HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial 2012-03-19 Item 2 - Report and Findings Presentation by NW Management ConsultingREPORT ON
WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF
NON REPRESENTED POSITIONS
CITY OF TUKWILA
March 19, 2012
Ross J. Ardrey, Consultant
NW Management Consulting, Inc.
1326 Fifth Ave. #349
Seattle, WA 98101
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Pages 3 -5
Introduction, Scope and Goals
Page 6
Highlights of Wage and Benefit Analysis and Validation s
Page 7
Review and Analysis of Other Jurisdictions
Pages 8 -12
Table I City Comparisons
Page 9
Table II Analysis of Survey Jurisdictions
Page 10
Table III Washington State Dept of Revenue Abstract
Page 11
Table IV Analysis of Survey Jurisdictions Expanded
Page 12
Represented and Non Represented Positions
Page 13
Validating Survey of 2011 Prevailing Market Rates
Pages 14 -20
Table V Non Represented Positions and Benchmarks
Page 15
Table VI Non -Rep Survey City Selections
Page 16
Table VII Non -Rep Survey Assessed Valuations (A V)
Page 17
Table VIII Non -Rep Survey Populations Under 75, 000
Page 18
Table IX Non -Rep Survey Core Cities (City A V List)
Page 19
Table X Non -Rep Survey Benefits Total Comp
Page 20
Projections for 2012 and Range Placements
Pages 21 -23
Table XI Non -Rep Survey 2011 and 2012
Page 22
Table XII Non -Rep Survey 2011 and 2012 Variances
Page 23
Recommendations for Compensation Program Developments
Page 24
Attachments
Statement of Qualifications
Scope of Work
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 2
NW MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, INC.
COMPENSATION
HUMAN RESOURCES
March 19, 2012
Mayor's Office
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Mayor Jim Haggerton:
1326 Fifth Ave #349
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 223 -4234
Fax: (206) 223-4241
Cell: (206) 818 -4234
ardrey @qwestoffice.net
This letter is an executive summary of the City's Wage and Benefit Analysis for non represented positions.
This analysis reviewed the current practices and initial recommendations the Administration made in the Fall
of 2011.
Based on my professional experience and validations of programs in other cities, public agencies, and other
employers, this analysis validates the current practices and supports the City's 2011 Non Represented Salary
and Benefit compensation recommendations for implementation in January, 2012. In addition, this report
outlines recommendations for improvements in future compensation analysis and is intended to encourage and
help open a dialog for a comprehensive compensation review.
Professional validations in this Wage and Benefit Analysis are based on current local municipal practices and
the City's existing programs. Recommendations for a comprehensive compensation review are intended to
look at the overall best practices and address Tukwila's unique concerns.
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The Mayor and Council are proud of the City's management, staff and services. The study has emphasized
the challenges of defining comparability and the uniqueness of the City.
Resolution No. 1537, establishes a Non Represented Employees' Compensation Plan. It requires that a
market analysis be done every other year for the upcoming year for Non Represented positions. The current
analysis has been conducted based on information taken from the Association of Washington Cities (AWC)
Salary and Benefit survey. As in the past, a comparison was done of external comparables (cities) and
internal equity (union pay scales). The following comparable cities were used for this study: Auburn,
Bothell, Puyallup, Kent, Kirkland, Sea -Tac, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Redmond and Renton.
Nineteen (19) benchmark positions were chosen for comparison with external cities based upon job titles and
responsibilities. This data is then forwarded to Fox Lawson Associates, an independent firm, to perform
the regression line analysis to determine top steps for the non represented salary schedule. In review of
internal equity, the non represented top step wage information is compared to represented top step wage.
This review serves us with a snapshot of where wage compression may exist between the groups. Once
external and internal reviews have been conducted and the regression line analysis completed, the data is
reviewed to determine a recommendation for wage adjustments for the next year The Mayor submits his
final recommendation to the Finance and Safety Committee for consideration and to be forwarded to the full
City Council for adoption.
The Mayor's recommendation is to approve the 2012 Non Represented salary and benefits schedule effective
January 1, 2012, which provides for a market adjustment as determined by the Fox Lawson Associates
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 3
regression analysis for positions banded D62 -F102, and provide a three (3 percent increase to those at A,
B, C and D61 levels to maintain internal equity for these positions which have internal similarity with the
represented positions.
SCOPE OF PROFESSIONAL VALIDATION
NW Management Consulting, Inc., was selected by the City in February, 2012, to provide an independent
professional review of current practices and a validation of the Mayor's Recommendations. The Scope of
Work for this project is shown as an Attachment to this report and includes reviews of (1) Non Represented
Benchmark Selections, (2) 2011 Prevailing Market Survey, (3) 2011 Benefits and Total Compensation, and
(4) 2012 Projections and Range Placements.
RESULTS OF PROFESSIONAL VALIDATIONS
Professional Validation of Non Represented Benchmark Selections
The Wage and Benefit Analysis validates the City's benchmark position selections and shows how the
benchmarks are spread from the lower to the higher salary ranges, represent departments, and include positions
found in other municipalities. Designation of director positions as benchmarks is an innovative procedure that
enhances benchmark functions and provides for better program oversight.
Professional Validation of 2011 Prevailing Market Rate Survey
Survey comparisons shown in the report validate the City's 2011 market rate comparisons using the City's
current comparable. As part of this validation, other comparable cities were selected based on assessed
valuations, cities with less than 75,000 population, and cities on both the existing and assessed valuation
comparison lists.
All of the comparisons show the City's 2011 salary levels lag the other cities, depending on
comparisons, by from -2% to -3
The salary validations confirm the City's 2011 market rate comparisons.
Professional Validation of 2011 Benefits and Total Compensation
Total compensation comparisons draw together benefit data for paid leave, insurance, retirement, and other
non represented compensation.
The total compensation comparisons show offsets between the other cities and the City so that the
City lags the other cities by approximately -2
The total compensation comparisons confirm the market rate survey validations.
Professional Validations of 2012 Projections and Range Placements
Survey comparisons for 2012 are based on authorized changes in the other cities salary schedules. The 2012
comparisons show the City's level is the same as the other cities with a variance of 0 Professional
validations of range placements for 2012 show 14 of the 20 benchmarks (70 are within f 5% of the average
of the other cities. None of the benchmarks is out of line by more than 12 The consultant's
recommendation is to interpret the survey as validating the range placements. This validates the proposed
range placements.
Overall Validation
Based on my professional experience and background, this Wage and Benefit Analysis validates the current
Tukwila practices for compensation reviews and supports the Mayor's recommendation for compensation
changes in 2012.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 4
SUGGESTIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE COMPENSATION REVIEW
The main focus of the Wage and Benefit Analysis was on City programs as they exist today. In addition, this
analysis was intended to provide recommendations for improvements based on best practices and Tukwila's
unique concerns.
The analysis does not provide answers into fundamental policy questions regarding the appropriateness of
these programs. Examples of "big picture" policy issues include matters such as how to define the City's
compensation philosophy, or whether progressions should be based on longevity or have some form of
performance recognition, or what to do about compressions and inversions, or whether surveys of larger
groups of comparable cities are better than smaller more focused reviews, or whether point comparisons
frameworks such as the City's Decision Band Method (DBM) or market rates should define range placements.
Suggestions shown in the report are intended to provide a preliminary framework for discussions, focus on the
City of Tukwila, and will need to be refined and revised to reflect Mayor, Council, management, and non-
represented employee visions, values and inputs. An initial list of recommendations for what should be part of
a comprehensive compensation study includes the following items:
Frequency and Review of this Kind of Compensation Study
Compensation reviews should reflect changes in labor markets and City services
The reviews should be conducted every 5 to 10 years.
The reviews should involve independent resources to avoid conflicts of interest.
General Considerations Regarding Comprehensive Compensation Reviews
The Mayor and Council should be involved at critical points throughout the study.
Compensation reviews should have open, transparent and participatory processes.
Reviews should include policies, structures, procedures, and day -to -day administration.
There should be an opportunity for everyone to comment, be heard, and see feedback.
Interviews should include job data, strengths and opportunities for improvements.
Surveys should be conducted through on -site visits with other cities and organizations.
Comparisons should be based on job functions and complexities and avoid job titles.
Surveys should include updated city comparisons and private sector compensation.
Reports and presentations should include updated policies and procedures.
CONSULTANT AFFIDAVIT OF SUBMITTAL
This report on the Wage and Benefit Analysis of Non Represented Positions was prepared by Ross J.
Ardrey, the president and principal consultant at NW Management Consulting, Inc. The firm's statement of
qualifications is included as an attachment. This report reflects the consultant's independent professional
judgments and findings and is intended to be fully responsive to City of Tukwila's Request for Proposals.
Sincerely,
Ross J. Ardrey
Ross J. Ardrey
President
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 5
REPORT ON
WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF NON REPRESENTED POSITIONS
Ross J. Ardrey Consultant NW Management Consulting, Inc. 1326 Fifth Ave #349 Seattle, WA 98101
INTRODUCTION, SCOPE AND GOALS
This study responds to the City of Tukwila's request for an independent professional consultant to conduct
a Wage and Benefit Analysis of Non Represented Positions. The City selected Ross Ardrey, the principal
consultant at NW Management Consulting, to conduct the review. The selection was based on consultant
qualifications, proposals content, and professional references. The firm's statement of qualifications is
included as an attachment.
Study Goals and Concerns
The City of Tukwila is located in South King County, has 320 regular full -time and part-time employees
including 36 non represented chiefs, directors, supervisors, analysts, and administrative technical
employees who are assigned to 32 positions. Examples of concerns:
How to conduct a review without disrupting the City's ongoing compensation programs?
How to select comparables that recognize the uniqueness of the City of Tukwila?
How to compare City position responsibilities and functions with other agencies?
How compare internal equity between non -rep and represented positions?
How to attain credibility with elected officials, management, unions, and staff?
Uniqueness of City of Tukwila
The project plan emphasizes the challenges of defining comparability, validating wage and benefit data,
recognizing the uniqueness of the City of Tukwila's responsibilities, meeting study goals and schedules,
and keeping everyone informed. Examples of City of Tukwila's unique responsibilities, programs and
services:
Tukwila has a population of 18,190 residents and a daytime population of 170,000.
Tukwila is unique in the extent of its resident and regional retail and business services.
Resident and regional services impact City functions, positions and responsibilities.
Tukwila is one of the most complex municipalities in the Puget Sound area.
Tukwila, like other cities, is facing challenging business and economic times.
HIGHLIGHTS OF PROJECT PLAN
The project plan is intended to be about the City of Tukwila, meet Mayor and other elected officials goals,
respond to management requirements, and provide a flexible framework for refinements.
