HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN 2018-10-02 Item 2D - Resolution - Compensation Policy for City EmployeesCity of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDU
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: David Cline, City Administrator
Rachel Bianchi, Deputy City Administrator
Erika Eddins, Human Resources Analyst
CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg
DATE: September 12, 2018
SUBJECT: Review of Compensation Policy Resolution No. 1796
Update from September 5, Finance Committee Meeting
Note: This is a new informational memorandum with the intent to capture the compensation policy
review and discussion outcomes in preparation for discussion with the full Council.
At the July 17, Finance Committee meeting, Administration sought committee direction to finalize the
scope of the review of the City Council compensation policy. The committee requested that
Administration bring back recommendations on the following proposed policy change considerations of
above and below market adjustments, comparable cities, compression, recruitment incentives, and the
process for non -represented compensation review.
In addition, as directed by the Council, Administration has conducted the external market study using the
Association of Washington Cities and County Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for 2018. Once the
regressions analysis was applied to the raw data, the results show we are still close to market and are
considered veiy competitive (Exhibit A.1 and A.2). This was also the case when we did the regression
analysis for 2017.
In future years, to address the potential for above and below market wage adjustments, it is recommended
that Council adopt the Market Competitiveness standard provided by our Mr. Lawson, our compensation
consultant as it provides an objective guide to address when positions are out of alignment with the
market.
Option 1
The Market Competitiveness Standard:
+/-5% to +/-10% - Competitive with market
+/-10% to +/-15% - Possibly Misaligned with market
+/-15% and above - Significantly Misaligned with market
For positions that are possibly and significantly misaligned with the market would require review of the
data to ensure the appropriateness of market data and review of job classifications to ensure appropriate
placement.
31
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Below are three examples of a process Council could adopt using the Market Competitiveness Standard:
OPTION A — External Market Study
• During External Market Study (for even numbered years) — Positions that are 5% or more below
market and up to 10% above are considered competitive with the market and will receive a
market adjustment the year the market adjustment is to occur.
• Those positions 10% to 15% above the market will not receive an adjustment during the year the
market adjustment is to occur and will warrant further evaluation and possible reclassification. If
further analysis results in reclassification, any adjustments will be made in alignment with City
policy.
OPTION B — Internal Equity
• Considerations for cost of living adjustment (COLA) for odd numbered years will be based upon
internal equity with represented groups to determine if an adjustment is warranted.
Administration will inform City Council if an adjustment is warranted prior to implementation.
OPTION C — Written Justification for Misaligned Positions
The other option would be to update the current language in Resolution No. 1796 Section B.2. to state "If
the City's pay schedule for any classification that does not represent the average of comparable salary
ranges (+/-10%) written justification must be provided to the City Council."
2. Compression
As it relates to defining Compression, Council Resolution No. 1796, states, "The goal of the City is to
mitigate or avoid salary compression issues where possible. An example of salary compression would be
when a non -represented supervisor earns less or is projected to earn less than those that he/she supervises
due to contracted wage increase."
During the Council work session Mr. Lawson, our consultant expressed that compression cannot be
totally mitigated. Therefore, Administration recommends that Council retain the current definition
reflected in the resolution as it is referenced above. It is further recommended to review the salary
structure more frequently preferably in the year a market study is done to ensure that wage adjustments
that occur over time do not create compression between salary bands.
3. Comparability
During even numbered years when an external market study is conducted, the Administration uses
Council Resolution No. 1796 parameters for comparability which looks at "All Puget Sound jurisdictions
with +/-50% of Tukwila's annual assessed valuation, based upon the Department of Revenue data, will be
used to create the list of comparable jurisdictions for evaluation of salary information." The issue of
comparability has been discussed during the review of this resolution, specifically, do the parameters of
+/-50% reflect the market to which we compare, or should the Committee also consider other factors to
determine external market comparability.
Mr. Lawson, our compensation consultant shared with the Council at their work session on June 19, that
comparability factors could include employee population, assessed valuation double or half the size of
Tukwila, geography, and demographics. Whereas, Administration would not recommend considering
assessed valuation of double the size of Tukwila, consideration of going above +50% would provide more
consistency where jurisdictions come in and out for comparison. For example, in the 2017 Market Study
Issaquah and Shoreline were included since they were within +50% of A.V. In the 2018 Market Study,
these two cities increased to 54% and 57% of A.V. and therefore were excluded (see table below).
