Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111521 Salary Commission Explanatory MemorandumPort Townsend Salary Commission Explanatory Statement November 9,2021 MEMORANDUM NO\/ 1 5 2021 i, l./r ; I i,.',""-*J TO FROM: City of Port Townsend Salary Commission through its Chairperson, Deborah Stinson SUBJECT: Salary Commission Determination for Council Members' and Mayor's Salary Levels,2022-28 ln the summer of 2021 the Mayor Michelle Sandoval proposed, and the Council confirmed, the appointment of five Port Townsend citizens - Deborah Stinson, Jack McCreary, Kristine Morris, Julia Cochrane and George Randels - to serve on a Salary Commission ("the Commission") which, under state law, was charged with assessing salarie; paid by the city to elected Council member and to that Council member named, from time to time, to serve as Mayor of Port Townsend, and authorized the Salary Commission to adjust salary levels in the present and for a period of seven years to come. What follows is the Commission's report outlining and explaining its processes, deliberations and determination. Our final conclusions have been submitted this day to the City Clerk, as proscribed by the state law authorizing the Salary Commission process. The Commission's determinations were approved unanimously by its members, and they all endorse this memorandum as well. On August tA, i}2t,we met in person, accompanied by the City Clerk, the City Attorney and the City Finance Director, during which Deborah Stinson was chosen to serve as Chair. City officials briefed us on our responsibilities, and the scope of, and the limits on, that authority. We learned at this meeting that salary levels for the designated officials had been set approximately 14 years ago and had remained static thrOughout the intervening years. We began discussing how to proceed in carrying out our responsibilities. At our initial meeting sbveral of our members asked whether we were allowed to consider items beyond salary payments, such as health insurance or other fringe benefits. We were advised that the measure adopted to form the Commission did not authorize such additional considerations. (Later, when we met with sitting members of City Council, several of them also referenced the health insurance question in particular as a major consideration but one which all involved acknowledged to have City Manager John Mauro Finance Director Nora Mitchell City Attorney Heidi Greenwood City Clerk Joanna Sanders City Council Members City Cou ncil Members-Elect 24,4*-. 1 complications that do not have easy solutions.) We recommend that this issue remain on the table and that consideration be given to broadening the coverage if possible, unless, as many hope, events in the other Washington, or perhaps in Olympia, might make this superfluous. We also learned that state law does not permit our using an index, such as the US Labor Department's Consumer Price lndex, to adjust salaries in the future but we could require such adjustments either with arbitrary increases or by applying an historical percentage based on p'ast inflation. Subsequent meetings were held virtually on a bi-weekly basis. All meetings were announced in advance and carried out electronically with normal provisions for attendance by the public to participate and/or observe the Commission's work. lnitial decisions made were to identify possible areas where research might be useful in carrying out our responsibilities, including: r cost-of{iving changes during the period when these salaries were unchanged o salaries for these officials in comparable communities o particulars about time required to carry out the functions of the offices in question r salaries received by members of governing boards of other public bodies in Jefferson County . city budget history and particulars as they might pertain to the Commission's work Commissioners also shared the values, philosophies, and practical considerations that they would bring to the discussions and decision-making processes on which we were embarking. There was substantial consensus that while Port Townsend had been fortunate to have a history of dedicated, thoughtful members on its governing body, and while the membership over the years had had a reasonably robust diversity of members, nevertheless, salary levels for these positions needed to be high enough so as not to disincentivize people of limited means from putting themselves fonvard to serve. Several Commission members stressed this concern and their hope to foster economic diversity on the Council. Commissioners wanted to be cognizant of, and sensitive to, the fact that our determinations should be made in the context of how they might affect the fiscal impact on the overall city budget. We saw our work as trying to set a level of investment in attracting high quality members of the Council but doing so in full awareness that'every city dollar spent is an investment, in one way or another, in the community's many priorities. Undervaluing the work and responsibility of these community leaders risks a less dedicated, experienced or thoughtful legislative body, but on the other hand setting remuneration levels too high could result in constraining budgetary resources and impinging on the city's ability to provide municipal services that our citizens rightly expect. We knew we would be f seeking a balance among those interests that, while unquantifiable, might meet the "l'll know it when I see it" test. Having identified data which we thought might help us find that balance point and articulated some of the core principles we would hope to apply, we set a plan for proceeding. lncluded was a division of labor for the needed research, with individual commissioners volunteering for one or more of the categories. City staff also agreed to help in the research effort, providing information from city budget and other financial records and in several other ways facilitating the collection and presentation of information. We also decided that some of the best expertise available to help put our responsibility in context would be the seven individuals presently serving on City Council. What did they think about the job's workload, about the level of compensation, and did they have specific suggestions that might help us as we addressed our work? We decided to ask them to appear before us, individually, and share their knowledge and opinions. The next several meetings of the Commission put the plan into action. Data that was gathered were presented to our membership, refined, and assessed. Two meetings were devoted to the dialogue with present Council members. We found them very valuable and we are very grateful for the contributions from all seven of these individuals. ' Our October L2 meeting was devoted to letting each Commission member provide, in as much detail as she or he thought appropriate, those principles and philosophies considered most important