Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present preliminary city salary study; council asks for fiscal scenarios
Summary
Consultants told the Lake Stevens City Council a preliminary 2025 pay study finds nonrepresented jobs near the city’s market target while Teamsters positions lag; council members asked staff to return modeled fiscal impacts and options before any policy choice.
Compensation consultants presented preliminary results of a citywide salary study to the Lake Stevens City Council on Sept. 23, saying the city’s nonrepresented pay‑range midpoints average about 94.6% of the council’s 60th‑percentile market reference point while Teamsters‑covered jobs average roughly 88–89% of that market.
The study — conducted by Compensation Connections using municipal peers and published surveys such as Milliman and the Economic Research Institute — matched jobs by content and adjusted data to a common effective date of Jan. 1, 2026, using an aging factor the consultant described to account for varying data dates. The consultant said job matching averaged nine comparable employers per job, above the usual benchmark of three.
The consultant presented job‑level results: about 51% of nonrepresented positions (34 jobs) fall within ±5% of the market reference point; roughly 34% (about 23 jobs) fell 6–10% below market; and roughly 15% (≈10 jobs) were more than 10% below. The Teamsters sample, which the consultant said is smaller, showed no positions within ±5% and several more than 10% under the market reference point.
The firm recommended maintaining the existing pay‑range structure for nonrepresented jobs but reassigning significantly under‑market jobs to different ranges and reviewing internal compression so that senior and intermediate jobs remain appropriately differentiated. For Teamsters positions, the consultant recommended altering the pay‑range structure as a group and using that work to inform collective‑bargaining discussions.
Council members repeatedly pressed for fiscal modeling before giving direction. “Given the current budget situation our city is in, it’s not possible to make any decisions or to give any direction without seeing the numbers and the fiscal impact,” one council member said, asking staff for scenarios that model both limited adjustments and broader range changes. The consultants confirmed their work did not include a benefits comparison and offered to provide estimates of total cost with benefits once recommended ranges are developed.
City staff said they would return with fiscal‑impact modeling and options for the council to consider before any policy action.
Next steps: consultants will finalize job matching and produce cost estimates and option scenarios for council review, including potential budget amendment needs.
