1,000,000 or more | 1% | 2% | 0% | 1% |
| No answer | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
On April 22, 2004, Primedia Business mailed cover letters and questionnaires to 1,000 domestic subscribers of American City & County selected on an nth name basis. A follow-up mailing was sent to non-respondents on May 6, 2004. Only subscribers within public works departments with job titles of Public Works Directors, Superintendents and Supervisors were targeted and were selected from municipal and county government categories as follows: municipal (metro, city, township): 650; county: 350. There were 263 completed surveys returned with an effective response rate of 26.5 percent.
| Population | less than 10,000 | 10,000 to 24,999 | greater than 50,000 |
| Salary | $49,285 | $63,999 | $74,999 |
| Population | less than 25,000 | 25,000 to 99,999 | greater than 100,000 |
| Salary | $47,500 | $71,666 | $95,000 |
| Budget | less than $2 million | $2.0 to $4.9 million | $5.0 to $9.9 million | greater than $10 million |
| Salary | $46,875 | $62,500 | $72,999 | $83,333 |
| Budget | less than $5 million | greater than $5 million |
| Salary | $49,999 | $89,999 |
| Education | high school/some college/associate’s degree | bachelor’s degree | post-graduate study/master’s/Ph.D. |
| Salary | $51,500 | $72,777 | $76,666 |
| Education | high school/some college/associate’s degree | bachelor’s degree | post-graduate study/master’s/Ph.D. |
| Salary | $44,999 | $78,333 | $94,000 |
| Staff | 1 to 3 | 4 to 6 | 7 to 9 | 10 to 19 | 20 to 29 | greater than 30 |
| Salary | $44,999 | $62,000 | $53,999 | $58,999 | $64,999 | $74,167 |
| Staff | 1 to 9 | 10 to 29 | greater than 30 |
| Salary | $33,333 | $48,333 | $72,500 |
| Government unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal | County | All remaining | Total | |
| Less than $2 million | 41% | 18% | 33% | 33% |
| $2.0 to $4.9 million | 23% | 25% | 33% | 24% |
| $5.0 to $9.9 million | 16% | 22% | 0% | 17% |
| $10 to $24.9 million | 10% | 18% | 33% | 13% |
| $25 to $49.9 million | 3% | 8% | 0% | 5% |
| $50 to $99.9 million | 2% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| $100 million or more | 1% | 2% | 0% | 2% |
| No answer | 4% | 2% | 0% | 3% |
| Government unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal | County | All remaining | Total | |
| Less than $25,000 | 1.7% | 2.4% | 33.3% | 2.3% |
| $25,000 to $29,999 | 2.3% | 1.2% | 0% | 1.9% |
| $30,000 to $34,999 | 1.1% | 1.2% | 0% | 1.1% |
| $35,000 to $39,999 | 9.6% | 4.8% | 0% | 8.0% |
| $40,000 to $44,999 | 9.6% | 13.3% | 0% | 10.6% |
| $45,000 to $49,999 | 5.1% | 4.8% | 0% | 4.9% |
| $50,000 to $54,999 | 7.9% | 2.4% | 0% | 6.1% |
| $55,000 to $59,999 | 7.9% | 6.0% | 33.3% | 7.6% |
| $60,000 to $64,999 | 12.4% | 4.8% | 0% | 9.9% |
| $65,000 to $69,999 | 8.5% | 6.0% | 0% | 7.6% |
| $70,000 to $74,999 | 9.0% | 13.3% | 0% | 10.3% |
| $75,000 to $79,999 | 5.6% | 3.6% | 0% | 4.9% |
| $80,000 to $89,999 | 5.6% | 6.0% | 33.3% | 6.1% |
| $90,000 to $99,999 | 5.6% | 15.7% | 0% | 8.7% |
| $100,000 to $124,999 | 5.1% | 10.8% | 0% | 6.8% |
| $125,000 to $149,999 | 1.7% | 2.4% | 0% | 1.9% |
| $150,000 to $199,999 | 1.1% | 1.2% | 0% | 1.1% |
| Government unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal | County | All remaining | Total | |
| Increased over the last 12 months | 79.1% | 69.9% | 66.7% | 76.0% |
| No change in salary level in last 12 months | 20.9% | 30.1% | 33.3% | 24.0% |
| Government unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal | County | All remaining | Total | |
| 0.1% to 1% | 3.4% | 2.4% | 0% | 3.0% |
| 1.1% to 2% | 10.7% | 15.7% | 66.7% | 12.9% |
| 2.1% to 3% | 37.9% | 25.3% | 0% | 33.5% |
| 3.1% to 4% | 13.6% | 6.0% | 0% | 11.0% |
| 4.1% to 6% | 8.5% | 13.3% | 0% | 9.9% |
| 6.1% to 8% | 3.4% | 2.4% | 0% | 3.0% |
| 8.1% to 10% | .6% | 2.4% | 0% | 1.1% |
| 10.1% to 15% | 1.1% | 1.2% | 0% | 1.1% |
| 25.1% to 30% | 0% | 1.2% | 0% | .4% |