Final Report
Step 1: Review and Analysis of other Jurisdictions Completed
Step 2: Review and Analysis of Internal Equity of Non -Rep and Rep Positions Completed
Step 3: Validate Survey of Prevailing Market Rate Salaries and Benefits Completed
Step 4: Discuss and Recommend Range Placement Adjustments Completed
Step 5: Provide Recommendations for Compensation Program Developments Completed
Highlights of the wage and benefit analysis, validations and recommendations follow this page.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 6
HIGHLIGHTS OF WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND VALIDATIONS
Review of Comuarison Citv Selections, Internal Eauities. and Benchmark Selections
The review of comparison cities shows consistency with City bargaining units. The analysis validates City
benchmark selections and shows benchmarks are spread through the salary ranges, cover departments, and
are found in other cities. Designation of director positions as benchmarks is innovative and provides for
better oversight.
Professional Validation of 2011 Prevailing Market Rate Survev
Comparisons include the existing comparison cities as well as cities selected based on assessed valuations,
cities with less than 75,000 population, and cities included on both the existing and assessed valuation lists.
Variances are computed based on the formula "Survey- Tukwila/Tukwila." A negative indicates Tukwila
lags the other cities and no sign indicates Tukwila is the same or exceeds the other cities. The comparisons
show variances within 5 of the other cities (e.g. from the table below, (53.30 54.70/53.30 -3
Survev Comparisons Survev Average
Tukwila Average
Variance
Comparisons 12 Cities
54.70
53.30
-3%
Assessed Valuations (AV) 12 Cities
53.87
53.30
-1%
AV W/O Mukilteo 11 Cities
54.87
53.30
-3%
Comparisons Under 75,000 9 Cities
54.52
53.30
-2%
Comparisons Overlap Group 6 Cities
54.77
53.30
-3%
Professional Validation of 2011 Benefits and Total Compensation
Total compensation comparisons draw together benefit data for paid leave, insurance, retirement, and other
non represented compensation. Included are: Compensated Leave for Holidays, Sick Leave, and
Vacations; Health and Other Insurance; Retirement; and other Paid Compensation. The total compensation
comparisons show offsets between the other cities and Tukwila so that Tukwila lags the other cities by
approximately -2% and confirms the market survey validations.
Professional Validations of 2012, Range Placements, and Recommendations
Survey comparisons for 2012 are based on changes that had been settled in the other cities salary schedules
which average 1.59% and the projected salary range changes for the City which are from 3% to 6.9 The
2012 comparisons show the City is the same as the other cities with a variance of f 0
Salary survey comparisons even under the best circumstances are considered to be reliable to within 5
Professional validations of range placements are for 2011 and 2012 survey comparisons. The following
table compares variances of over 16 11% up to 15 6% up to 10% and within 5
Variance Comparisons
Variances Greater than 16%
Variances from 11% up to f 15%
Variances from 6% up to 10%
Variances within f 5%
Survev 2011
0 of 20
2 of 20
8 of 20
10 of 20
Survev 2012
0 of 20
2 of 20
4 of 20
14 of 20
Percent 2012
0%
10%
20%
70%
The consultant's recommendation is to interpret the findings as validating the benchmark range placements.
The City's existing procedures are working and should be observed to initiate range placement reviews.
This summary of the City's Wage and Benefit Analysis, presents a professional validation of the City's
Non Represented Salary and Benefit Recommendations for 2012, and is intended to encourage and help
open a dialog for a comprehensive compensation review.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 7
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS
The focus of this section is on review and analysis of jurisdictions that the City of Tukwila utilizes for
comparable data for market based guidance on classification and compensation structures. The
comparisons provide professional validation of the City's selections and a framework for reviews.
City selection comparisons are on page 9 and show cities considered in represented and non represented
survey comparisons. The cities are listed in the first column on the left in geographic order from North to
South. Comparison cities for the bargaining unit positions are shown in the second and third columns and
include Police Non Commissioned Officers and Teamsters. The fourth and fifth columns shown
comparisons for non represented positions based on the City of Tukwila's existing selections and a series
of 12 cities selected by the consultant for this study based on assessed valuations. The column on the right
shows proximity to the City of Tukwila.
Comparison data for the existing non represented city selections are shown on page 10. The table
illustrates the multi comparison basis underlying these city selections. Cities are listed on the left in
geographic order from North to South. Also shown are locations and form of government. Comparison
formats and factors include:
Traditional Selection Factors
Assessed Valuation
Population
Staff Full Time
Retail and Business Factors
Sales and Revenues
Mall(s) Square Feet
Mall(s) Number of Stores
Page 11 illustrates assessed valuation selection procedures. The worksheet is from the Department of
Revenue, focuses on larger cities located in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties, and lists the cities in the
second column based on assessed valuation. The selection guide of 50% is shown between the second
and third columns. Cities within that guide are highlighted in red and green.
Page 12 observes the same format as shown on page 10 with additions and deletions in the lower table to
reflect the assessed valuation guides and selections.
PROFESSIONAL VALIDATION AND BEST PRACTICE CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Tukwila's city selection practice meets standard municipal standards. Best practice
considerations, however, need to be concerned that too many comparisons cities reduces the ability to
focus on getting good comparisons, and, in effect, averages out the good comparison data included in the
selection. Also important is working into the selection process the City's actual recruiting and retention
experience, providing a framework to include City and departmental inputs that make sure the selected
cities are those that have something going on in terms of municipal management and services, and making
the selections in an open, participatory and transparent process. The table on page 9, from a best practice
standpoint, shows an absence of underlying direction on selection criteria, too many cities, and too much
spread in geographic distance.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 8
TABLE I
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS
CITY COMPARISONS
Uniformed Personnel are subject to Interest Arbitration under RCW 41.56 and therefore are not included in
this table.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 9
Non Represented
Miles to
CITIES
Police
Teamsters
Existing
Assd Val
Tukwila
North -South
Non -Comm
Cities
Cities
(Goggle)
MARYSVILLE
X
48
MUKILTEO
X
36
LYNNWOOD
X
X
X
28
SHORELINE
X
25
EDMONDS
X
X
31
BOTHELL
X
X
X
X
28
MNTLAKE TERR
X
X
28
REDMOND
X
X
X
24
KIRKLAND
X
X
22
MERCER ISLAND
17
ISSAQUAH
X
X
X
X
22
RENTON
X
X
X
6
TUKWILA
X
X
X
X
0
BURIEN
X
9
SEATAC
X
X
X
3
KENT
X
X
X
4
FED WAY /SKFR
X
X
X
12
AUBURN
X
X
X
X
13
PUYALLUP
X
X
X
X
25
LAKEWOOD
X
29
CITY COMPARISONS
11
10
12
12
AVG: 21
W/O TUKWILA
Uniformed Personnel are subject to Interest Arbitration under RCW 41.56 and therefore are not included in
this table.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 9
TABLE II
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS OF SURVEY JURISDICTIONS
Survev Citv Selections Based on Existing Citv of Tukwila Practices Data as of Julv 2011
Sources: Muncival Research Services Center (MRSC), Wa State Dent of Revenue (DOR),
Association of Washington Cities (AWC), Puget Sound Business Journal 2012 (PSBJ -PaLye 59)
Abbreviations: VAL (Assessed Val Millions); STAFF (Full Time); SALES (Sales Millions)
Comparisons. Location. Government
CITIES
COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
(MRSC)
(MRSC)
FORM (MRSC)
Cities N„ S) (12)
33,720
281
LYNNWOOD
SNOHOM
MAYOR -CNCL
BOTHELL
SNO/KING
CNCL -MGR
MNTLKE TRC
SNOHOM
CNCL -MGR
REDMOND
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
KIRKLAND
KING
CNCL -MGR
ISSAQUAH
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
RENTON
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
TUKWILA
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
SEATAC
KING
CNCL -MGR
KENT
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
FEDERAL WAY
KING
CNCL -MGR
AUBURN
PIERCE /KING MAYOR -CNCL
PUYALLUP
PIERCE
CNCL -MGR
Traditional Factors Retail and Business Factors
VAL POP STAFF SALES PSBJ MALLS 2012
(DOR) (AWC) (AWC) (DOR) (SQ FEET) (STORES)
4,726
35,860
329
1,778
1,270,000
200
6,317
33,720
281
969
2,034
19,990
123
156
12,793
55,150
594
2,034
670,000
120
10,710
49,020
436
1,456
5,950
30,690
228
1,158
1,109,561
37
11,416
92,590
647
1,914
607,797
40
4,776
19,050
301
1,635
2,159,071
272
4,222
27,110
149
878
13,064
118,200
604
1,549
306,474
60
8,206
89,370
289
1,195
783,299
100
6,805
70,705
408
1,281
933,295
130
4,494
37,240
275
1,615
964,516
120
TUKWILA KING MAYOR -CNCL
SUMMARY/ Sno/King 3 Cncl -Mgr: 6
AVERAGE King: 7
(W /O TUKWILA) Prc/King: 2 Mayor -Cncl: 6
4,809 18,190 301 1,635 2,159,071 272
6,195 42,111 335 1,306 978,224 107
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 10
TABLE III
Table 30 Wa State Department of Revenue Abstract of Levy Detail
Part l: Senior Taxing District Levies Due in 2011- King, Pierce, Snohomish Citites
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 11
Bond/Special
Municipality/
Regular
Regular Levy
Levies
Total Taxes
County
Taxing District
Valuation
Levy Rate
Due in 2011
Due in 2011
Due in 2011
King
Seattle
119,424,060,925
1.87417
347,857,655
17,538,763
365,396,418
King
Bellevue temp lid lift
32,076,141,990
1.14204
36,632,291
36,632,291
Pierce
Tacoma
19,033,502,788
2.62934
50,045,520
2,167,040
52,212,560
King
Kent