32
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Assessed valuation changes annually as reported by the Department of Revenue, Taxing District Levy
Table 30.
City
2017 Assessed
Value
Assessed Value
% of Tukwila
2018 Assessed
Value
Assessed Value
% of Tukwila
Tukwila
$5.040
1.00%
$5.736
1.00%
Shoreline
$7.426
1.47%
$8.848
1.54%
Issaquah
$7.385
1.46%
$8.989
1.57%
Assessed Value represented in Billions
In addition, given that these concerns have been raised by the Non -Represented Employees group and in
previous discussions, the following are some suggested options for your consideration that will mitigate
the inconsistency the current policy parameters impose.
OPTION 1
"All Puget sound jurisdictions with +75/-50% of Tukwila's annual assessed valuation, using the most
current data from County Assessors, will be used to create the list of comparable jurisdictions for
evaluation of salary information." As reflected in Exhibit B, the assessed valuation comparison table, this
would serve to eliminate the in and out annually of comparator jurisdictions. If consideration were given
to this option, Administration recommends a "second criteria to assessed valuation, to include employee
population of similar size". As Exhibit B also shows, by increasing to +75% of assessed valuation there
would be more similar employee populations to compare to Tukwila.
OPTION 2
Make no change and retain current policy statement of comparison to "All Puget Sound jurisdictions of
+/-50% of Tukwila's annual assessed valuation".
New Recruitment Incentives
The Finance Committee requested more information on what other cities do to recruit and retain
employees. Twenty- five (25) Puget Sound Cities were surveyed and responded to our request on the
attached Exhibit C. The data shows that some cities offer hiring bonuses specifically to law enforcement
positions, additional vacation hours, or the ability to use vacation sooner than the typical six months.
Several cities did not offer any recruitment incentives.
As has been discussed in previous committee meetings, Tukwila currently offers hiring bonuses to attract
applicants to highly competitive positions such as Building and Construction Inspector, or Law
Enforcement positions. Mr. Lawson, our compensation consultant, shared with the Council that a market
premium may be appropriate to implement specifically when you want to attract and retain jobs that are
competitive in the labor market.
Administration recommends the Committee define in its policy a statement that reflects its philosophy of
providing above average benefits, hiring incentives and competitive pay to attract, and retain a highly
skilled, qualified and trained workforce.
33
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
Non -Represented Compensation Review Process
The final item for discussion is should the process for non -represented compensation review change.
Currently Resolution No. 1796, provides that non -represented employee compensation be reviewed
annually to consider external market or a cost of living adjustment. Unlike represented groups, the non -
represented compensation review typically is presented in the fall prior to the year of implementation.
This is a more public process. Administration recommends adopting review of non -represented
compensation at the time the budget is being adopted so that external market and cola wage adjustments
are a more efficient and seamless transition covering a two-year period versus an annual review process.
The remainder of schedule for review of the City Council Resolution No. 1796 is as follows
September 5 — Finalize recommendations for City Council consideration
September 10- Bring recommendation to the City Council for review and discussion
September 17 — Adoption of changes to Resolution No. 1796 for implementation
We look forward to discussing these recommendations and options at the Finance Committee meeting on
August 21, 2018.
Follow Up from the August 21, Finance Committee Meeting
At the August 21, Finance Committee Meeting, Administration reviewed the following recommendations
with the Committee members:
• Reviewed results of the 2018 External Market Study for Non -Represented Employees;
• Recommendations and options for consideration on above and below market adjustments;
• Recommendations regarding how to address compression;
• Recommendations and options for consideration on comparability; and
• Recommendation on new recruitment incentives and the process for review of Non -represented
compensation.
The Committee reviewed the recommendations, provided input, and asked these recommendations be
discussed further at the Sept 5 Finance Committee 'fleeting. In addition, based upon the results from both
the 2017 and 2018 external market studies, the regression shows that we are competitive with the market.
It was requested that Administration continue the current policy of conducting the external market study.