| No answer | 20.9% | 30.1% | 33.3% | 24.0% |
| Government unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal | County | All remaining | Total | |
| Association memberships | 68.4% | 74.7% | 100.0% | 70.7% |
| Auto or auto allowance | 53.7% | 60.2% | 66.7% | 55.9% |
| Cellular airtime/usage | 62.7% | 56.6% | 33.3% | 60.5% |
| Dental insurance | 72.3% | 69.9% | 100.0% | 71.9% |
| Family leave | 70.6% | 73.5% | 100.0% | 71.9% |
| Holidays, including floater(s) | 98.3% | 92.8% | 100.0% | 96.6% |
| Life insurance | 84.2% | 71.1% | 66.7% | 79.8% |
| Long-term disability plan | 43.5% | 34.9% | 66.7% | 41.1% |
| Medical insurance | 93.2% | 92.8% | 100.0% | 93.2% |
| Pension plan | 84.7% | 92.8% | 100.0% | 87.5% |
| Personal time | 53.1% | 51.8% | 33.3% | 52.5% |
| Pre-tax retirement plan | 61.0% | 66.3% | 66.7% | 62.7% |
| Short-term disability plan | 31.1% | 24.1% | 100.0% | 29.7% |
| Sick leave | 96.6% | 90.4% | 100.0% | 94.7% |
| Trade show/convention/seminar expenses | 72.9% | 69.9% | 100.0% | 72.2% |
| Training expenses | 88.7% | 86.7% | 100.0% | 88.2% |
| Tuition reimbursement plan | 53.1% | 38.6% | 66.7% | 48.7% |
| Vacation | 99.4% | 95.2% | 100.0% | 98.1% |
| Vision insurance | 41.8% | 45.8% | 66.7% | 43.3% |
| Other | 4.0% | 1.2% | 33.3% | 3.4% |
| No answer | .6% | 1.2% | 0% | .8% |
| *fully or partially paid | ||||
Most Important Issue Faced in Job
- Employee compensation equal to employees in other departments within our city organization.
- Exploding development and poor land use management due to political conflicts of interest.
- Failing infrastructure and fiscal ability to maintain it at the appropriate level.
- Funding. Have to do more with less. Staff has been reduced by 10 people in the last 10 years with no new hires.
- Growth-related issues; managing planned development, meeting demands of increasing services, utilities, traffic, drainage, etc.
- Having sufficient staff equipment/budget to meet the customer service demands and expectations.
- Increased system growth with few, if any, staff additions on a routine basis; competition with the private sector for quality employees.
- Keeping up morale of subordinate supervisors and employees as we strive to be more productive while our overall budget has been reduced.
- Lack of staffing to complete jobs we have funding for. Complexity of outsourcing just adds to the load.
- Lack of technical assistance for my job. Emergency coordinator’s time demands have increased tremendously in the last several years.
- Lack of knowledgeable, licensed employees causes a safety hazard because only trained employees must be on site at all times.
- Maintaining current level of public services with current staff and escalating costs. Also, regulatory nonfunded mandates and electric deregulation has escalated costs.
- Making sure our governing-elected officials look long-term, plan and save for infrastructure improvements and are not so focused on personal agendas. What’s best for community often involves rate/fee adjustments, and that’s a difficult pill to swallow.
- Managing down sizing. Public works department has reduced in size 25 percent over the past two years due to budget cuts/tax increases.
- Motivating staff to make them feel good about their jobs.
- Population growth; strain on infrastructure.
- Retirement; what to do about insurance.
- State regulations. They are always changing the rules, plus there is no one to stop them. Too many rules drive the prices up.
- Storm water requirements
- The new work force doesn’t consider their position at the county as a career, but just a job.
- The residents want more public services, but yet they don’t want to pay for the services we offer.
- Tight budgets; setting performance measurement to assist in determining various new revenue.
- Trying to enforce safety rules when there are no safety requirements forced by the city.
- Water and sewer rates that are too low.
- Water loss from aging water infrastructure.
