01-05-2021 Council Minutes - SpecialCITY OF
Federal Way
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Remote Meeting
January 5, 2021 — 5:00 p.m.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Ferrell called the meeting held remotely to order at 5:00 p.m.
City officials in attendance: Mayor Jim Ferrell, Council President Susan Honda, Councilmember Lydia
Assefa-Dawson, Councilmember Greg Baruso, Councilmember Hoang Tran, Councilmember
Leandra Craft, Councilmember Martin Moore, and Councilmember Linda Kochmar.
City staff in attendance: City Attorney Ryan Call and City Clerk Stephanie Courtney.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Ferrell led the flag salute.
3. STUDY SESSION
a. 2020 Classification and Compensation Study
Human Resources Manager Jean Stanley introduced Alex Sheets and Cabot Dow who
presented background on the 2020 Classification and Compensation Study including timeline
and results. Ms. Stanley noted the scope of work included reviewing job classifications and
salaries of comparable agencies as well as an exploratory organizational and workload
analysis. She noted Cabot Dow and Associates will discuss the results of their findings and
offer recommendations.
Ms. Sheets and Mr. Dow provided information on the report including how they matched
positions across agencies, total compensation versus base salary, and the results which
indicate an increase in disparity as the salary ranges increase in individual positions.
Councilmembers asked various questions about past salary surveys completed previouslyfor
the city that were not implemented and the lack of annual cost of living adjustments (COLA)
which compound over years. Mayor Ferrell noted the city, during the last depression, went 6-
years without a COLA for non -represented staff, which added to the city falling behind in
salary as compared to neighboring jurisdictions.
The Mayor and Council discussed next steps in addressing the annual COLAs and the
individual inequities found in certain positions. Mayor Ferrell noted the COLA for 2021 was
lowered to 2%; and he is hoping to pick up the remaining 1 % in 2021 and fund a 3% COLA for
2022. He also noted he would work with Finance Director Ariwoola and Human Resources
Federal Way City Council Special Minutes Page I of 2
January S, 2021
Manager Stanley on a plan to address individual positions which are far below range.
The Mayor and Council thanked Cabot Dow and Alex Sheets for thorough and thoughtful work
on this report.
The full report is attached to these minutes as Exhibit A.
4. ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further on the agenda; the special meeting was adjourned at 6:13 p.m.
Attest:
t p anie Courtney
City Clerk
Approved by Council: of 111IM2-1
Federal Way City Council Special Minutes Page 2 of 2
January 5, 2021
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2020 CLASSIFICATION &
COMPENSATION STUDY
Final Report — December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
P.O. Box 1806, Bellevue, Washington 98009
www.cabotdow.com
206.818.9184
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................3
1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Scope of Study...............................................................................................................................4
2. Classification Plan and Workload Analysis............................................................................................5
2.1 Classification Analysis...................................................................................................................
5
2.2 Workload Analysis.........................................................................................................................5
3. Compensation Survey...........................................................................................................................6
3.1 Comparison Agencies...................................................................................................................6
3.2 Salary Survey.................................................................................................................................7
4. Recommendations and Implementation..............................................................................................8
5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................9
6. Appendices..........................................................................................................................................10
This Report is the product of an RFP issued by the City of Federal Way in the Fall of 2019. It includes the
study of the City's job classifications, the market in which the City competes for labor, the staffing level
of City services, a list of follow-up steps, a plan for employee communications, a list of Consultant
recommendations for change in staffing and salaries, as well as cost implications. The original plan was
that the Report would be completed in the first half of 2020. However, due to COVID-19 , the report
was delayed until now.
Page 1 2
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Federal Way recognizes that its employees are its most valuable asset, and that by ensuring
the City's classification and compensation structure and workload is manageable, relevant, accurate, and
competitive in the market, it can recruit and retain qualified and motivated employees. To that end, the
City retained Cabot Dow Associates to perform a classification and compensation study of 120 City staff
positions. Cabot Dow Associates used a list of comparable agencies based on City -approved criteria to
compare its salaries with a reasonable market for similar job positions and benefits. Comparable agencies
included seven cities, two counties, one utility district, and a regional transit district within the local job
market.'
The study found that the majority of City positions are more than 5% below the market median at the
midpoint of the salary range. In the compensation field, salaries are deemed to be competitive if they are
within 5% of the market median; thus, Federal Way's salaries, on average, are not competitive with the
comparable labor market.
The study also included a review of every job description, recommendations for updating job descriptions,
and an examination of the City's organizational structure and workload to determine ways to improve the
functionality of the organization. Revised job descriptions were provided to Federal Way human
resources staff for consideration and adoption.