The Finance Committee asked for Administration to supplement the tables in Exhibits A.1 and A.2 to
show the 2018 market study regression results based upon +60 of Assessed Valuation to include the two
cities that were excluded from the original study based upon the +/-50% Assessed Valuation criteria.
Those cities are Issaquah and Shoreline and the Committee can see the impact of this change now
reflected in Exhibits A.1.1 and A.2.1. This analysis shows that the City remains competitive within the
market averages.
It was also requested that the table in Exhibit B be updated to include columns showing City populations
as a percentage of Tukwila's. Exhibit B.I includes the population information as well as a column
showing the 2018 Assessed Values by County data. The County data provides the most current assessed
valuation figures available for cities and is included for comparison to the State Department of Revenue
which lags a year behind.
34
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
Follow Up from the September 5, Finance Committee Meeting
Following the September 5 Finance Committee meeting, staff updated the resolution to reflect the
following changes from Committee members:
• Increase timeliness of information — edits to A.2 and addition of A.3
• Update comparability definitiops — edits to B.1
o Use most current data from the County Assessors
o Update the policy to +75% in order to maintain stability in the comparable cities year
after year to mitigate changes in assessed valuation
o Include a secondary criteria of FTE count as a refining factor to provide a manageable
number of comparable jurisdictions
• Include policy direction on what makes a position considered to be in market — addition of B.3
• Include policy direction on what would happen if positions are found to be above the market
during a market survey year — addition of B.3
• Provide policy language on internal equity between non -represented and represented employees
during COLA years — edits to B.4
After the September 5 meeting, staff learned that effective January 2018 the Bureau of Labor Statistics
introduced the first changes to CPI since 1998. The former Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton index, which
included King, Pierce, Island, Kitsap and Thurston Counties, is now the Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue index,
which includes King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties only. Staff recommends that the policy be updated
to reflect this new index and use this definition for "Puget Sound jurisdictions" referenced in section B.1.
This change would remove Bainbridge Island as a comparable jurisdiction. Edits to B.4.
Staff was asked to provide information on the market effect of these changes on non -represented
employees. Analysis shows that raising the assessed value to +75% keeps all City employees consistent
with the market. There is no significant variance between what was presented when just Issaquah and
Shoreline were added. The attached tables provide this analysis for non -represented employees.
The remainder of the schedule for review of the City Council Resolution No. 1796 is as follows
September 18 — Finalize recommendations for City Council consideration
September 24 - Bring recommendation to the City Council for review and discussion
October 1 — Adoption of changes to Resolution No. 1796 for implementation
Follow Up from the September 5, Finance Committee Meeting
Following the September 18 Finance Committee meeting, staff updated the resolution to reflect the
following changes from Committee members:
• Updated timeliness of information — edits to A.2 and deletion of A.3
• Provided a definition for comparable employee population based on city police departments —
edits to B.1
• Updated documentation and process for positions above market — edits to B.3
• Updated documentation and process for adjustments to COLA — edits to B.4
• Provided a new definition for compression — edits to B.6
o "An example of salary compression is when there is only a small difference in pay between
employees regardless of their skills, level, seniority or experience."
• Updated process to have an annual review of the compensation policy if warranted — edits to B.7
A revised schedule is provided for your review
October 1 — Finalize recommendations for City Council consideration
October 8 or 22 - Forward recommendation to the City Council for review and discussion
October 15 or Nov 6 — Adoption of changes to Resolution No. 1796 for implementation
35
36
NOTE: Shaded text in various locations reflects changes
made after review by the Finance Committee
on
September 18,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A
COMPENSATION POLICY FOR CITY OF TUKWILA
EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1796.
