A consultant hired by the Edmonds City Council to study how the compensation and benefits of City of Edmonds employees compare to those offered by similar-sized cities in Puget Sound gave his report Tuesday night. His conclusion: The average “pay band” — or salary range — for Edmonds city employees is much wider than most municipalities studied, with minimum salary levels lower than the market median while maximum salaries are higher.
Matt Weatherly, president of Public Sector Personnel Consultants, also noted that the city has been inconsistent in its administration of salaries for union vs. non-represented employees. In recent years, raises negotiated for union employees have outpaced those of non-union workers, who have seen their salaries “fixed, frozen or moved to a nominal amount,” the report said. One result of this inequity is that non-represented supervisors sometimes earn less than the union employees they supervise, Weatherly noted.
Weatherly, who spent nine months on the study, had several recommendations for the council that included:
– modifying the non-represented compensation policy to adjust the ranges so they are comparable to the current market.
– providing cost-of-living, step increase and longevity pay adjustments for non-represented employees that are consistent with those awarded to union workers.
– adding a deferred compensation benefit for non-represented employees or — if this is not financially feasible — add a “use it or lose it” management leave benefit, to be more competitive with other cities’ employment offerings.
– freezing the salaries of six employees whose current salary exceeds the maximum salary range recommended for their position.
Councilmembers asked many questions of both Weatherly and Carrie Hite, the City’s Parks, Recreational and Cultural Services who also oversees the city’s Human Resources Department. Councilmember Joan Bloom wanted to know how Edmonds got to this point with compensation discrepancies; Hite said it was due to many years of working under a former compensation policy that “was very subjective and did not make a lot of sense.” Hite and others noted that as far as they were aware, the city has never had a compensation study and this was badly needed to determine where changes should be made.
Bloom added that it’s important for citizens to understand that “we’re being charged with correcting a long history.”
The next step is for staff to come up with an actual compensation plan, based on councilmembers’ feedback, that the council can consider. Councilmember Strom Peterson said he would put it on the agenda for the Sept. 4 council meeting.
According to Hite, the council allocated $50,000 for the study and the complete job descriptions update. “We then negotiated a contract for $30,000 for all of this work. After all is said and done, we will probably only spend closer to $23,000,” she said.
The cities included in the comparison study were Bothell, Bremerton, Burien, Des Moines, Issaquah, Kirkland, Lacey, Lynnwood, Olympia, Puyallup, Sammamish and University Place.
This data has been in hand for as long as I could remember. I wonder why we would spend another 50K on consultants when we could have used it to just cure some of the issues at hand.
Carrie Hite contacted me to let me know while the council allocated $50,000 for the study and the complete job descriptions update, the council negotiated a contract for much less. I’ve updated the story to reflect that.
I recall several years ago a South County Chamber committee effort to assist the City of Lynnwood in “balancing” employee wages to be comparable to those offered to Boeing employees. Today, I don’t see the same concern. The “balancing” that is suggested only compares other cities. What if many or most of these cities have allowed wages to escalate more rapidly than private enterprise? Isn’t this viewpoint somewhat myopic?
If I remember correctly, the consultant said last night that he did use private sector wages as a comparison for some positions.
The non-represented employee study was to take 90 to 120 days, but took near twice that amount of time. One reason is because the consultant had to update some job descriptions. Hopefully in the future they’ll routinely be updated by staff, as that’s not a task to pay a consultant to do.
At the Oct 25, 2011 council meeting it was stated that there would be continued communication with council, city leadership, the project team and stakeholders. The public is certainly a stakeholder, but we have received no updates until last night.
The consultant’s report reflects the completion of a lot of very good work, and it was done at a cost lower than anticipated. But if all of the recommendations are adopted by city council, all city workers will in effect be unionized.
I say that because the city’s highest paid workers would receive, in addition to COLA increases:
-5% step increases annually and not merit increases
-longevity pay
-and deferred compensation, which is unlike any deferred compensation that I’m accustomed to because it’s additional pay, not existing pay that’s deferred.
The consultant was able to find matches in the private sector for 9 city positions. That data caused the average pay in the survey for 7 of those positions to be higher than what was indicated by the average of the comparator cities. The actual private sector data should be provided by the consultant.
If this report is fully adopted by city council, the city will have lost an opportunity to start moving away from the “over-the-top” compensation negotiated by the city’s trade unions. There are stories in the press almost daily about cities having big financial problems because of excessive compensation; Edmonds is headed in that direction. Without reduced compensation citizens will be enduring higher property taxes, or reduced services.
The city should not be seeking to raise non-represented employee compensation; it should be seeking to curb the growth in compensation for represented employees.
Additionally, council should take into consideration that some of the compensation by some of the comparator cities is more theoretical than actual. Because some cities have gotten more concessions from employees than have been sought from our employees. Concessions need to be benchmarked.
