Compensation consultants told the Lake Stevens City Council on July 15 that they recommend using a set of nearby cities as comparators for a municipal compensation market study and asked the council to approve the roster so the study can proceed. The council asked staff to return with additional analysis showing how wage and benefit growth compares to revenue growth before implementation recommendations are finalized. Shannon (Compensation Connections) presented the study framework and said the consultant team surveyed pay for four representative city jobs across the candidate cities and reviewed factors that the Washington Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) advises employers to consider when choosing market peers.

Why it matters: the city is updating its salary survey to guide potential pay adjustments and to standardize pay decisions across bargaining groups. Council members stressed that pay increases must be sustainable relative to expected city revenues.

Consultants described candidate peer cities and the selection factors used: geographic proximity (cities within roughly 50 miles of Lake Stevens), population size, assessed value (defined by the consultants as “total value of all real estate located within the city limits”), number of employees, and services or infrastructure that affect city complexity. Shannon said the team ran a small test comparing the average pay for four common Lake Stevens positions across the candidate cities and found only a weak correlation between city budget size, assessed value per capita and those sample job averages. She told the council: “We see some correlation, but not a ton of correlation between this budget size and those, how those jobs pay.”

Council members pressed for fiscal sustainability. Councilmember Ewing asked how the study would account for long-term growth in wages and benefits versus revenue. Anya (city staff) and the consultants agreed to return with implementation recommendations that include an analysis of revenue trends and the relative pace of payroll cost growth; the consultants said they will include that material when they return to council. Councilmember Daughtry and others asked for the presentation slide deck; the consultant said it would be provided.

No formal ordinance or budget appropriation was requested at the July 15 meeting; consultants asked only to proceed with the market study using the approved list of comparator cities. Council and staff confirmed they want the study completed and that implementation guidance will include discussion of long‑term affordability and options for phasing any pay increases.

Council direction and next steps: staff will proceed with the market study using the consultant-selected peer group and will return to council with the full study and an implementation briefing that addresses revenue vs. wage/benefit trends and affordability options.