Washington County salary panel debates which outside jurisdictions to include as pay comparators; Portland under consideration

The Washington County Salary Commission spent much of its June 3 meeting narrowing a long list of external jurisdictions to use as comparators for recommended pay changes. Commissioners discussed population, budget size and governance structures as selection criteria, debated whether to include the City of Portland and flagged Clark County (Wash.) as an outlier that may be excluded.

Commissioners said they want comparators that reflect jurisdictions with elected county-style governing bodies and similar populations. Members identified a core set of neighboring Oregon and Washington counties for further analysis and agreed to remove some smaller jurisdictions that are much smaller in population or that use materially different compensation processes. The commission asked staff and the commissioners who compiled the spreadsheet to clean and reformat the list so it’s easier to review.

Why it matters: The set of external comparators will be an input to the panel’s salary recommendations. Commissioners said they prefer to compare Washington County to nearby counties with similar populations and governance, rather than to a wide national sample or to municipal councils that have different responsibilities.

Key points from the discussion - Scope: Commissioners broadly favored using neighboring Oregon and Washington counties of comparable population and budget as primary external comparators. They said this gives the best “apples-to-apples” context for commissioner and chair pay. - Portland: Some commissioners favored including the City of Portland as a comparator because recent charter/governance changes make the city council’s role more similar to county governing bodies in some respects and because Portland’s population scale is closer to Washington County than many smaller cities. Others said Portland’s larger budget and different compensation model could make it an imperfect fit and asked for more data before deciding. - Clark County: Several commissioners flagged Clark County (Wash.) as an outlier because press coverage and public documents suggest the role may not be treated as a full-time position there. Commissioners suggested excluding Clark unless further research shows its role and compensation are comparable. - Marion / Lane / Thurston: Commissioners debated Marion, Lane and Thurston counties. Lane and Marion were tentatively kept for the comparator set; Thurston—much smaller in population and budget—was discussed as a likely exclusion. - Next steps: Commissioners asked the spreadsheet owner(s) to: (a) produce a streamlined version identifying which jurisdictions are definitely included or excluded and why; (b) check whether each comparator uses an independent salary commission or a different compensation process; and (c) return with a cleaned dataset before the next meeting.

Meeting context and process: Commissioners emphasized they are choosing comparators now (the data inputs) and will later agree a consistent calculation method (median/mean, treatment of outliers, etc.). They agreed the list of comparators should be comprehensive unless there is a clear reason to exclude a jurisdiction.

Provenance: Discussion began when the chair asked Ibrahim to lead on external comparators and concluded after commissioners debated Marion, Lane, Clark and Portland and agreed on the next research steps.

Ending: Staff and the commissioners who prepared the spreadsheet will return a cleaned document showing recommended inclusions and exclusions and will research which comparators use salary commissions versus other compensation processes.