Edmonds continues to be a leader in environmental issues, now it’s time for our city to show a path to compensation sanity.
I have not heard comments from any elected Edmonds official about putting the breaks on compensation, but I don’t know what’s being said in executive sessions.
An additional comment I should have made about the consultant – Public Sector Personnel Consultants. I have no reason to question their competency, but a review of their website indicates that 100% of their work has been for the public sector. So I don’t know how solid the comparisons are that they’ve made to private sector jobs.
“Public Sector Personnel Consultants” does 100% of their work for the public sector — seems kind of obvious…
Terry:
I have learned long ago that it’s safer not to assume anything.
Here’s the 2011 memo to Steve Bernheim listing police department salaries: https://myedmondsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2011_Wages_Memo_to_Bernheim.pdf
And here’s 2008 salary data:
https://myedmondsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2008-NonRepSalaries.pdf
I could not find a resolution or ordinance on the city’s website related to the contingency reserve fund. But here is the link to my story about the council meeting where they refer to creating said fund (toward end of article):
https://myedmondsnews.com/2012/07/edmonds-city-council-agrees-to-proceed-with-talbot-road-storm-drain-improvements/
Thanks for posting your older links, Teresa. The look at the 2012/07/2011 wages memo to Bernheim was most enlightening.
While I am a strong proponent of fair compensation for labor, the prospect of paying a police Corporal over $100k is a bit sickening. I’m quite experienced in the realm of compensating people for hazardous duty and such, but this is not Detroit, it’s Edmonds.
By way of comparison, a military E-5 in a combat zone is considered compensated at the 90% level of their peers, and they receive approximately $52-60 k/yr salary plus about $5-10k hazardous duty/deployment pay.
Based on this, I can state definitively that our police officers are grossly overcompensated. I don’t care what else they pretend to compare themselves to, if they’re earning nearly twice what combat troops earn, they should be ashamed to take it.
Here’s the link:
https://myedmondsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Job-Pay-Level-Descriptions.pdf
Ron B.:
My observations indicate to me that the union leadership is just as responsible as the elected officials for the “over the top” compensation received by represented employees. We have a situation right now with Police that’s instructive.
The last agreement with the Edmonds Police Officers’ Association expired on December 31, 2011. A new agreement has been under negotiation in numerous executive sessions since the last months of 2011. Evidently the demands by Police are more than the City wants, or is able, to pay. They have apparently reached an impass, so are now going to arbritation. If the City does not get a favorable ruling we’ll probably see Police layoffs.
I see only two possible solutions for the problem that all cities are having with their unions – by the way, we can thank JFK for allowing the unionization of government workers. 1) The State de-certifies the unions – virtually no chance of that in our state. 2) The State causes many municipalities to amalgamate, thus allowing the more efficient delivery of services and causing total compensation to be reduced. Several provinces in Canada have done that, starting about 20 years ago, with great success. Unfortunately, Olympia shows no sign of being able to provide that kind of leadership. In the meantime, without reduced compensation citizens will be enduring higher property taxes, or reduced services.
While many of you are quick to criticize the level of pay the officers received in the report, you fail to note that the salaries reported includes overtime and other things. When you deduct those things, you’ll find that their base salaries are far less than $100K per year. Look for the “X”. The number of extra hours the officers have to work to enable their salaries to reach the level reported is being ignored. Only the administrators have base pay above $100K.
And isn’t it interesting that a consultant found that there are employees that are underpaid. I think I suggested in another thread that it would be ironic if that were to be the case. So now the consultant used will be attacked because of the result. The people not liking the result will scream for another consultant to their liking for the results they want. Kinda like drug addicts doctor shopping for a doctor who will give them a prescription for things they shouldn’t.
Also, if you are going to compare these to the military, I’d say that the men and women that are in combat zones are being paid way to low for what they are doing. However, when you add that while they are in the military that all of their meals, housing, and medical are paid for when not in a combat zone, it may be that their compensation is equal to what the police officers are paid.
I agree that all of the wages should be fair and equitable. What I don’t agree with, however, is the screaming from the rooftops that current pay is out of line and needs to be cut.
Edmonds has financial issues that could be helped by a more aggressive economic development plan. Since the downtown area is apparently “immune” to economic development due to height restrictions, perhaps the Highway 99 area should be changed to allow taller buildings. Adding more apartments sure isn’t going to help Edmonds.
The desire to keep Edmonds small town when there are areas that can be developed with more financial return, I think, is short sighted. This can’t be demonstrated more than the reluctance of the council to annex the Aurora Village property. Bothell went cross-border with King County with relatively no negative side-effects.
@Paul – I think compensation for the military is pretty fair-I’ve lived it. That estimate I provided did include housing and food compensation, by the way. You can pull those estimates off of a military pay calculator online.