WHEREAS, the City believes that the purpose of a compensation program is to
facilitate recruiting, retention, development and productivity of employees; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to utilize standardized policies, procedures and
processes, wherever possible, for compensating all employee groups, both represented
and non -represented; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that current economic conditions and forecasts,
long-range City budget forecasts, and position rates for comparable jurisdictions, as
well as internal equity considerations, should assist in guiding the compensation of
employees; and
WHEREAS, the City has made a determination to, when economic conditions
allow, review and adjust non -represented employee salaries via a market analysis to
that of the average of comparable jurisdictions in even -numbered years, and to provide
a cost -of -living (COLA) allowance in odd -numbered years; and
WHEREAS, the City has made a determination to, when economic conditions and
negotiations allow, provide represented employees with salaries that reflect the average
of comparable jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City has made a determination to, when economic conditions
allow, provide benefits to represented and non -represented employees that are slightly
above the average of comparable jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will participate in setting negotiation expectations and
reviewing and approving represented employee group contracts;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
W:\Word ProcessingResoIutions\Compensation policy for City employees strike-thru 9-24-18 Page 1 of 3
37
Section 1. The following statements and processes are adopted for the purpose of
guiding compensation programs for employees of the City of Tukwila.
A. Information to be provided to the City Council.
1. For Represented Employees. A written presentation of current internal
and local external public agency salary and benefit trends, including a salary and
benefits market survey of comparable jurisdictions, as defined herein, will be provided
to the City Council. This presentation must be made to the Council prior to the
commencement of negotiations with the bargaining units regarding salary and benefits.
The City Council and Administration will discuss represented employee group
negotiation expectations, negotiating points, salary and benefit change floors and/or
ceilings prior to the beginning of and at appropriate points during, negotiation sessions.
2. For Non -Represented Employees. A written presentation of current
internal and local external public agency salary and benefit trends, including a salary
and benefits market survey of comparable jurisdictions, as defined herein, will be
provided to the City Council by Administration every year by the end of the third quarter
that a non -represented salary increase is due. Relevant Association of Washington
Cities (AWC) data from the previous year's Washington City and County Employee
Salary and Benefit Survey, for the comparable jurisdictions, will be used in the salary
market survey.
B. Compensation Policy.
I. All Puget Sound jurisdictions with +75/-50% of Tukwila's annual assessed
valuation,baccd upon the Department of Revenue data using the most current data
from County Assessors, will be used to create the list of comparable jurisdictions for
evaluation of salary information. A second criteria to be used to refine comparable
jurisdictions is to include cities with their own police departmenternployee population. It
is desirable to use the same comparable jurisdictions for both represented and non -
represented employee groups.
2. For non -represented employees, the City desires to pay the average salary
for the particular pay scale, as derived from the comparable jurisdiction data described
in Section B.1. If the City's pay scale for any classification does not represent the
average of comparable salary ranges (+/-5%), written justification must be provided to
the City Council. For represented employees, the City desires to pay salaries that are
competitive to the City's comparable jurisdictions.
3. Positions that are 5% or more below the market and up to 10% above the
market are considered competitive with the market and will receive a market adjustment
the year the atiAlvsurvey is to occur. Those positions more than 10% above the market
will not receive an adjustment during the year the market adjustment is to occur and will
warrant further evaluation and possible recla
potential reclassification will be provided to the City Council for review and approvat. If
38 W:\Word Processing\Resolutions\Compensation policy for City employees strike-thru 9-24-18
Page 2 of 3
irther analysis he documented justification results in reclassification, any adjustments
will be made in alignment with City policy.
43. The cost -of -living adjustment (COLA) in odd -numbered years for non -
represented employees shall be based upon 90% of the Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue
BrcmcrtonConsumer Price Index (CPI-W) Average (June to June). It is desirable to
calculate represented cost -of -living adjustments the same way, unless a different
method is authorized by the Council. Considerations for cost -of -living adjustment for
odd -numbered years will be based upon internal equity with represented groups to
determine if an adjustment is warranted. Administration will inform provide a written
justification to the City Council documenting that if -an adjustment is warranted prior to
implementation.
54. The goal of the City is to establish parity between represented and non -
represented employees' benefits. The City desires to provide employee benefits that
are competitive to the comparable cities described herein. The City will endeavor to
keep increases to annual health care costs under market averages. If costs exceed
market averages, adjustments will be made to reduce benefit costs.
65. The goal of the City is to mitigate or avoid salary compression issues
where possible. An example of salary compression is when there is only a small
difference in , Pay between employees regardless of their Skills, level, seniority or
experience would be whciva non, represented euPgrvitor earns less, or is projeo
rn less than thoce that he/oho supervicec duo to contracted wage inermses.