13,064,483,188
1.48394
19,386,866
19,386,866
King
Redmond
12,793,235,572
1.69589
21,695,933
291,879
21,987,812
Snohomish
Everett
12,363,443,145
2.60757
32,238,578
32,238,578
King
Renton
11,415,700,111
2.83207
32,330,089
32,330,089
King
Kirkland
10,710,832,316
1.30134
13,938,466
914,072
14,852,538
King
Sammamish
8,588,298,544
2.46595
21,178,274
21,178,274
King
Mercer Island
8,488,446,213
1.14061
10,564,047
10,564,047
King
Federal Way
8,206,354,959
1.19750
9,827,070
9,827,070
King
Auburn (King) perm lid lift
6,804,895,250
1.93458
13,164,625
13,164,625
King
Shoreline
6,695,810,682
1.48000
9,909,804
1,700,069
11,609,873
Snohomish
Edmonds
6,433,258,853
1.47663
9,499,558
877,984
10,377,542
King
Bothell (King/Snohom)
6,317,709,519
1.36864
4,440,183
397,448
4,837,631
King
Issaquah
5,949,671,011
1.13546
6,755,598
1,448,032
8,203,630
Snohomish
Marysville
5,357,774,475
2.34000
12,537,199
226,073
12,763,272
Pierce
Lakewood
5,316,770,509
1.16180
6,177,007
6,177,007
King
Tukwila Tukwila 1.5
4,775,732,512
2.82566
13,494,599
13,494,599
Snohomish
Lynnwood 7,163,598,768
4,726,403,303
1.86952
8,836,120
8,836,120
King
Burien
4,574,205,698
1.55513
7,113,504
7,113,504
Pierce
Puyallup Tukwa
y p 3,183,8211,67 5
67
4,494,066,970
1.57347
7,071,278
1,413,458
8,484,736
King
SeaTac
4,221,508,292
2.80159
11,826,941
11,826,941
Snohomish
Mukilteo
3,541,494,541
1.28641
4,555,800
4,555,800
Pierce
University Place
3,098,693,277
1.22787
3,804,780
3,804,780
Snohomish
Bothell Joint
3,073,475,024
1.36864
4,206,481
377,580
4,584,061
King
Kenmore
2,779,389,739
1.48382
4,124,126
4,124,126
King
Des Moines temp lid lift
2,665,187,506
1.60000
4,264,299
4,264,299
Snohomish
Mill Creek
2,660,873,179
1.91703
5,100,963
5,100,963
Snohomish
Lake Stevens
2,658,887,830
1.54606
4,110,792
4,110,792
King
Woodinville
2,546,803,303
1.15597
2,944,026
2,944,026
King
Maple Valley
2,435,732,420
1.29016
3
3,142,475
King
Medina
2,268,996,840
1.05820
2,401,057
2,401,057
Snohomish
Mountlake Terrace
2,033,992,888
1.53793
3,128,130
3,128,130
Snohomish
Arlington
2,018,675,444
1.16941
2,360,662
2,360,662
Pierce
Fife
2,008,596,565
1.32061
2,652,564
2,652,564
King
Lake Forest Park
2,005,849,832
1.39551
2,799,174
2,799,174
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 11
TABLE IV
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS OF SURVEY JURISDICTIONS EXPANDED
Abbrvs: VAL (Assessed Val Millions): STAFF (Full Time): SALES (Sales Millions). PSBJ (Pu Sou nd Bsn Jrn)
Comparisons. Location. Government
Traditional Factors
Retail and Business Factors
CITIES
COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
VAL
POP
STAFF
SALES
PSBJ MALLS
2012
(North to South)
(MRSC)
FORM (MRSC)
(DOR)
(AWC)
(AWC)
(DOR)
(SQ FEET)
(STORES)
Cities Based on Existing Practice North
-South (12 +Tukwila)
LYNNWOOD
SNOHOM
MAYOR -CNCL
4,726
35,860
329
1,778
1,270,000
200
BOTHELL
SNO /KING
CNCL -MGR
6,317
33,720
281
969
MNTLKE TRC
SNOHOM
CNCL -MGR
2,034
19,990
123
156
REDMOND
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
12,793
55,150
594
2,034
670,000
120
KIRKLAND
KING
CNCL -MGR
10,710
49,020
436
1,456
ISSAQUAH
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
5,950
30,690
228
1,158
1,109,561
37
RENTON
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
11,416
92,590
647
1,914
607,797
40
TUKWILA
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
4,776
19,050
301
.1,635
2,159,071
272
SEATAC
KING
CNCL -MGR
4,222
27,110
149
878
KENT
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
13,064
118,200
604
1,549
306,474
60
FEDERAL WAY
KING
CNCL -MGR
8,206
89,370
289
1,195
783,299
100
AUBURN
PIERCE /KING MAYOR -CNCL
6,805
70,705
408
1,281
933,295
130
PUYALLUP
PIERCE
CNCL -MGR
4,494
37,240
275
1,615
964,516
120
SUMMARY
Sno /King 3
Cncl -Mgr: 6
AVERAGE
King: 7
6,195
42,111
335
1,306
978,224
119
Mayor -Cncl: 6
(W /O TUKWILA)
Prc /King: 2
CITIES
COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
VAL
POP
STAFF
SALES
PSBJ MALLS 2012
(Assessed Valuation)
(MRSC)
FORM (MRSC)
(DOR)
(AWC)
(AWC)
(DOR)
(SQ FEET)
(STORES)
Cities Based on Assessed Valuation
(12 +Tukwila) Drons MT. Rd. Krk. Rnt. Knt.
FW: Adds
in Green: Overlap
in Black
AUBURN
PIERCE /KING MAYOR -CNCL,
6,805
70,705
408
1,281
933,295
130
SHORELINE
KING
CNCL -MGR
6,696
53,200
127
661
EDMONDS
SNOHOM
MAYOR -CNCL
6,433
39,800
207
499
BOTHELL
SNO /KING
CNCL -MGR
6,317
33,720
281
969
ISSAQUAH
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
5,950
30,690
228
1,158
1,109,561
37
MARYSVILLE
SNOHOM
MAYOR -CNCL
5,357
60,660
238
722
LAKEWOOD
PIERCE
CNCL -MGR
5,316
58,190
235
847
TUKWILA
KING
MAYOR -CNCL
4,776
19,050
301
1,635
2,159,071
272
LYNNWOOD
SNOHOM
MAYOR -CNCL
4,726
35,860
329
1,778
1,270,000
200
BURIEN
KING
CNCL -MGR
4,574
47,660
64
461
PUYALLUP
PIERCE
CNCL -MGR
4,494
37,240
275
1,615
964,516
120
SEATAC
KING
CNCL -MGR
4,222
27,110
149
878
MUKILTEO
SNOHOM
MAYOR -CNCL
3,541
20,310
101
198
SUMMARY
Sno /King 5
Cncl -Mgr: 6
AVERAGE
King: 4
Mayor -Cncl: 6
5,369
42,929
220
922
1,069,343
122
(W /O TUKWILA)
Prc/King: 3
TUKWILA KING MAYOR -CNCL 4,809 18,190 301 1,635 2,159,071 272
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 12
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL EQUITY
REPRESENTED AND NON REPRESENTED POSITIONS
The purpose of this step is to review and compare internal equity between non represented and represented
positions. The City has a Decision Band Method (DBM) system for classification and compensation so the
concern is with internal equity between the non -rep and represented positions and comparisons between the
City and the other cities Tukwila compares with in its negotiation and survey comparison process.
Internal Equity Comparison Cities Listed North -South
Lynnwood
Renton
Bothell
SeaTac
Mountlake Terrace
Kent
Redmond
Auburn
Kirkland
Puyallup
The following table show average data for 2009 -2012, and validate Tukwila's comparisons with respect
to the other municipalities.
REP AND NON -REP SURVEY CITY SELECTIONS INTERNAL EQUITY
Average Increases Listed by Year for Rev and Non -Rev Data as of March 5. 2012
Survev Comparisons Based on Existing Comvarable Citv Selections Considering Multivle Factors
Year
2009
2010
2011 2012
2009 -2012
Rep- Survey
4.92%
1.16%
1.12% 2.02%
2.30%
NR- Survey
4.30%
0.50%
0.64% 1.59%
1.76%
Rep Tukwila
3.98%
3.63%
1.69%
3.10%
NR- Tukwila
4.50%
2.20%
0.00%
2.23%
PROFESSIONAL VALIDATION AND BEST PRACTICE CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Tukwila's internal equity practice meets municipal standards of other cities in the Puget Sound
area. Best practice considerations, however, need to be concerned that there is a disparity of approximately
'/2 per year between the represented and non represented groups and that the cumulative effect of this
disparity is to create inversions and compressions between management and represented positions.
Challenges facing municipalities with respect to internal equity are common to not for profit and private
sector employers. Best practices need to reflect policy directions to assure represented and non represented
compensation programs recognize the value of internal progressions and provide additions to compensation
programs that offset represented position advantages. Also important is reviewing and updating the salary
range and grade structure, and reviewing procedures the City uses to reconcile internal equity, i.e., points
and market prices.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 13
VALIDATING SURVEY OF 2011 PREVAILING MARKET RATES
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
This section includes review of review of benchmark selection criteria and selections, compilation and
analysis of AWC salary, position by position comparisons between the survey cities and the City of
Tukwila, and salary and benefit total compensation comparisons.
Professional Validation of Benchmark Selections
This section validates the City's benchmark position selections and shows how the benchmarks are spread
from the lower to the higher salary ranges, represent most departments, and include positions found in
other municipalities. Most department director positions are included as benchmark to assure comparisons
with other jurisdictions. Designation of director positions is an innovative procedure that enhances
benchmark functions and provides for better program oversight.
The table on page 15 shows the non represented positions in the first column on the left and listed in
ascending order of salary range assignment. The second column shows the existing salary range. The third
through sixth column show quartiles, the distribution of benchmarks in each quartile, and the department
assignment. The number of survey matches is shown in the column on the right.
Professional Validation of Prevailing Market Rate Survev
Salary survey comparisons even under the best circumstances are considered to be reliable to within 5
The survey comparisons on pages 16 through 20 validate Tukwila survey comparisons and include
comparisons for the existing comparison cities, cities selected based on assessed valuations, cities with less
than 75,000 population, and cities included on both the existing and assessed valuation comparison lists.
The four comparisons show that the survey findings are within f 5 of the other comparisons.
Survev Comparisons
Comparisons 12 Cities
Assessed Valuations 12 Cities
Survev Average Tukwila Average Variance
AV W/O Mukilteo 11 Cities
Comparisons Under 75,000 9 Cities
Comparisons Overlap Group 6 Cities
54.70
53.30
-3%
53.87
53.30
-1%
54.87
53.30
-3%
54.52
53.30
-2%
54.77
53.30
-3%
Professional Validation of Benefits and Total Compensation Comparisons
Comparisons draws together benefit comparison data for paid leave, insurance, retirement, and other non-
represented compensation. Included are: Compensated Leave for Holidays, Sick Leave, and Vacations;
Health and Other Insurance such as Medical, Dental, and Vision; Retirement, and other Paid
Compensation. Preliminary data and gaps in the comparisons are noted.
The summary on page 20 lists the benefit programs in the column on the left. The middle section shows
program comparisons. Average comparisons together with estimated costs are shown in the second block
of columns from right. Tukwila's program and actual cost comparisons are shown on the right. The
survey variances are shown on the right and on the bottom.