for our deliberation, along with his or her assessment of the data our research had produced. We were pleased that there was unanimity among us concluding that while it was a good exercise to seek the volume of data we did,ln the end two elements from our data collection stood out as by far the most important: cost-of-living information, and remuneration for comparable officials in comparable cities, Salary levels for other governing bodies such as PUD, Port, Hospital, School or Fire districts were difficult to compare. Those salaries are set by either the state legislature and are based on a per diem or per meeting basis, or in the case of County Commissioners, aligned with state judges. Additionally, all these bodies have fewer members and, in some cases, provide healthcare benefits on top of the mandated salaries. The job of p City Councilor, we felt, is sufficiently unique that comparisons to other boards or governing bodies were imprecise and thus of minimal value. All data collected and analyzed for comparison purposes can be found in the commission's records. The cost-of-living and comparable cities information is included in an addendum to this memo. We hope that this report and all commission worksheets will be made available to future Salary :l Commissions (if this process continues statewide and in Port Townsend), and we have asked that city officialstakestepstohelpensurethatthisrecordwillbeavailabletooursuccessors. Forthisandother reasons, we also recommend that future mayors give serious consideration to appointing at least one member of a previous 5alary Commission to future iterations to help provide institutional memory and continuity. At the end of that October 12 meeting, we decided to ask each Commission member to return at the next meeting with a specific proposal for the group to consider. The rationale was that these proposals would serve to spur and focus our deliberations and, hopefully, assist in reaching conclusions at that meeting, which took place on October 26. At that meeting, members were somewhat surprised when four of us proposed determinations very similar to each other and, ultimately, very close to our final judgment as well. The fifth membe/s recommendation included a higher base salary plus a proposed "per diem" or "per meeting" payment that would have resulted in a significantly higher level of compensation than what the others proposed. After discussion of this and some of the other more minor differences, all five of us reached a unanimous consensus which is reflected in the determination filed with the City Clerk today. ln terms of methodology, the proposals had begun with applying the U.S. Labor Department's Consumer Price lndex ("CPl") for our region to the salary levels that had held steady for well over a decade, and to bring those numbers up to date by calculating what they would have become if they had kept up with the inflation that the CPI measured. These calculations resulted in a monthly salary for Council members of approximately SZOO, and for the Mayor of approximately S1025. Those amounts would put Port Townsend close to the higher levels in comparable cities (but not the highest). To avoid falling behind as had oiurred during the fairly long period of unchanged payments, we also agreed to calculate increases to be applied in January of even numbered years until our Commission's seven-year horizon would end. To do that we calculated annual amounts using annual the average of the historical CPI data, then calling for bi-annual increases at the amount calculated for that year, ond rounding thot number, up or down, to the nearest 525 qs reflected in our determinafion. We believe that these adjustments, timed to coincide with Council turnover from the previous odd year's election, will help keep Port Townsend's compEn3ation approach up to speed with similar communities and will help ensure that those who run for Council do so without fearing unreasonable sacrifice for doing so. We are not unmindful that service on the City Council has benefits beyond monetary considerations - primarily the good feelings that one gets for serving one's neighbors, our community, and future generations. The seven sitting Council members acknowledged that this was an important element in their own 4 thinking about running for office, as did the two former Council members who are members of the Commission. We have tried, to the best of our ability, to find that balance that results in a "fair" compensation for those who serve our community on its governing body. Recognizing that Council members, present and soon to be sworn in, may have questions or seek clarification on our work, we stand ready to respond and to help everyone fully understand what we did and why. We want to thank city staff members who helped greatly: Nora Mitchell, Heidi Greenwood, Joanna Sanders, and Haylie Clement, and doubtless others. Lastly, we want everyone to know that we took our responsibilities seriously and wish to say how honored we were to have been asked to take on this function. Respectfully submitted, on my behalf and on behalf of my Commission colleagues: Deborah Stinson, Chair, Port Townsend Salary Commission 5 ADDENDUM PortTownsend Z)21 Salary Commission cPl historical data averaged and apptied through 2028, with rounding to nearest S25 Year 2ffi7 2008 2009 2010 201L 2012 201-3 20L4 2015 2016 20L7 2018 2019 2020 cPt 3.8% 4.s% o.4% o.8% 3.2% 2.s% 1.2% L.9% O.9o/o 23% 3.3% 3.4% 2.L% L.9o/o Member Monthly 500 519 s42 545 549 556 581 588 599 604 618 638 650 674 Mayor Monthly 750 779 814 8L7 823 850 87L 881 898 906 927 958 990 1,011 Current Annual Salary for Entire City Council 45,m0 L7,7W 2,tw 3m ,, , -&ffi, 1,,';::', 2,100 2,Tffi AvgOT-ZO 2.3% 2027* 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2427 2028 2029 300 2,Lffi :, , ,l;ffi. ,; ,: 100 Ending Annual lncrease olvet20'21 * -apptie! 2007-2029 avq -cf.l.!o 2021 since current year CPI is anornalous. 202L salary paid same as 2020' flighlighted rows refleet yeirs in whic,h new salary (holded) takes effect l * Member 2.?/o Nearest 2.?/o Nearest Annual Fiscal lmpact to City for entire City Council 1,049 1,050 1,034 L,O97 r23 1,148 t,175 i,t , liX?5 802 Sm 687 700 7L6 733 749 767 700 82L 825 725 725 750 775 7U 802 77s 800 700 Comparable Cities Sorted by Population 2019 City Form Pop County Sequim Airway Heights Shelton Gig Harbor Ridgefield Poulsbo Kelso Woodinville Port Orchard Anacortes Port Angeles MEDIAN AVG Current PT Manager Proposed PT 9,815 Jefferson SZSO $1,025 Reported Monthly Salaries Mayor Member $sos $gso Sr,2oo $soo Ssoo Ssoo nla $ztg $r,oso $szs nla 5750 sl,ooo $soo sToo sooo n/a S1,ooo n/a $t,zoo s6so ssso $t,ooo $ssos863 s6s3 Ssoo $7oo Manager Manager Manager Mayor Manager Mayor Manager Manager Mayor Mayor Manager 7,940 10,030 L0,470 11,490 11,560 11,660 t2,4OL 12,800 15,250 18,050 20,200 Clallam Spokane Mason Pierce Clark Kitsap Cowlitz King Kitsap Skagit Clallam ?