76. The City Council shall review the compensation policy described herein on
an annual basis to assess efficacy and make adjustments if warranted.. If the
Administration determines that a deviation from the above process (in its entirety or for
individual positions) is necessary, it will provide justification to the City Council for
review and approval prior to the adoption of any process change.
Section 2. Resolution No. 1796 is hereby repealed.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2018.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk Verna Seal, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
Rachel B. Turpin, City Attorney
W:\Word Processing\Resolutions\Compensation policy for City employees strike-thru 9-24-18 Page 3 of 3
39
40
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
City of Tukwila, WA
Market Data Regression
1.1162x + 3376
R2= 0.9851*...,'
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0 Max Avg • Max Median ... . Linear (Max Median)
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
City of Tukwila, WA
Market Data Regression - Revised Analysis
y = 1.179x + 3178.3
R2 = 09836.
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Max Median • Tukwilla Linear (Max Median)
New Exhibit 9/12/18
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
+75/-50% AV EXHIBIT A.1.2
City of Tukwila, WA
Market Data Regression
y = 1.1758x + 3171.4
Rz = 0.9816
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Max Ave
Max Median ----- Linear(Max Median)
Structure Comparison: Max Comparisons
Market
Median
Market
Median
Hrly
Current Max
Max Based on
Regression
Results
% Diff
All
N/A
N/A
$27.12
$23.77
-12%
Al2
N/A
N/A
$29.30
$25.92
-12%
A13
N/A
N/A
$31.47
$28.06
-11%
B21
N/A
N/A
$33.65
$30.21
-10%
B22
N/A
N/A
$35.83
$32.36
-10%
B23
$5,975
$34.47
$38.00
$34.50
-9%
C41
N/A
N/A
$46.26
$43.09
-7%
C42
$7,276
$41.97
$48.89
$45.24
-7%
C43
N/A
N/A
$51.06
$47.38
-7%
C51
N/A
N/A
$53.79
$50.07
-7%
C52
N/A
N/A
$57.06
$53.28
-7%
D61
$10,071
$58.10
$58.04
$55.97
-4%
D62
N/A
N/A
$59.07
$58.11
-2%
D63
$10,639
$61.38
$61.15
$60.26
-1%
D71
N/A
N/A
$63.77
$62.94
-1%
D72
$11,453
$66.08
$66.88
$66.16
-1%
E81
N/A
N/A
$69.48
$68.85
-1%
E82
$12,416
$71.63
$71.58
$70.99
-1%
E83
$12,932
$74.61
$73.66
$73.14
-1%
E91
$13,302
$76.74
$76.23
$75.82
-1%
E92
N/A
N/A
$79.40
$79.04
0%
F101
N/A
N/A
$82.56
$82.26
0%
F102
$14,163
$81.71
$83.65
$85.48
2%
Negative % = leading market Positive % = lagging market
Average % Difference
There are no current Non -Represented positions in Bands All, Al2, A13
-4.8%
Observations:
Current maximums for DBM ranges All - C52 currently lead the market
Beginning with 061, the ranges are aligned with market in a highly competitive manner
EXHIBIT A.2
44
EXHIBIT A.2.1
All
Structure Comparison: Max Comparisons - Revised
Analysis w/Issaquah & Shoreline
Market
Median
Hrly
Current Max
Max Based on
Regression
Results:
Original
% Diff
N/A
$27.12
$22.87
-16%
Al2
N/A
$29.30
$25.14
-14%
A13
N/A
$31.47
$27.40
-13%
B21
N/A
$33.65
$29.68
-12%
B22
N/A
535.83
$31.94
-11%
B23
$36.61
$38.00
$34.21
-10%
C41
N/A
$46.26
$43.28
-6%
C42
$43.19
$48.89
$45.54
-7%
C43
N/A
$51.06