The total compensation comparisons show offsets between the other cities and Tukwila so that Tukwila
lags the other cities by approximately 2% and confirms the salary validation comparisons.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 14
TABLE V
NON REPRESENTED POSITIONS AND BENCHMARK POSITIONS
Non -Rev Positions Listed in First Column in Ranee Order Benchmarks Indented and in Boldface
enchmarks with More than One Emvlovee include Admin Secretary 1 with 2 and Senior Engineer with
Benchmarks Omit Internal Overations Manager (Vacant) and
Personnel Analvst (Functions
Solit)
Benchmark Selections
Survey
Position Title
Range
Ouartile
Benchmarks
Devartment
Matches
Admin Support Technician
Al2
1st Qrtl
Multi
Human Resources Technician
B21
1st Qrtl
HR
Administrative Secretary
B22
1st Qrtl
Multi
11
Civil Service Sec /Examiner
B22
1st Qrtl
Mayor
Deputy City Clerk
B23
1st Qrtl
1st Qrtl:
Mayor
9
Executive Secretary
B23
1st Qrtl
4 of 10
Mayor
11
Administrative Secretary I
B23
1st Qrtl
Multi
Council Adm Assistant
B23
1st Qrtl
Mayor
IT Systems Administrator
C41
1st Qrtl
IT
11
Human Resources Assistant
C41
1st Qrtl
HR
City Clerk
C42
2nd Qrtf
Mayor
11
Court Administrator
C42
2nd Qrtl
Court
10
Police Records Manager
C42
2nd Qrtl
Police
Legislative Analyst
C42
2nd Qrtl
2nd Qrtl:
Mayor
Human Resources Analyst
C42
2nd Qrtl
3 of 10
HR
Public Works Analyst
C42
2nd Qrtl
PW
Public Works Coordinator
C43
2nd Qrtl
PW
Emergency Mgt Coordinator
C43
2nd Qrtl
Fire
Assistant City Administrator
D61
2nd Qrtl
Mayor
Senior Engineer
D61
2nd Qrtl
PW
10
Building Official
061
3rd Qrtf
DCD
10
IT Manager
D61
3rd Qrtl
IT
Maintenance Ops Manager
D62
3rd Qrtl
3rd Qrtl:
PW
Deputy CD Director
D63
3rd Qrtl
4 of 10
DCD
Deputy Finance Director
D63
3rd Qrtl
Finance
Deputy Public Works Director
D63
3rd Qrtl
PW
Deputy Parks Rec Director
D63
3rd Qrtl
Prks Rec
Assistant Fire Chief
D72
3rd Qrtl
Fire
6
Assistant Police Chief
D72
3rd Qrtl
Police
9
City Engineer
D72
4th Qrtl
PW
9
Economic Develop Admin
E81
4th Qrtl
Mayor
Director Comm Development
E83
4th Qrtl
DCD
11
Parks Recreation Director
E83
4th Qrtl
Prks Rec
10
IT Director
E83
4th Qrtl
4th Qrtl:
IT
11
Finance Director
E83
4th Qrtl
9 of 10
Finance
12
HR Director
E83
4th Qrtl
HR
11
Police Chief
E91
4th Qrtl
Police
11
Fire Chief
E91
4th Qrtl
Fire
6
PW Director
E91
4th Qrtl
PW
12
City Administrator
F102
4th Qrtl
Mayor
8
COMBINED DATA AND SURVEY AVERAGES
20 of 40
AVG:10
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 15
TABLE VI
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE BENEFIT ANALYSIS
NON -REP BENCHMARKS SURVEY CITY SELECTIONS SURVEY ORDER
Survev and Citv of Tukwila Comparisons Shown as Too Step Hourlv Rates
Positions Listed in Order of AWC Survev Average Data as of July. 2011- Ascending Order
Survev Comparisons Based on Existins Citv Selections Considering AV and Other Factors
BENCHMARK SURVEY CITIES AND SALARY RANGE COMPARISONS I SURVEY I TUKWILA
POSITIONS ABRN IBTHL IFED W IISSQH (KENT IKRKL ILNWD IMT TR PUYLPIRDMD IRNTN SEATCI JOBS I AVG I HR I VRN
Adm Secretary 1
28.17
31.11
26.61
29.84
28.58
30.02
26.09
26.65
30.49
29.41
28.41
11
28.67
32.16
11%
Deputy City
Clerk
31.13
32.94
27.18
34.94
30.01
24.26
30.24
31.82
31.36
9
30.43
32.16
5%
Exec Secretary
34.47
34.35
31.64
34.26
35.71
33.69
31.44
30.32
32.84
31.82
33.94
11
33.13
32.16
-3%
IT Systems
Admin
40.14
39.26
38.98
37.85
41.37
44.91
35.74
39.26
36.24
43.35
45.38
11
40.23
39.53
-2%
City Clerk
40.19
40.83
39.50
43.83
43.47
45.70
56.04
41.54
49.51
43.87
43.44
11
44.36
41.37
-7%
Court
Administrator
43.43
40.83
45.80
48.32
46.77
45.70
56.95
36.24
53.44
45.65
10
46.31
41.37
-12%
Senior Engineer
47.67
50.99
42.54
50.73
47.93
42.50
47.54
49.31
47.24
46.79
10
47.32
50.58
6%
Building
Official
47.67
57.69
45.80
64.75
49.11
39.26
44.43
48.86
46.09
50.39
10
49.40
50.58
2%
IT Director
68.52
49.75
42.54
50.73
69.16
69.77
62.65
60.86
62.16
53.44
38.40
11
57.09
62.33
8%
City Engineer
61.80
57.69
61.66
56.95
56.56
62.65
56.04
61.48
55.61
9
58.94
56.59
-4%
Assist Police
Chief
61.85
63.68
61.66
64.35
60.84
53.02
54.43
61.43
63.53
9
60.53
56.59
-7%
Assist Fire Chief
63.68
60.38
62.74
61.73
63.53
54.26
6
61.05
56.59
-8%
Director CD
68.52
65.27
55.63
69.16
66.42
62.65
56.04
60.86
65.50
53.44
66.11
11
62.69
62.33
-1%
HR Director
68.52
65.27
39.50
64.75
69.16
66.42
62.65
60.86
65.07
70.12
61.39
11
63.06
62.33
-1%
Parks Rec
Director
68.52
67.99
72.63
66.42
69.54
58.27
60.86
67.32
53.44
62.93
10
64.79
62.33
-4%
Finance Director
68.52
65.27
58.59
71.38
69.16
69.77
69.54
56.04
60.86
72.08
70.12
66.11
12
66.45
62.33
-7%
PW Director
68.52
65.27
66.09
71.38
72.63
67.86
69.54
56.04
60.86
72.08
70.12
66.11
12
67.21
64.50
-4%
Police Chief
65.08
70.29
65.10
71.38
72.63
67.86
70.53
58.27
60.86
70.66
70.12
11
67.53
64.50
-5%
Fire Chief
70.29
67.86
70.53
70.66
70.12
66.11
6
69.26
64.50
-7%
City
Administrator
81.20
78.71
78.50
83.67
61.83
73.09
77.35
69.28
8
75.45
71.13
-6%
SURVEY AVERAGES EXISTING CITY COMPARISONS (12 CITIES) 10 54.70 53.30 -3%
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 16
TABLE VII
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE BENEFIT ANALYSIS
NON -REP BENCHMARKS SURVEY ASSESSED VALUATION SURVEY ORDER
Survev and Citv of Tukwila Comparisons Shown as Top Step Houriv Rates
Positions Listed in Order of AWC Survev Averaee Data as of lulu. 2011- Ascendine Order
Adds Shoreline, Edmonds, Marvsville, Lakewd, Burien, Mukilteo Omits Kent. Rdm, Rnt, Kirk, Fed Wav, Mnt Trrc
BENCHMARK SURVEY CITIES AND SALARY RANGE COMPARISONS I SURVEY I TUKWILA
POSITIONS ABRI BTHI SHRLIISSQI EDM IMRY�LNWJLKWIIPUYgBURI�MKL JSEATI JOBS IAVG I -HR I VRN %a
Adm Secretary 1
28.17
31.11
28.26
29.84
35.04
27.29
26.65
28.41
8
29.64
32.16
8%
Deputy City Clerk
31.13
30.46
32.94
31.25
30.01
24.26
31.36
7
30.20
32.16
6%
Exec Secretary
34.47
34.35
32.79
34.26
41.65
34.45
29.90
30.32
26.26 34.64
33.94
11
33.37
32.16
4%
IT Systems Admin
40.14
39.26
39.97
37.85
37.99
35.74
36.24
7
38.17
39.53
3%
City Clerk
40.19
40.83
41.98
43.83
61.48
52.56
41.54
36.47 34.64
43.44
10
43.70
41.37
-6%
Court Administrato
43.43
40.83
48.32
54.87
49.75
56.95
44.42
36.24
45.65
9
46.72
41.37
13%
Senior Engineer
47.67
50.99
46.36
50.73
54.87
45.12
47.54
41.29
46.79
9
47.93
50.58
5%
Building Official
47.67
57.69
48.71
64.75
61.48
47.39
46.21
44.43
44.59
50.39
10
51.33
50.58
1%
IT Director
68.52
49.75
55.10
50.73
54.87
49.75
62.65
44.42
60.86
38.14 43.12
38.40
12
51.36
62.33
18%
Assist Fire Chief
63.68
62.74
47.62
54.26
4
57.07
56.59
-1%
Assist Police Chief
61.85
63.68
61.66
68.09
60.84
57.46
54.43
47.62
8
59.45
56.59
-5%
HR Director
68.52
65.27
60.82
64.75
74.70
62.65
54.15
60.86
46.51
61.39
10
61.96
62.33
1%
City Engineer
61.80
57.69
61.66
68.09
62.65
5
62.38
56.59
10%
Director CD
68.52
65.27
67.14
67.99
69.84
62.65
59.79
60.86
57.14 49.56
66.11
11
63.17
62.33
-1%
Fire Chief
70.29
70.53
52.60
66.11
4
64.88
64.50
-1%
Parks Rec Directo
68.52
67.14
67.99
74.70
67.15
69.54
54.15
60.86
56.83
62.93
10
64.98
62.33
-4%
Finance Director
68.52
65.27
67.14
71.38
74.70
69.84
69.54
59.79
60.86
59.56 49.56
66.11
12
65.19
62.33
-5%
PW Director
68.52
65.27
67.14
71.38
74.70
72.52
69.54
58.62
60.86
59.56 52.60
66.11
12
65.57
64.50
-2%
Police Chief
65.08
70.29
71.38
74.70
72.52
70.53
62.20
60.86
52.60
9
66.68
64.50
-3%
City Administrator
81.20
72.13
78.71
79.93
89.19
73.09
63.12 55.97
69.28
9
73.63
71.13
4%
SURVEY AVERAGES ASSESSED VALUATION
WITH MUKILTEO
9
53.87 1
53.30
-1%
SURVEY AVERAGES ASSESSED VALUATION
WITHOUT
MUKILTEO
I
8
54.78 1
53.30
-3%
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 17
If.1 &r /111
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE BENEFIT ANALYSIS
NON -REP BENCHMARKS SURVEY CITY SELECTIONS SURVEY ORDER
FOCUS ON NINE CITIES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 75,000
Survev and Citv of Tukwila Comparisons Shown as Too Step Hourlv Rates
Positions Listed in Order of AWC Survev Averaee Data as of Iuly. 2011- Ascending Order
Comparison Cities with Populations over 75.000 Hiehliehted in Red and Omitted from Averaees (9 Cities)
BENCHMARK SURVEY CITIES AND SALARY RANGE COMPARISONS I SURVEY I TUKWILA
POSITIONS ABRI BTHI FED 4ISSQI] KEN' KRKI]LN"MT T�PUYgRDM�"SEATI JOBSIAVG I -HR I VRN
Adm Secretary 1
28.17
31.11
26.61
29.84
28.58
30.02
26.09
26.65
30.49
29.41
28.41
8
28.85
32.16
10%
Deputy City Clerk
31.13
32.94
27.18
34.94
30.01
24.26
30.24
31.82
31.36
7
30.81
32.16
4%
Exec Secretary
34.47
34.35
31.64
34.26
35.71
33.69
31.44
30.32
32.84
31.82
33.94
8
33.16
32.16
3
IT Systems Admin.