Finally, we reviewed the City's organization structure and staff workload to determine ways to improve
the functionality of the organization. While the scope of the study did not include an in-depth workload
analysis, we derive a number of observations and make some recommendations about how the City can
build upon the work done and tailor an RFP in the future for such a study, based on the organizational
structure of the City. We make observations about how City staffing for services compares to similar
agencies, using similar measurement techniques that have been employed by the ICMA and Upjohn
Institute for some years.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Federal Way incorporated February 28, 1990 and is located in King County, approximately 20
miles South of Seattle and 10 miles North of Tacoma on the 1-5 corridor. The community has a current
population of approximately 97,440 residents and a geographic size of approximately 22 square miles.
The City of Federal Way is a non -charter code city that operates under the Mayor -Council form of
government consisting of an elected Mayor and seven elected Council members.
The City provides an array of municipal services, including police, community development planning and
permitting, economic development, emergency management, animal control, stormwater management,
street/road engineering and maintenance, parks and recreation facilities and programming, as well as
administrative functions such as finance, human resources, and information technology. The City owns
and manages several recreational and cultural facilities, including the Federal Way Community Center,
Dumas Bay Centre, and the Performing Arts & Events Center. South King Fire and Rescue provides fire
1 By consensus of the City's Leadership Team on January 28, 2020, the comparison agencies were selected.
Page 1 3
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
services; Lakehaven Water and Sewer District provides utility services. The City has 340 budgeted FTE
positions for 2020.
Federal Way's classification and compensation practices have not been thoroughly reviewed since 2008.
At that time, positions were found to be under market. Due to the economic recession at that time, the
recommendations included in the last compensation study were not fully implemented, layoffs occurred,
and over the years non -represented employees have received generally lesser wage increases compared
to neighboring jurisdictions. Employees are expressing dissatisfaction and a lack of confidence in Federal
Way with heavy workloads, minimum staffing, and lesser compensation, and are actively being recruited
by neighboring agencies. New employees are often starting at the mid -point of the salary range or above
so the full range is not typically utilized; for many positions, the ability to utilize the full range following a
promotion is difficult. In order to realize a salary increase, promoted employees need to start at the fourth
or fifth step of the range, leaving no room for future progression. Progression through a range is based on
satisfactory performance, but there is no ability to reward different levels of employee performance
throughout the range or at the top of the range.
Federal Way leadership aims to restore employee confidence, provide a work environment that promotes
wellbeing and work -life balance and provide departments with the ability to recruit and retain qualified
employees by ensuring the City's classification and compensation structure and workload is relevant,
accurate, and competitive in the market.
In May 2019, the City selected Cabot Dow Associates (CDA) to conduct a classification and compensation
study along with an organization/workload analysis for 147 non -represented employees in approximately
86 classifications; 26 employees in 4 classifications represented by Teamsters Local 763; and 28
employees in 11 classifications represented by the Police Support Services Association.
1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY
The City appointed Cabot Dow Associates to address an ambitious scope of work that included the
following tasks:
• Study and update all included job classifications with the assistance of employees and
their supervisors.
• Recommend a slate of comparable agencies from which to make salary and
organizational comparisons.
• Survey salaries of local public agencies in the local job market in which the City competes
for labor for the updated job classifications.
• Conduct an organizational/workload analysis based on the current organizational
structure of the City.
• Compare City of Federal Way staffing levels for a variety of City services with seven
comparison cities.
• Recommend action steps to address salary plan changes, staffing, and workload issues.
• Estimate the costs of the impacts of implementation associated with both salary and
staffing changes
Page 14
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
We have provided a detailed list confirming our completion of each contracted scope of work item for the
project in Appendix A.
2. CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND WORKLOAD ANALYSIS
The scope of work for the project included reviewing the City's classification plan and performing a basic
comparative workload study of City job functions and services.
2.1 CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS
As a first step in the project, CDA reviewed each job position description and the City's classification
structure. We gave each staff member a Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) to fill out and return to
us. We then used these PAQs to compare to existing job position descriptions to determine if there were
inaccuracies or changes that needed to be made to existing positions. Recommendations were made for
revisions of current classifications to uniformly reflect distinguishing characteristics, essential job
functions, minimum qualifications, working conditions, license and regulatory requirements.
In addition, it is recommended the City develop a policy that provides for a more consistent review of
classifications descriptions to ensure work being performed is accurately reflected, which will also allow
for better position matches with other comparable jurisdictions when conducting future salary studies.
2.2 WORKLOAD ANALYSIS
The Consultant was given broad discretion as to the methodology for doing a workload study and as to
the application/scope of recommendations. The purpose for doing such a study, as stated by the City,
was to determine whether City departments are understaffed and, if so, what additions to City staff were
recommended. The RFP was not specific as to what a workload analysis looks like.
So, the Consultant secured feedback from management staff as to expectations and engaged in meetings
to discuss what is likely to be most useful to the City, as there are several approaches for doing such an
analysis. Workload/Staffing analysis is not an exact science, and how many FTEs the City needs to assign
to a task or project is largely a result of priorities, policies, and philosophy as to how best to do government,
considering the City's ability to raise revenue. An additional challenge is that a comparison of various city
budget documents show that different cities measure their workload differently from each other. There
is no standard in place from city to city to measure demands for service. So, lining up Federal Way with
other cities in a detailed workload analysis would require other cities to translate their methodology for
each department function to that used by Federal Way, or vice versa.