$47.81
-6%
C51
N/A
$53.79
$50.65
-6%
C52
N/A
$57.06
$54.05
-5%
D61
$57.89
$58.04
$56.88
-2%
D62
N/A
$59.07
$59.15
0%
D63
$60.26
$61,15
$61.41
0%
D71
N/A
$63.77
$64.25
1%
D72
$66.77
$66.88
$67.65
1%
E81
N/A
$69.48
$70.49
1%
E82
$74.26
$71.58
$72.75
2%
E83
$76.31
573,66
$75.02
2%
E91
$77.08
$76.23
$77.85
2%
E92
N/A
$79,40
$81.25
2%
F101
N/A
$82.56
$84.66
3%
F102
$84.25
$83.65
$88.06
5%
Average % Difference
-3.9%
There are no current Non -Represented positions in Bands All, Al2, A13
Negative % = leading market
Positive % lagging market
Observations: Pay structure better aligned with market with inclusion of Issaquah
and Shoreline
45
New Exhibit 9/12/18 EXHIBIT A.2.2
Structure
Comparison: Max Comparisons +75%/-50%
j
Market
Median
Hrly
Current Max
Max Based on
Regression
Results
% Diff
All
N/A
$27.12
$22.82
-16%
Al2
N/A
$29.30
$25.08
-14%
A13
N/A
$31.47
$27.34
-13%
B21
N/A
$33.65
$29.60
-12%
B22
N/A
$35.83
$31.86
-11%
B23
$36.61
$38.00
$34.12
-10%
C41
N/A
$46.26
$43.17
-7%
C42
$42.61
$48.89
$45.43
-7%
C43
N/A
$51.06
$47.69
-7%
C51
N/A
$53.79
$50.52
-6%
C52
N/A
$57.06
$53.91
-6%
D61
$56.94
$58.04
$56.74
-2%
D62
N/A
$59.07
$59.00
0%
D63
$61.38
$61.15
$61.26
0%
D71
N/A
$63.77
$64.08
0%
D72
$66.83
$66.88
$67.48
1%
E81
N/A
$69.48
$70.31
1%
E82
$75.43
$71.58
$72.56
1%
E83
$75.54
$73.66
$74.82
2%
E91
$75.54
$76.23
$77.65
2%
E92
N/A
$79.40
$81.04
2%
F101
N/A
$82.56
$84.44
2%
F102
$84.25
583.65
$87.83
5%
Negative %= leading market Positive % = lagging market
Average % Difference -4.09%
There are no current Non -Represented positions in Bands All, Al2, A13
Observations:
Current maximums for DBM ranges All - C52 currently lead the market
Beginning with 061, the ranges are aligned with market in a highly competitive manner
46
Puget Sound City
Comparisons within
+75%/-50% AV
EXHIBIT B
Des Moines
Maple Valley
Lake Stevens
iMukilteo
Puyallup
SeaTac
Assessed Valuation Comparisons
King
King
Snohomish
Snohomish
Pierce
King
Lakewood Pierce
Burien King
Lynnwood Snohomish
;Tukwila King
Marysville
Bainbridge Island
Edmonds
Bothell
Shoreline
Issaquah
Federal Way
!Auburn
Snohomish
Kitsap
Snohomish
King/Snohomish
Snohomish
King
King
King/Pierce
3,194,299,789
3,268,616,351
3,324,196,683
4,354,213,237
5,148,032,791
5,405,585,665
S) H 1511
0.55 132
0.56 46
0.57 93
0.75 124 X
0.89 269
0.94 112
5,410,414,843 0.94 209
5,608,165,807 0.97 78
5,654,422,666 0.98 350
5,736,568,228 1.00 321 X
6,425,149,097 1.12 277
6,898,602,203 1.20 122
8,177,283,180 1.42 220
8,760,887,474 1.52 328 X
8,848,561,852 1.54 176
8,989,557,112 1.56 248
9,420,224,291 1.64 323
9,555,039,113 1.66 437
47
REVISED 9/12/18
00
x
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maple Valley
Lake Stevens
Des Moines
Mukilteo
Puyallup
Lakewood
SeaTac
Tukwila
Lynnwood
King
Snohomish
King
Snohomish
Pierce
Pierce
King
King
Snohomish
tafe`DO
ert�atue
3,268,616,351
3,324,196,683
$ 3,194,299,789
x
x
X
X
X
x
x
Burien
Marysville
Bainbridge Island
King
Snohomish
Kitsap
X
X
x
x
Edmonds
Bothell
Snohomish
King/Snohomish
Assessed Valuation Comparisons
56%
57%
55 %
4,354,213,237 75%
5,148,032,791 89%
5,410,414,843 94%
5,405,585,665 94%
5,736,568,228 10096
5,654,422,666 98%