40.14
39.26
38.98
37.85
41.37
44.91
35.74
39.26
36.24
43.35
45.38
8
40.15
39.53
2
Court Administrato
43.43
40.83
45.80
48.32
46.77
45.70
56.95
36.24
53.44
45.65
7
43.36
41.37
-5%
City Clerk
40.19
40.83
39.50
43.83
43.47
45.70
56.04
41.54
49.51
43.87
43.44
8
45.13
41.37
-9
Senior Engineer
47.67
50.99
42.54
50.73
47.93
42.50
47.54
49.31
47.24
46.79
7
47.93
50.58
5%
Building Official
47.67
57.69
45.80
64.75
49.11
39.26
44.43
48.86
46.09
50.39
7
50.43
50.58
0%
IT Director
68.52
49.75
42.54
50.73
69.16
69.77
62.65
60.86
62.16
53.44
38.40
8
57.17
62.33
8%
City Engineer
61.80
57.69
61.66
56.95
56.56
62.65
56.04
61.48
55.61
8
58.69
56.59
-4%
Assist Police Chief
61.85
63.68
61.66
64.35
60.84
53.02
54.43
61.43
63.53
7
59.34
56.59
-5%
Assist Fire Chief
63.68
60.38
62.74
61.73
63.53
54.26
5
60.01
56.59
-6%
Director CD
68.52
65.27
55.63
69.16
66.42
62.65
56.04
60.86
65.50
53.44
66.11
8
64.10
62.33
-3%
HR Director
68.52
65.27
39.50
64.75
69.16
66.42
62.65
60.86
65.07
70.12
61.39
8
64.61
62.33
-4%
Parks Rec Directol
68.52
67.99
72.63
66.42
69.54
58.27
60.86
67.32
53.44
62.93
8
64.61
62.33
-4%
PW Director
68.52
65.27
66.09
71.38
72.63
67.86
69.54
56.04
60.86
72.08
70.12
66.11
9
66.01
64.50
-2%
Finance Director
68.52
65.27
58.59
71.38
69.16
69.77
69.54
56.04
60.86
72.08
70.12
66.11
9
66.25
62.33
-6%
Police Chief
65.08
70.29
65.10
71.38
72.63
67.86
70.53
58.27
60.86
70.66
70.12
8
66.34
64.50
-3%
Fire Chief
70.29
67.86
70.53
70.66
70.12
66.11
5
68.73
64.50
7%
City Administrator
81.20
78.71
78.5
83.67
61.83
73.09
77.35
69.28
6
74.63
71.13
-5%
SURVEY AVERAGES NINE
CITIES
WITH
POPULATIONS
UNDER
75,000
7
54.52
53.30
-2%
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 18
TABLE IX
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE BENEFIT ANALYSIS
NON -REP BENCHMARKS, SURVEY AND TUKWILA CORE CITIES SURVEY ORDER
Survev and Citv of Tukwila Comparisons Shown as Top Step Hourly Rates
Positions Listed in Order of AWC Survev Average Data as of Tuly, 2011- Ascending Order
Comparison Cities Are Those included in Both Citv Selections and Assessed Valuation Analvsis
BENCHMARK
SURVEY CITIES AND SALARY RANGE COMPARISONS I
SURVEY I
TUKWILA
POSITIONS
AUBURN I BOTHELL IISSAQUAHILYNNWOOIPUYALLUPI
SEATAC I JOBS
AVG I -HR I
VRN
Adm Secretary
28.17
31.11
29.84
26.65
28.41
5
28.84
32.16
10%
Deputy City Clerk
31.13
32.94
30.01
24.26
31.36
5
29.94
32.16
7%
Exec Secretary
34.47
34.35
34.26
30.32
33.94
5
33.47
32.16
-4%
IT Systems Admin
40.14
39.26
37.85
35.74
36.24
6
37.85
39.53
4%
City Clerk
40.19
40.83
43.83
41.54
43.44
5
41.97
41.37
-1%
Court Administrator
43.43
40.83
48.32
56.95
36.24
45.65
6
45.23
41.37
-9%
Senior Engineer
47.67
50.99
50.73
47.54
46.79
5
48.74
50.58
4%
Building Official
47.67
57.69
64.75
44.43
50.39
5
52.99
50.58
-5%
IT Director
68.52
49.75
50.73
62.65
60.86
38.40
6
55.15
62.33
12%
City Engineer
61.80
57.69
61.66
62.65
55.61
5
59.88
56.59
-6%
Assist Fire Chief
63.68
62.74
54.26
3
60.23
56.59
-6%
Assist Police Chief
61.85
63.68
61.66
60.84
54.43
5
60.49
56.59
-7%
HR Director
68.52
65.27
64.75
62.65
60.86
61.39
6
63.91
62.33
-3%
Director CD
68.52
65.27
62.65
60.86
66.11
5
64.68
62.33
-4%
Parks Rec Director
68.52
67.99
69.54
60.86
62.93
5
65.97
62.33
-6%
Finance Director
68.52
65.27
71.38
69.54
60.86
66.11
6
66.95
62.33
-7%
PW Director
68.52
65.27
71.38
69.54
60.86
66.11
6
66.95
64.50
-4%
Police Chief
65.08
70.29
71.38
70.53
60.86
5
67.63
64.50
-5%
Fire Chief
70.29
70.53
66.11
3
68.97
64.50
-7%
City Administrator
81.20
78.71
73.09
69.28
4
75.57
71.13
-6%
SURVEY AVERAGES CITIES ON BOTH EXISTING AND
ASSESSED VAL LI
5
54.77
53.30
-3%
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 19
TABLE X
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS
NON -REP SURVEY AND TUKWILA CITY SELECTIONS BENEFITS AND TOTAL COMP
Benefit Comnarisons Listed by Program Data as of July. 2011- Comparisons Based on AWC
Survev Comparisons Based on Existing Comvarable Citv Selections Considering Multivle Factors (12 Cities)
Variances: Negative: Tukwila Lags Others; No Sign: Tukwila Exceeds Others. Formula: (Tuk- Srv)/Tuk
BENEFIT SURVEY CITIES AND BENEFIT PROGRAM COMPARISONS I SURVEY I TUKWILA IVARIANCEE
PROGRAMS ABRNIBTHLI FED NIISSQdKENTIKRKLILNW CMTTl�PUYL�RDMdRNTNISEATJDy %I $/YR IDy %I $/YR I Var$ IVar%
Paid Leave Days/Yr
Holidays PD Days 12 12 12 11 12 13 12 11 15 12 12 10 12 5,237 11 4,690 -547 -12%
Vacation Days 20 Yrs 15 22 26 24 23 24 25 24 25 23 27 23 23 10,051 24 10,234 183 2%
Sick Leave Days 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 5,159 12 5,117 -42 -1%
Total Paid Leave Days 39 46 50 47 47 49 49 47 52 47 51 45 48 20,447 47 20,041 -406 -2%
Insurances
MDV Eplr Cntr (Fami1} 97 100% 94% 87% 89 100% 90% 88% 100% 86% 97% 93% 93% 17,295 100% 18,504 1209 7%
Short Trm Dis Eplr Cnt 100% 100% 100% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 438 0% 0 -438 NA
Adds to Benefits
Longevity 20 Yrs 0 0 0 0 4471 1800 1020
0 1200 900 2952 0 Varies
1,029 150 /mc
1,800
771
43%
Employee Assist Cntr 100% 100% 100 NA NA 100%
100% 100%
100%
Long Trm Dis Eplr Cnq
f
100% 100% 100% NA
NA NA
100 NA 100% NA
100% 100% 100%
565
100%
565
0
NA
Life /AD &D Eplr Cntr
100% 100% 100°% NA
NA NA
100% NA 100% 100%
100% 100% 100%
279
100%
279
0
NA
Total Insurances Cntr
Bank
86%
18,578
75%
19,349
770
4%
Retirement
I Insufficient Data I
Retirement PERS
8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3%
8.3% 8.3%
8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3%
8.3% 8.3% 8.3%
9,537
8.3%
9,202
-335
11%
Other /Svs Plan Cntr
401K
MEBT
MEBT
Svs
Data
TOTAL COMPENSATION
PERS
Mich
Mtch
2
Paid Leave: Days/Yr, $/Yr; Variances: and
48
20,447
47
Total Retirement Cntr I
-406
-2%
Insurances: Percent Contribution, $/Yr; Variances: and
1 93%
8.3%
9,537
8.3%
9,202 I
-335
-4%
Adds to Benefits
Longevity 20 Yrs 0 0 0 0 4471 1800 1020
0 1200 900 2952 0 Varies
1,029 150 /mc
1,800
771
43%
Employee Assist Cntr 100% 100% 100 NA NA 100%
100% 100%
100%
Incentives /Other Adds
t
I
NA NA fife
I
I
Care
Bank
Total Adds and Incentiv
I Insufficient Data I
Insufficient Data I
Insufficient
Data
TOTAL COMPENSATION
Paid Leave: Days/Yr, $/Yr; Variances: and
48
20,447
47
20,041
-406
-2%
Insurances: Percent Contribution, $/Yr; Variances: and
1 93%
17,295 1
100%
18,504 I
1209
7%
Retirement: Percent Contribution, $/Yr; Variances: and
18.3%
9,5371
8.3%
9,202 I
335
4%
Average Salary: Dollars/Hr, Dollars/Yr; Variances: and
1 55.24
114 ,899 1
53.30
110,8641
11035
4%
Total Compensation: Dollars/Yr; Variances: and
1
162,1781
158,6111
3568
2%
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 20
PROJECTIONS FOR 2012 AND RANGE PLACEMENTS
Considerations ReEardini! Compensation ProLyram
The purpose of a compensation program is to facilitate recruiting, retention, and development. As such
credibility, understanding, and acceptance of program processes and procedures is important.
The primary purpose of this wage and benefit analysis is to validate the City's non represented
compensation plan. Care should be observed in interpreting survey findings as they apply to particular
positions.