I will hereby freely admit an error on my part, and thank you for pointing out an idiot’s guide to reading the pay tables: I didn’t realize that overtime was included. Overtime is not a patrol officer’s issue, it’s a management issue that must be looked at separately. And I am a FIRM believer in paying for overtime when it is directed.
So, I hereby withdraw my level of vehemence, but still proclaim a need to go back and look at compensation, because it still seems out of whack with the rest of the region’s compensation rates.
Paul:
I will not debate compensation with you, because nobody is objective about their own compensation. Regarding the consultant finding some positions underpaid, here’s what he found. He surveyed all Edmonds jobs to determine how the midpoint of pay for those jobs compared to the comparator cities for the same jobs. He determined that the Edmonds midpoints were low for 7 positions and that they were high for 22 positions.
Ron B.:
The FD1 deal has clearly saved the city a whole lot of money; those who had doubts about that no longer have them.
I am not suggesting regionalization; I’m talking about creating larger cities – for example one the size of the Edmonds School District.
I couldn’t agree with you more about there being a need to deal with public employee compensation. Edmonds should help get it started.
Ron W.,
“…we can thank JFK for allowing unionization of government workers.”
So, because he initiated normalizing relations with China, we can thank Richard Nixon for the coal trains?
Your ideas are more interesting when you don’t throw in your (irrelevant) views on national politics.
Many of you appear to be demonizing the unions. Have you ever heard of your police department going out on strike? You won’t, because it is illegal. The negotiations for their wages may come to an impasse and when it does, it goes before an arbitrator who is then supposed to make a fair decision that is binding on both parties.
Both parties try to avoid going to this arbitration. Why? Well, you never know which way an arbitrator will go, unless there is a great disparity between the comparables and what is being asked for. The arbitrator does use, sometimes, the ability of the city to pay.
Mr. Wambolt, you must be operating with faulty information. I am not debating any of this because of my compensation. The study you mention will change every year due to some locations getting colas and some not. So, sure, maybe when this study was done some of Edmonds compensations were higher, but it could be that the next year they will be lower. And what has the history been? I would bet that Edmonds has always been lower than the top comparables. I think you might be shocked at the pay of the administrators of the Lynnwood Police Department as compared to Edmonds.
I don’t know how all of you think that the compensation for your public employees should be determined. If it is worth, well nobody is willing to come right out and say what they are willing to pay without some kind of “study”. If it is by what comparable cities pay, it appears some are trying to get away from that just because they don’t like the results. Well then, what information is it that you need to determine what these people should be paid? If it isn’t “going rate” as determined by using comparable cities in a free market, what is it?
Mr. Cloutier, thanks for clearing up the military pay. I will agree that their pay is ok when they are not in combat but when they are in combat, they are grossly underpaid. I don’t know how you’d determine what they should be paid while in an area where someone is actively trying to kill them, but I’m pretty sure it should be more than what they’re being paid currently.
Paul, Are teacher’s strikes illegal, and if so what is the process to settle without striking? It it the same a police? Which public employee groups are allowed to strike?
Gary:
Not much that I can add to Ron B.’s response to you except to say that Nixon’s action was positive leadership. Since trade was opened with China in 1979 the U.S. has had trillions of dollars in exports to that country.
When trade unions begain many decades ago it was the unions against entrepreneurs, now its the unions against the taxpayers.
good grief.
Our public employees deserve a fair and competitive wage. Our City government is charged with negotiating with the unions fairly to achieve that balance. For all the “consultant” contracts they let in any given year, they could fund several FTEs. If they had hired a full time Human Resources manager, the job descriptions and parity issues could be dealt with in house.
The City only provides services, not goods. It is not, by law, allowed to make a profit. It must deal with the Unions. Debating the usefulness of Unions, or the history of labor law is just so much spilled digital ink.
If this City can spend monies on parks acquisitions, study after study, contribute 13% to the Roundabout project (which is estimated to be 3M plus), it is befuddling why they cannot negotiate fair wages for our Public Employees, both Union represented and unrepresented. Our City Employees should come before new parks acquisitions, roundabouts, and “consultant fees”. Fire protection and police protection is not optional for the City to provide.
It would be a true pity if the Employee’s are used (again) as fodder for other political agendas. How about fair and competitive wages for all? How about determining what the staffing levels need to be and then funding them before spending money on Roundabouts and tiny parks? How about putting those actually providing services to the pubic in a position higher than fodder?
I would rather see Edmonds have a well paid, well staffed employee workforce than another study, roundabout project, or yet another park (we have plenty that need to be maintained.
Rons:
I’m not disagreeing with either of you on the issues. I’m suggesting that throwing in snarky remarks regarding nationally-elected politicians — especially from decisions a half-century old — distracts from the conversation about local issues.