5,608,165,807
6,425,149,097
$ 6,898,602,203
$ 8,177,283,180
X
X
x
x
x
x
Issaquah
Shoreline
Federal Way
Auburn
Mercer Island
Renton
King
King
King
King/Pierce
King
King
8,760,887,474
97%
112%
120%
143%
153%
46
93
8,989,557,112
$ 8,848,561,852
$ 9,420,224,291
$ 9,555,039,113
Kent
Redmond
King
King
157%
154%
164%
167 %
$ 12,083,477,559 211%
$ 15,035,333,726 262%
$ 16,335,686,545 285%
$ 18,631,080,894 325%
14%
29 %
132 41%
124
39%
269
4%
of Tukwila
i�ngfltattgrt Pop atattott
24,900
127%
209
65 %
112 35%
321 100%
300 109%
78 24%
277 86%
122 38%
220 69%
328 102%
248 77%
176 55%
323 101%
31,740 161%
30,860 157 %
21,240 108%
40,500 206%
59,280 302%
28,850 147%
19,660 100%
36,950 188 %
50,680 258%
65,900 335%
23,950 122%
41,260 210%
44,370 226%
36,030 183%
55,060 280%
96,350 490%
3,680,189,655
EXHIBIT B.1
60%
S 3,784,529,975
$ 3,823,309,451 62%
$ 4,745,542,557 77%
$ 5,666,549,214 92%
$ 6,002,783,089 97%
$ 6,165,328,557 100%
$ 6,184,943,263 10096
$ 6,272,081,312 101%
$ 6,385,711,481 103%
$ 7,144,089,843 116%
$ 7,542,154,879 122%
$ 9,107,284,679 147%
$ 9,900,884,044 160%
437 136%
205
540
691
642
64%
168%
215%
200 %
78,960 402%
24,210 123%
102,700 522%
127,100 646%
62,110 316%
61%
10,152, 241,433 164 %
10, 228,874,349 165 %
10,301,293,691 16 7 %
$ 10,600,014,202 171%
$ 13,326,314,672 215%
X
X
$ 16,909,050,051 273%
$ 18,597,339,729 301%
$ 20,770,064,850 336%
* WA State Department of Revenue (DOR) data was used for the 2018 Market Survey. The most recent DOR data available at the time of survey is 2017 figures (data lags by one year.)
FTE = Full Time Equivalent Employees
County Assessed Values from County Assessor Data current 2018 values
Sorted by 2018 County Assessed Values
X
x
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
Comparison on Recruiting Incentives
EXHIBIT C
Surveyed 25 Puget Sound Cities below are the responses received.
Puget Sound Cities
Recruiting Incentives Offered
Auburn
None
Bainbridge Island
None
Bremerton
Hiring Incentives Policy for difficult to fill positions. Bonus up to $5k
Burien
At times offer a bank of vacation hours (management positions)
Edmonds
None
Federal Way
Hiring bonus offered to lateral police officers; Director level positions receive 40 hours vac upon hire; have
paid up to $5k in relocation expenses when applicable
Issaquah
None
Kent
Can offer vacation immediately upon hire; signing bonuses for PD; may advance to next salary step after 6
months instead of one year. Have paid for travel to and from for final interviews
Kirkland
Hiring bonus far police officer
Lake Stevens
May provide more vacation to non -reps at hire
Lakewood
Management level non -reps may receive initial leave upon hire, and an on occasion a higher vacation accrual
rate
Lynnwood
None
Maple Valley
Managers & Directors may negotiate for additional vacation
Mt. Lake Terrace
Can offer higher vacation accruals and/or ability to use accrued vacation before 6 months
Mukilteo
On occasion have offered higher management positions vacation (2-3 weeks) upfront
Renton
Hiring bonus to lateral police officers; on occasion have given lump sum vacation or accelerated vacation
accrual rate.
SeaTac
None