Professional Validations of Survev Comparisons for 2011 and 2012
Survey comparisons of average top step salaries for 2011 and 2012 are based on authorized changes in the
other cities salary schedules which average 1.59% and the projected salary range changes for the City
which are from 3% to 6.9 The adjustments apply to salary ranges and not to individual rates. The
comparisons for 2011 show the City lags the 12 other cities in the survey group by -3 and for 2012 the
City is the same as the other cities with a variance of f 0
Professional Validations of Range Placements
Salary survey comparisons even under the best circumstances are considered to be reliable to within f 5
Professional validations of range placements are for 2011 and 2012 survey comparisons. The following
table compares variances of over 16 11% up to 15 6% up to 10% and within 5
Variance Comparisons
Survev 2011
Survev 2012
Percent 2012
Variances Greater than 16%
0 of 20
0 of 20
0%
Variances from 11% up to t 15%
2 of 20
2 of 20
10%
Variances from t 6% up to t 10%
8 of 20
4 of 20
20%
Variances within 5%
10 of 20
14 of 20
70%
The consultant's recommendation is to interpret the survey findings as validating the benchmark range
placements. Care should be observed in the cases of two positions with variances of over 10 i.e, IT
Director (11 and Administrative Secretary 1 (12
Positions with professional responsibilities such as an IT director, court administrator, city engineer, or
administrative secretary are difficult to compare because of most frameworks emphasize management and
supervisory values. Also making these comparisons challenging are variations in position functions,
systems, or capital improvement plans. Equally important are factors relating to organization and
departmental business strategies and the overall importance of a position from one city and department to
another.
Worksheets on page 22 carry forward the survey data from the previous section. Positions on page 23 are
listed in an overall variance order that shows negative and positive variances.
PROFESSIONAL VALIDATION AND BEST PRACTICE CONSIDERATIONS
Challenges facing municipalities with respect to range placements are common to all industries. Best
practices need to reflect policy directions and review of procedures the City uses to reconcile internal
equity and market prices.
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 21
TABLE XI
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS
NON -REP BENCHMARKS CITY SELECTIONS SURVEY ORDER 2011 AND 2012
Positions Listed in Survev Order Survev 2012 Is 2011 Adi 1.59 Tukwila 2012 Is Projected with 3% to 6.9%
Ton Sten Hourly Rates Variance Formula Is (Tuk- Srv/Tuk) Nesative: Tuk Lags Others: No Sign: Tuk Same or Exceeds
BENCHMARK
SURVEY CITIES AND SALARY RANGE COMPARISONS 2011
SURVEY '11 &'12 ITUKWILA '11ITUKWILA '12
POSITIONS
ABRN I
BTHL I FED W I
ISSQH I
KENT I
KRKL I LNWDI
MT TRI
PUYLPI RDMDI
RNTN I SEATCI
JOBS
1 2011 1 2012 I 2011 I VRN I
2012 I
VRN
I
Adm Secretary 1
28.17
31.11
26.61
29.84
28.58
30.02
26.09
26.65
30.49
29.41
28.41
11
28.67 29.13 32.16
11%
33.12
12%
Dep City Clerk
31.13
32.94
27.18
34.94
30.01
24.26
30.24
31.82
31.36
9
30.43 30.92 32.16
5%
33.12
7%
Exec Secretary
34.47
34.35
31.64
34.26
35.71
33.69
31.44
30.32
32.84
31.82
33.94
11
33.13 33.66 32.16
-3%
33.12
-2%
IT Systems Adm
40.14
39.26
38.98
37.85
41.37
44.91
35.74
39.26
36.24
43.35
45.38
11
40.23 40.87 39.53
-2%
40.72
0%
City Clerk
40.19
40.83
39.50
43.83
43.47
45.70
56.04
41.54
49.51
43.87
43.44
11
44.36 45.06 41.37
-7%
42.61
-6%
Court Admin
43.43
40.83
45.80
48.32
46.77
45.70
56.95
36.24
53.44
45.65
10
46.31 47.05 41.37
-12%
42.61
-10%
Senior Engineer
47.67
50.99
42.54
50.73
47.93
42.50
47.54
49.31
47.24
46.79
10
47.32 48.08 50.58
6%
52.10
8%
Build Official
47.67
57.69
45.80
64.75
49.11
39.26
44.43
48.86
46.09
50.39
10
49.40 50.19 50.58
2%
52.10
4%
IT Director
68.52
49.75
42.54
50.73
69.16
69.77
62.65
60.86
62.16
53.44
38.40
11
57.1 58.00 62.33
8%
65.44
11%
City Engineer
61.80
57.69
61.66
56.95
56.56
62.65
56.04
61.48
55.61
9
58.94 59.87 56.59
-4%
59.42
-1%
Ast Police Chief
61.85
63.68
61.66
64.35
60.84
53.02
54.43
61.43
63.53
9
60.53 61.49 56.59
-7%
59.42
-3%
Assist Fire Chief
63.68
60.38
62.74
61.73
63.53
54.26
6
61.05 62.02 56.59
-8%
59.42
4%
Director CD
68.52
65.27
55.63
69.16
66.42
62.65
56.04
60.86
65.50
53.44
66.11
11
62.69 63.69 62.33
-1%
65.44
3%
HR Director
68.52
65.27
39.50
64.75
69.16
66.42
62.65
60.86
65.07
70.12
61.39
11
63.06 64.07 62.33
-1%
65.44
2%
Parks Rec Dir
68.52
67.99
72.63
66.42
69.54
58.27
60.86
67.32
53.44
62.93
10
64.79 65.82 62.33
4%
65.44
-1%
Finance Director
68.52
65.27
58.59
71.38
69.16
69.77
69.54
56.04
60.86
72.08
70.12
66.11
12
66.45 67.51 62.33
-7%
65.44
-3%
PW Director
68.52
65.27
66.09
71.38
72.63
67.86
69.54
56.04
60.86
72.08
70.12
66.11
12
67.21 68.28 64.50
4%
67.73
-1%
Police Chief
65.08
70.29
65.10
71.38
72.63
67.86
70.53
58.27
60.86
70.66
70.12
11
67.53 68.60 64.50
-5%
67.73
-1%
Fire Chief
70.29
67.86
70.53
70.66
70.12
66.11
6
69.26 70.36 64.50
-7
67.73
4%
City Admin
81.20
78.71
78.5
83.67
61.83
73.09
77.35
69.28
8
75.45 76.65 71.13
-6%
76.04
-1%
SURVEY AVERAGES 2011 AND 2012 COMPARISONS (12 CITIES) 10 54.70 55.57 53.30 -3% 55.71 0%
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 22
TABLE XII
CITY OF TUKWILA WAGE BENEFIT ANALYSIS
NON -REP BENCHMARKS CITY SELECTIONS 2011 AND 2012 VARIANCE ORDER
Positions Listed in Survev Order Survev 2012 Is 2011 Adi 1.59% Tukwila 2012 Is Projected Ton Stens 2012
Ton SteD Hourlv Rates Variance (Tuk- Srv/Tuk): Nesative: Tuk Lags Others: No Sizn: Tuk Same or Exceeds
Survev Comvarisons Based on Existing Comnarable Citv Selections Considering AV and Other Factors (12 Cities)
BENCHMARK
SURVEY CITIES AND SALARY RANGE COMPARISONS 2011
I SURVEY '11 &'12 f T[TKWILA '11f TUKWILA '1J
POSITIONS
ABRN I
BTHL I
FED W I
ISSQH I
KENT I
KRKL I
LNWDI
MT TR I PUYLPI
RDMD I
RNTN I SEATCI
JOBS
1 2011 1 2012 1 2011 I VRN 1 2012 I VRN
Court Admin
43.43
40.83
45.80
48.32
46.77
45.70
56.95
36.24
53.44
45.65
10
46.31 47.05 41.37 -12%
42.61 -10%
City Clerk
40.19
40.83
39.50
43.83
43.47
45.70
56.04 41.54
49.51
43.87
43.44
11
44.36 45.06 41.37 -7%
42.61 -6%
Assist Fire Chief
63.68
60.38
62.74
61.73
63.53
54.26
6
61.05 62.02 56.59 -8%
59.42 -4%
Fire Chief
70.29
67.86
70.53
70.66
70.12
66.11
6
69.26 70.36 64.50 -7%
67.73 -4%
Ast Police Chief
61.85
63.68
61.66
64.35
60.84
53.02 54.43
61.43
63.53
9
60.53 61.49 56.59 -7%
59.42 -3%
Finance Director
68.52
65.27
58.59
71.38
69.16
69.77
69.54
56.04 60.86
72.08
70.12
66.11
12
66.45 67.51 62.33 -7%
65.44 -3%
Exec Secretary
34.47
34.35
31.64
34.26
35.71
33.69
31.44 30.32
32.84
31.82
33.94
11
33.13 33.66 32.16 -3%
33.12 -2%
Police Chief
65.08
70.29
65.10
71.38
72.63
67.86
70.53
58.27 60.86
70.66
70.12
11
67.53 68.60 64.50 -5%
67.73 -1%
City Admin
81.20
78.71
78.5
83.67
61.83 73.09
77.35
69.28
8
75.45 76.65 71.13 -6%
76.04 -1%
PW Director
68.52
65.27
66.09
71.38
72.63
67.86
69.54
56.04 60.86
72.08
70.12
66.11
12
67.21 68.28 64.50 -4%
67.73 -1%
City Engineer
61.80
57.69
61.66
56.95
56.56
62.65
56.04
61.48
55.61
9
58.94 59.87 56.59 4%
59.42 -1%
Parks Rec Dir
68.52
67.99
72.63
66.42
69.54
58.27 60.86
67.32
53.44
62.93
10
64.79 65.82 62.33 4%
65.44 -1%
IT Systems Adm
40.14
39.26
38.98
37.85
41.37
44.91
35.74
39.26 36.24
43.35
45.38
11
40.23 40.87 39.53 -2%
40.72 0%
HR Director
68.52
65.27
39.50
64.75
69.16
66.42
62.65
60.86
65.07
70.12
61.39
11
63.06 64.07 62.33 -1%
65.44 2%
Director CD
68.52
65.27
55.63
69.16
66.42
62.65
56.04 60.86
65.50
53.44
66.11
11
62.69 63.69 62.33 -1%
65.44 3%
Build Official
47.67
57.69
45.80
64.75
49.11
39.26 44.43
48.86
46.09
50.39
10
49.40 50.19 50.58 2%
52.10 4%
Dep City Clerk
31.13
32.94
27.18
34.94
30.01
24.26
30.24
31.82
31.36
9
30.43 30.92 32.16 5%
33.12 7%
Senior Engineer
47.67
50.99
42.54
50.73
47.93
42.50 47.54
49.31
47.24
46.79
10
47.32 48.08 50.58 6%
52.10 8%
IT Director
68.52
49.75
42.54
50.73
69.16
69.77
62.65
60.86
62.16
53.44
38.40
11
57.1 58.00 62.33 8%
65.44 11%
Adm Secretary 1
28.17
31.11
26.61
29.84
28.58
30.02
26.09 26.65
30.49
29.41
28.41
11
28.67 29.13 32.16 11%
33.12 12%
SURVEY AVERAGES 2011 AND 2012 COMPARISONS (12 CITIES) 10 54.70 55.57 53.30 -3% 55.71 0%
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 23
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
This summary of the City's Wage and Benefit Analysis presents a professional validation of the City's
Non Represented Salary and Benefit Recommendations for 2012, and is intended to encourage and help
open a dialog for a comprehensive compensation review. Suggestions shown in this section are intended
to provide a preliminary framework for discussions. There may be items that should be dropped and other
that should be added. The suggestions will need to be refined and revised to reflect Mayor, Council,
management, and non represented employee visions, values inputs.