What CAN be useful about your observations is that we should begin to think far more than we do about unintended consequences. Better to think about the ramifications of current decisions. How, what we do now, will change Edmonds in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years? SRI-International, the famous futurist think tank, always creates three scenarios as possible consequences of major decisions. No one can know for sure the unintended consequences (hence, the name) of any major decision — the scenarios are used to help their clients (major corporations) think. Politicians usually don’t think past the next election. Citizens need to insist that they do.
(As a reminder, I speak for only me.)
I have looked at the wages and their comparisons. Edmonds is in line with other City’s or below. Either we lose services (not my choice) or we figure out a way to increase revenue. Do we really want the professional that salary reductions would bring? I don’t think you can compare government to private, they are so different in their revenue and operations. Comparing some City positions with private that I did on my own looks like Edmonds is really paid below the private sector. City staff do not get bonuses or matched retirement like I do. I’m not sure where the retired gentlemen get their date but I think they are a bit out of touch, maybe too much time has gone by since they worked. I know there is a anti government chant out there, trying to balance budgets on the backs of the worker bees but it is just blaming the wrong people. The guy that mows the parks grass did not create the economy bust, the banks and traders did.
Mr. Haug,
I only know that the services deemed essential, police and fire, are unable to go on strike. Teachers have not had that designator despite their important role in our society.
I would also like to make you aware that public employees in the State of Washington, even if their wages are the same as a private sector employee, have take-home pay that is less. They also can look forward to not collecting their full Social Security benefits when they retire.
The first part is because they are forced to belong to the State retirement system, which isn’t an entirely bad thing. Many of them have the standard Social Security withholding from their checks but then they have an additional amount that goes towards their retirement accounts. It is no small amount.
The second part about Social Security has to do with the “WEP” provision. If you have a defined benefit your Social Security will be drastically reduced. Also, you can forget getting any benefit from your spouse’s Social Security benefit as it is eliminated all together. So, if you are currently in a government job in Washington and have been paying into Social Security, you can write off Social Security because it’s not helping you much later. There are some provisions for countering the WEP provisions, but a lot of people won’t meet those and lose what they paid in.
Edmonds does not participate in Social Security, but the employees still have the same amount of funds taken from their wages, which is in a relatively good program.
I am not against the State’s retirement system because it is being administered in a way that makes it solvent. But, the employees have their take-home pay reduced without the ability to say no from one payday to the next. In the private sector where you have 401k’s and such, it is voluntary and if you have an emergency, you don’t have to contribute that month.
Also, don’t think that I’m trying to garner sympathy for public employees because of this, I’m only trying to make sure you have all the information.
Mr. Miller, Thanks for your OPINION about my question of which public employees have a right to strike. It does not seem to track with the opinion of the AG office and of that of several Washingtion State judges. Searching ” washingon state teachers right to strike” produced a number of court cases and legal opinions along with an analysis that all public employees do not have a right to strike but the legislature has not specified any penality for violating that law. So it seems that the teachers have had strikes with little or no penalities handed out by the courts and police and fire could do the same. What would prevent one group of public employees to follow the law while other groups do not.
My only comment to all the other things you addressed back to me was I did not ask about that but you took the occasion to offer you opinion about strikes to expand your discourse on public employee retirement issue. Thanks for the information but given your answer to my strike question I find it difficult to understand or except the rest of you information.
No longer talking to Mr. Miller:
MY OPINION is that we should have a clear and complete public discussion of public employee pay, benefit, and retirement plans and then decide do we want to have plans for public employees that are more like those of the private sector or do we need or want to have plans different than the private sector. One of the basic principles of a free market system is the “free flowing and mobility of factors” (College econ) As I understand it that means among other things that labor should be able to freely move in the market place. Clearly the more complicated the retirement plans we have hinder the movement of labor from industry to industry. Having a retirement plan that is tied to a central funding plan like the state retiremtment system seems to prevent good public employees to leave their public job and seek jobs in the private sector that may pay more. Barriers to entry and handcuffs to stay in an industry my not be in the best long run interest of our ecomomy. My facts to support these opinions are not fully researched and I label these statements as opinions based on my observations.
My last opinion for now: The sooner we have a full and fair discussion of how we compensate public employees the better off we will be. The public employees will be better off and the public will be better off. Time to get that duscussion going and time to leave all the noising converstation out of the picture. Not likely but I can hope.
Sorry Mr. Haug, after the initial paragraph I had intended the rest to just be general information for everyone and not solely directed to you. My apologies if you thought I was being snarky.
Forgot to put this in:
Title 41 RCW
Public employment, civil service, and pensions
RCW 41.80.060
Right to strike not granted.
Nothing contained in chapter 354, Laws of 2002 permits or grants to any employee the right to strike or refuse to perform his or her official duties.
[2002 c 354 § 307.]
Maybe other public employees are willing to break the law but the police are not, generally.