Freauencv and Review of this Kind of Compensation Studv
Compensation reviews should reflect changes in labor markets and City services.
The reviews should be conducted every 5 to 10 years.
The reviews should involve independent resources to avoid conflicts of interest.
General Considerations Regarding Comprehensive Compensation Reviews
The Mayor and Council should be involved at critical points throughout the study.
Compensation reviews should have open, transparent and participatory processes.
Reviews should include policies, structures, procedures, and day -to -day administration.
There should be an opportunity for everyone to comment, be heard, and see feedback.
Interviews should include job data, strengths and opportunities for improvements.
Surveys should be conducted through on -site visits with other cities and organizations.
Comparisons should be based on job functions and complexities and avoid job titles.
Surveys should include updated city comparisons and private sector compensation.
Study findings should provide an opportunity for comments and feedback.
Reports and presentations should include updated policies and procedures.
CONSULTANT AFFIDAVIT OF SUBMITTAL
This report on the Wage and Benefit Analysis of Non Represented Positions was prepared by Ross J.
Ardrey, the president and principal consultant at NW Management Consulting, Inc. The firm's
statement of Qualifications is included as an attachment. This report reflects the consultant's
independent professional judgments and findings and is intended to be fully responsive to City of
Tukwila's Request for Proposals.
Sincerely,
Ross J. Ardrey
Ross J. Ardrey
President
Report on City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Page 24
CITY OF TUKWILA
PROPOSAL FOR
WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF NON REPRESENTED POSITIONS
Ross J. Ardrey Consultant NW Management Consulting, Inc. 1326 Fifth Ave #349 Seattle, WA 98101
Outline: Introduction (Page 1), Qualifications (Page 2), Suggested Approach Costs (Pages 3 -4), Other Data (Page 5)
INTRODUCTION, SCOPE AND GOALS
This proposal responds to the City of Tukwila's request for a wage and benefit analysis of non
represented positions. The proposal recognizes that the review is not a traditional compensation
study and is intended to be a validation study of the City's existing program. NW Management
Consulting's statement of qualifications is included as an attachment.
Study Goals and Concerns
The City of Tukwila is located in South King County, has 320 regular full -time and part-time
employees including 36 non represented chiefs, directors, supervisors, analyst, and administrative
technical employees who are assigned to 32 positions. Examples of concerns:
How to conduct a review without disrupting the City's ongoing compensation programs?
How to select comparables that recognize the uniqueness of the City of Tukwila?
How to compare City position responsibilities and functions with other agencies?
How compare internal equity between non -rep and represented positions?
How to attain credibility with elected officials, management, unions, and staff?
Uniqueness of City of Tukwila
The proposed approach emphasizes the challenges of defining comparability, validating wage and
benefit data, recognizing the uniqueness of the City of Tukwila's responsibilities, and keeping
everyone informed. Examples of City of Tukwila's unique responsibilities, programs and services:
Tukwila has a population of 18,190 residents and a daytime population of 170,000.
Tukwila is unique in the extent of its resident and regional retail and business services.
Resident and regional services impact City functions, positions and responsibilities.
Tukwila is one of the most complex municipalities in the Puget Sound area.
Tukwila, like other cities, is facing challenging business and economic times.
Proposal Format and Suggested Approach
The proposal format and suggested approach is designed to be responsive to the scope of services as
outlined in the RFP and reflects the uniqueness of the City of Tukwila.
Highlights of the consultant's experience and qualifications are shown on page 2, a suggested
approach and schedule is on page 3, and information on project costs is on page 4. Information
regarding insurance coverages, warranties, and professional ethics, as well as the consultant's
affidavit of submittal is on page 5.
EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
NW Management Consulting is the compensation and human resources consulting practice of Ross
J. Ardrey. The firm was founded in 1993, and, at the request of clients, functions as a sole
proprietorship.
Mr. Ardrey's studies include public administration, business, and law. Degrees received: B. A.,
University of Chicago; M. A., Graduate School, University of Washington; and J. D., School of
Law, University of Washington.
Mr. Ardrey began his consulting career in Seattle with the general management consulting firm of
Harry Prior Associates, a spin -off from the national firm of Booz Allen Hamilton. In 1976 Mr.
Ardrey and Mr. Prior worked with Mayor Bauch to assist the City on a city -wide salary study. On
the retirement of Mr. Prior in 1990, Mr. Ardrey consulted for the actuarial and consulting firm of
Howard Johnson Company in Seattle before starting NW Management Consulting in 1993. Over
the years Mr. Ardrey has completed over 500 projects for more than 250 clients.
Distinctive Features of Consultant's Practice
CIients look to Mr. Ardrey as a local compensation consulting resource who:
Presents a good balance of listening, consulting, and communications skills.
Keeps up on compensation practices and public sector compensation.
Operates at a national and best practices level; good teamwork with client staff.
Retains a low overhead cost structure and completes projects on budget and on schedule.
Maintains a good track record with mayors, managers, employees, and unions.
Examples of Client References
Projects recognize the uniqueness of each agency and avoid "cookie cutter" approaches.
Most of Mr. Ardrey's references are with agencies where he has completed multiple
projects. Examples of client references are listed geographically from North to South.
City of Lynnwood
19100 44th Ave West
Lynnwood, Washington 98046
Steve Jensen
Police Chief
Telephone: (425) 670 -5601
Fax number: (425) 670 -1418
Email: sjensen @ci.lynnwood.wa.us
City of Covington
16720 SE 271st Street
Covington, WA 98042
City of Portland
1900 SW 4th Avenue, Room 3500
Portland, Oregon 97201
Noreen Beaufrere
Human Resources Manager
Telephone: (253) 638 -1110 ext 2240
Fax number: (253) 638 -1122
Email: nbeaufrere @ci.covington.wa.us
David J. Rhys
Assistant Director, Human Resources
Telephone: (503) 823 -3507
Fax number: (503) 827 -5933
Email: drhys @ci.portland.or.us
The suggested approach and project costs are shown on pages 3 and 4 following this page.
SUGGESTED APPROACH AND PROJECT COSTS
The suggested approach is intended to be about City of Tukwila, meet the Mayor and other elected
officials goals, respond to management requirements, and provide a framework for refinements.
Step 1: Review and Analysis of other Jurisdictions
Start -up efforts focus on consultant introductions, familiarization and project planning. The focus of
this step should be on review and analysis of the jurisdictions that the City of Tukwila utilizes for
comparable data for market based guidance on classification and compensation structures.
The consultant's role will be to collect and compare data regarding traditional matters such as
population, staffing, and assessed valuation, as well as current best practices, recruiting and
retention, departmental considerations, and comparisons with cities that have something going on.
Step 2: Review and Analysis of Internal Equity with Represented Positions
The purpose of this step is to review and compare internal equity between non represented and
represented positions. The City has a Decision Band Method (DBM) system for classification and
compensation so the concern is with internal equity between the non -rep and represented positions.
The consultant's role will be to compare DBM alignments for non -rep and represented positions,
conduct tests with alternative weighting and point comparisons structures, determine the extent of
variance, and recommend alternative modifications, if any, to enhance internal equity.
Step 3: Conduct a Survey of Prevailing Market Rate Salaries and Benefits
The scope of this phase of the study is to include up to ten (10) of the identified comparable
jurisdictions for a designated group of benchmark positions. Survey data, as stated in the RFP, is
available from the Association of Washington Cities.
The consultant's role will be to review and critique benchmark selection criteria and selections,
compile and analyze AWC salary and benefit data, prepare trendlines and position by position
comparisons between the survey cities and the City of Tukwila, and prepare salary and benefit total
compensation comparisons for survey cities and City of Tukwila.
Step 4: Discuss and Recommend Range Placement Adjustments
Step 4 focuses on reconciliation of existing range placements and survey findings with explanations
to the City Management Team and City Council where the results of the labor market rate survey
cause market adjustments to be recommended.
The consultant's role will be to work with the City's management team and HR Analyst to build on
the City's practice for developing recommendation for range placements and to enhance
communications regarding study practices, benchmark selections, and overall fairness.
Step S: Provide Recommendations for Compensation Program Developments
Findings, reports and presentations should focus on compensation program development functions
such as the frequency and review of this kind of compensation study, general policies for
compensation reviews, and improvements in the current compensation study process. The suggested
approach focuses on the scope of services outlined in the RFP. Suggested project work plan, costs,
and a suggested schedule follow this page.
NW MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, INC.
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR NON REPRESENTED POSITIONS
Ross J. Ardrey, NW Management Consulting, Inc., 1326 Fifth Avenue #349, Seattle, WA 98101
Outline: Introduction (Page 1), Cities and other Client References (Pages 2 -5), Biographical Summary (Page 6)
INTRODUCTION
NW Management Consulting is the compensation and human resources consulting practice
of Ross Ardrey. The firm was founded in 1993, and, at the request of clients, functions as a
sole proprietorship. Compensation reviews for relatively unique cities are a strong specialty.
Studies are designed to be responsive to client requests. Examples of recent compensation
projects are shown on the left; organization and other HR services are shown on the right.
Wage and Benefit Analysis
Incentive Plans Lump Sum Awards
Compensation Program Reviews
Classification Reviews and Analysis
Job Descriptions and Customer Services
Salary Plan Mergers and Redirections
Performance Appraisal /Evaluation
Career Ladders and Progressions
Professional and Manager Succession
Management Executive Recruiting
Candidate Appraisals
Policies and Employee Manuals
CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Ardrey began his consulting career in Seattle with the general management consulting
firm of Harry Prior Associates, a spin -off from the national firm of Booz Allen Hamilton.
On the retirement of Mr. Prior in 1990, Mr. Ardrey consulted for the actuarial and consulting
firm of Howard Johnson Company in Seattle before starting NW Management Consulting
in 1993. Over the years Mr. Ardrey has completed over 500 projects for more than 250 clients.
EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC SECTOR PROJECTS INCLUDING CITY OF TUKWILA
One of the first compensation projects Mr. Ardrey completed was for the City of Tukwila. The
study involved presentations with the City Council and was conducted with the leadership of the late
Mayor Ed Buach. Everyone's efforts were greatly appreciated. Examples of recent projects:
Public Agencies Proiect Descrivtion Comvletion
City of Lynnwood Review of Non -Rep Class /Comp Study 1999
City of Portland Review of Revenue Bureau Classifications 2003
City of Covington Review of Citywide Compensation Plan 2008
City of Tukwila Wage and Benefit Analysis Non -Rep In Progress
The consultant's compensation program and classification review experience includes the cities,
from North to South, of Blaine (4,650), Ferndale (10,540), Bellingham (76,220), Burlington (8,400),
Anacortes (16,400), Mount Vernon (29,390), Oak Harbor (22,690), Lynnwood (35,860), Mountlake
Terrace (20,810), Issaquah (24,710), Covington (17,190), Port Orchard (8,350), Puyallup (36,790),
Chehalis (7,045), and Portland (583,776).
Statement of Qualifications City of Tukwila Page 1
EXAMPLES OF CLIENT REFERENCES
Projects recognize the uniqueness of each agency and avoid "cookie cutter" approaches. Most
of Mr. Ardrey's references are with agencies where he has completed multiple projects.
References are grouped by sector, listed geographically from North to South, and, for cities,
included project completion dates.
Cities
City of Bellingham (1993 -1997)
2221 Pacific Street
Bellingham, Washington 98225
Bill McCourt
PW Supt (Retired)
Telephone: (360) 201 -9524
City of Burlington (2007)
833 South Spruce Street.
Burlington, Washington 98233
City of Anacortes (2003, 2004)
904 6th Avenue
Anacortes, Washington 98221
City of Oak Harbor (2003, 2004)
865 SE Barrington Drive
Oak Harbor, Washington 98277
City of Lynnwood (1997)
19100 44th Ave West
Lynnwood, Washington 98046
City of Mountlake Terrace (2005)
6100 219th St SW, Suite 200
Mountlake Terrace, Washington 98043
City of Issaquah (2007)
P. O. Box 1307
Issaquah, Washington 98027
City of Covington (2003, 2005, 2007)
16720 SE 271st Street
Covington, WA 98042
City of Aberdeen (2000, 2002)
200 East Market Street
Aberdeen, Washington 98520
City of Chehalis (2006)
80 NE Cascade Ave.
Chehalis, Washington 98532
City of Portland (2003, 2004)
1900 SW 4th Avenue, Room 3500
Portland, Oregon 97201
Greg Thramer, Finance Director
Scott Thomas, City Attorney
Telephone: (360) 755 -0531
Emily Schuh, HR Director
Dean Maxwell, Mayor
Telephone: (360) 299 -1941
Douglas Merriman
Finance Director
Telephone: (360) 279 -4500
Steve Jensen
Police Chief
Telephone: (425) 670 -5601
Scott Hugill
Administrative Services Director
Telephone: (425) 776 -1161
Debbie Mills
Human Resources Director
Telephone: (425) 837 -3045
Noreen Beaufrere, HR Manager
Derek Matheson, City Manager
Telephone: (253) 638 -1110
Linda Hein, HR Manager
Eric Nelson, City Attorney
Telephone: (360) 537 -3212
Merlin MacReynold
City Manager
Telephone: (360) 748 -6664
David J. Rhys
Assistant Director, Human Resources
Telephone: (503) 823 -3507
Statement of Qualifications City of Tukwila Page 2
Counties
North Slope Borough
P. O. Box 69
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Island County
P.O. Box 5000
Coupeville, Washington 98239
Skagit County
1111 Cleveland Avenue
Mount Vernon, Washington 98273
Multnomah County
501 SE Hawthorne Blvd, 4th Floor
Portland, Oregon 97293 -0700
Ben Frantz (Now at Barrow Utilities)
General Manager
Telephone: (907) 852 -6166
Larry Larson
Director, HR (Retired)
Telephone: (360) 678 -7921
Chal Martin (Now at Burlington)
Public Works Director /City Engineer
Telephone: (360) 755 -0531
Joi Doi
Compensation Manager
Telephone: (503) 988 -3241
Ports and Airports
Port of Bellingham
1801 Roeder Avenue; P. O. Box 1677
Bellingham, Washington 98227
Dan Stahl
Director of Marinas
Telephone: (360) 676 -2500
Port of Anacortes
1st Commercial
Anacortes, Washington 98221
Port of Skagit County
1180 Airport Drive
Burlington, Washington 98233
Port of Port Angeles
P. O. Box 1350
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
Port of Port Townsend
375 Hudson Street; P. O. Box 1180
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Port of Bremerton
8850 State Highway 3
Port Orchard, Washington 98367
Port of Olympia
915 Washington St., N.E.
Olympia, Washington 98501
Port of Grays Harbor
110 S. Wooding Street; P. O. Box 660
Aberdeen, Washington 98520
Washington Public Ports Association
1501 Capitol Way, Suite 304
Olympia, Washington 98507 -6176
Robert Hyde
Executive Director
Telephone: (360) 293 -3134
Patsy Miller
Executive Director
Telephone: (360) 757 -0011
David Hagiwara
Deputy Director
Telephone: (360) 457 -8527
Larry Crockett
Executive Director
Telephone: (360) 385 -0656
Becky Swanson
Chief Financial Officer
Telephone: (360) 674 -2381
Nick Handy (Now at State)
Director of Elections
Telephone: (360) 902 -4156
Mary Nelson
Director of Finance Administration
Telephone: (360) 533 -9530
Eric Johnson
Executive Director
Telephone: (360) 753 -6176
Statement of Qualifications City of Tukwila Page 3
Education
Burlington- Edison Schools
927 E. Fairhaven
Burlington, WA 98233
Mount Vernon School District
124 East Lawrence Street
Mount Vernon, Washington 98273
Anacortes Public Library
904 6th Street
Anacortes, Washington 98221
Clover Park Technical College
4500 Steilacoom Blvd SW
Lakewood, Washington 98499
Aberdeen School District
216 North G Street
Aberdeen, Washington 98520
Greg Thramer (Now at Burlington)
Director of Finance
Telephone: (360) 755 -0531
Gayle E. Nelson (Retired)
Assist. Supt, Personnel and HR
Telephone: (360) 428 -6110, ext. 3015
Emily Schuh, P. H. R.
Human Resources Director
Telephone: (360) 299 -1941
Fred Schuneman
VP, HR and Employee Relations
Telephone: (253) 589 -5533
Anna C. Shanks
Director of Personnel
Telephone: (360) 538 -2004
Public Housing
Seattle Housing Authority
120 Sixth Ave North
Seattle, Washington 98109
Dean Barns
Human Resources Director
Telephone: (206) 625 -3322
Tacoma Housing Authority
902 South L Street
Tacoma, Washington 98405
Housing Authorities Risk Retention Pool
7111 NE 179 Street
Vancouver, Washington 98686
Housing Authority of Portland
135 SW Ash Street
Portland, Oregon 07204
Barbara Tanbara
Human Resources Director
Telephone: (253) 207 -4422
Bill Gregory
Executive Director
Telephone: (360) 574 -9035 Ext 102
Rebecca Gabriel, GPHR
Director, Business Services
Telephone: (503) 802 8502
Special Districts
Barrow Utilities and Electric Co -Op
P. O. Box 449
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Ben Frantz
General Manager
Telephone: (907) 852 -6166
Lake Whatcom Water Sewer District
1010 Lakeview Street
Bellingham Washington 98226
Deb Lambert
Commissioner
Telephone: (360) 671 -3232
Statement of Qualifications City of Tukwila Page 4
Special Districts (Continued)
Skyway Water Sewer District
6723 South 124th Street
Seattle, Washington 98178
Cheryl Scheuerman
General Manager
Telephone: (206) 772 -7343
METRO Portland /PCPA /Oregon Zoo
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232
Municipal Research Services Center
2601 Fourth Avenue Suite #800
Seattle, Washington 98121
Ruth Scott
Director of HR (Retired)
Telephone: (503) 762 -5802
Pat Mason, Senior Legal Consultant
Marcie Klobucher, Controller
Telephone: (206) 625 -1300
Health Care
Snohomish Health District
3020 Rucker Avenue, Suite 206
Everett, Washington 98201
Richard B. Mockler
Deputy Administrator
Telephone: (425) 339 -5210
Swedish Medical Center
747 Broadway
Seattle, Washington 98122 -4307
Virginia Mason Research Center
1000 Seneca Street
Seattle, Washington 98101
MultiCare Health System
315 Martin Luther King
Tacoma, Washington 98405
Providence Health System
1801 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, Washington 98057
Kaiser Permanente
500 Multnomah Street, Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97201
Examples of Private Sector
Tom Stoeckle
VP HR, now at Children's Hospital
Telephone: (206) 987 -5866
Cary Natiello
Director of Human Resources (Now at Swedish)
Telephone: (206) 215 -6001
Oneta Amdahl
Director, Comp. and Benefits
Telephone: (253) 403 -1383
Don Brennan
President and CEO (Retired)
Telephone: Available on Request
Steven Hall
Director, Comp., Benefits, and HRIS
Telephone: (503) 813 -4753
Over the years Mr. Ardrey has completed a variety of projects with private sector companies
such as Kenworth Northwest, Cummins NW Diesel, Puget Sound Freight Lines, General
Construction, Washington Athletic Club, and Preston Gates Ellis (Now K &L Gates).
Other private sector compensation projects include Brown Haley, Liberty Orchards, REI,
Exxon, ARCO, and Washington Energy (Puget Sound Power Light Co.).
Statement of Qualifications City of Tukwila Page 5
CONSULTANT BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY
ROSS J. ARDREY
Mr. Ardrey works closely with elected officials, client managers and professionals. Studies
focus on client concerns and often involve mayor and council reports and presentations.
Mr. Ardrey's studies include public administration, business, and law. Degrees received:
B. A. University of Chicago
M. A. Graduate School, University of Washington
J. D. School of Law, University of Washington
Professionally, Mr. Ardrey is active at the local and national level of the Institute of
Management Consultants which certifies management consultants. The Pacific Northwest
Chapter includes Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. Professional accomplishments:
President Pacific Northwest Chapter (1990,1995) (Best Chapter: 1990,1995)
Institute of Management Consultants
Director National Board of Directors (1992)
Institute of Management Consultants
Mr. Ardrey began his consulting career in Seattle with the general management consulting
firm of Harry J. Prior Associates, a spin -off from the national consulting firm of Booz Allen
Hamilton. On the retirement of Mr. Prior in 1990, Mr. Ardrey worked with the actuarial
and compensation consulting firm of Howard Johnson Company in Seattle before starting
NW Management Consulting in 1993.
Distinctive Features of Consultant's Practice
Clients look to Mr. Ardrey as a local compensation consulting resource who:
Presents a good balance of listening, consulting, and communications skills
Keeps up on compensation practices and public sector compensation
Operates at a national and best practices level Good teamwork with client staff
Retains a low overhead cost structure completes projects on budget and on time
Maintains a good track record with mayors, administrators, employees, and unions
Emergency Resources: As a sole practitioner Mr. Ardrey maintains ongoing relations with
other human resources consultants including Kathleen Grauman, a former HR and EEO
Manager at King County and City of Bainbridge Island. Mr. Ardrey and Ms. Grauman have
worked together on six projects over the last seven years.
Acknowledgments: The success of the firm's compensation practice reflects the continuing
efforts and insights of mayors, councils, administrators, management, employees and unions.
Everyone's Efforts Are Greatly Appreciated
3/8/2012
Statement of Qualifications City of Tukwila Page 6