Based on the RFP and discussions with City officials, the Consultant looked at three approaches to
workload analysis, a/k/a organization and staffing analysis, including a per capita analysis that looks at the
number of FTEs to population ratios for a variety of city departments and functions; an authorized budget
analysis, sometimes called a minimum staffing analysis; and actual workload analysis, sometimes referred
to as a demand analysis for City services and staffing.
Each of these workload analysis methodologies have benefits and drawbacks. While per capita analysis
is simpler and less costly to conduct, it does not account for many of the nuances needed to adequately
Page 1 5
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
compare staffing levels between agencies and the services they provided. A demand analysis provides
helpful information at a granular level but is time and resource -intensive. The City will need to determine
its ultimate objective in conducting a workload analysis and how much time and money it desires to
dedicate to such an undertaking so the results are useful for decision -making.
We have provided data collected on an overview of the approaches to workload analysis in Appendix B of
this report.
3. COMPENSATION SURVEY
3.1 COMPARISON AGENCIES
Working with City management, CDA selected eleven public organizations to compare for job and salary
matches for the study, including two counties, seven cities, a utility district, and regional transit authority.
The following table shows the selected agencies for comparison:
•
city
Population
97,440
2018
Assessed
Valuation
$10,226,806,438
Proximity
to FW
n/a
Federal Way
Auburn
City
80,615
$10,559,076,807
6.0
Burien
City
51,671
$7,272,853,906
16.2
Kent
City
128,900
$18,521,965,624
7.4
Kirkland
City
87,240
$25,234,642,663
30.1
Lakewood
City
59,350
$6,002,783,089
18.9
Puyallup
City
41,100
$5,666,549,214
10.6
Renton
City
104,100
$16,831,608,505
15.7
King
County
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pierce
County
n/a
n/a
n/a
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Utility District 82,700
Regional Transit Authority n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Sound Transit
n/a
When selecting agencies for comparison, we look at matching like personnel, like employers, and like size
to determine the best matches. Selecting a parameter of 40% below and 80% above the City's population
and assessed valuation, we created a list of comparable cities that fell within these criteria. Since Federal
Way's 2018 resident population was 97,440, the population range is 38,976 to 175,392. Since Federal
Way's 2018 assessed valuation was $10,226,806,438, the assessed valuation range is $4,090,722,575 to
$18,408,251,588. Cities in King and Pierce County were identified for consideration because of their
proximity to Federal Way and the fact that there are a sufficient number of comparators in the two -county
area.
Page 1 6
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
The City's Leadership Team proposed to also add the two county agencies: King County and Pierce County.
While not similar in size, they both have court functions, and we concluded that they are not only in the
market but are also likely to have a good number of matches for a variety of positions. The Leadership
Team also proposed to add Lakehaven Water/Sewer District and Puget Sound Transit based on recent
experiences pertaining to competition, recruitment and retention.
We have included a detailed explanation of the methodology and rationale for selecting these agencies in
Appendix C. We encourage the City to use this or a similar method in selecting comparable agencies for
future organizational and compensation studies.
3.2 SALARY SURVEY
A summary of the survey results are shown in Appendix D.
We benchmarked positions at the salary range minimum, midpoint (50%), and maximum. Generally, the
City pays lower salaries than the comparable market for comparable positions at the midpoint. There are,
of course, exceptions to this in every department, where some positions are paid at or slightly above the
market. On average, the City's benchmarked positions were 4% below the market at the minimum point
of the salary range; 6% below the market at the median of the salary range; and 7% below the market at
the maximum of the salary range. 53% of the benchmarked positions were more than 5% below the
market salary aggregated average of the minimum, median, and maximum of the salary range. 22% of
the positions were more than 10% below the aggregated average. 5 positions were more than 15% below
the aggregated average. Conversely, only 5 positions were more than 5% above the market aggregated
average; 3 of these positions are Director positions that are paid at a flat rate whereas the market pays a
salary range. 31% of the benchmarked positions salary ranges are within 5% of the aggregated average
and are considered within the market.
The City's formal pay structure, with a 26% spread between the salary range minimum and maximum,
does not appear to be unusual for the market. The City pays a flat rate salary amount to Department
Directors and some Mayor's office positions. We found that this was not a common practice among the
agencies in the comparable market.
The City was interested in including data from the Lakehaven Water & Sewer District and Sound Transit,
particularly for positions where there seems to be a competitive labor pool in the greater Puget Sound
area. We found that these two special purpose government agencies have unique pay and organizational
structures that made matches with Federal Way positions somewhat challenging. Generally, these two
agencies have formal pay ranges that were twice as large as the municipal government comparables.
Positions in these agencies often require specific skill sets germane to the types of services they provide.
CDA made every effort to obtain as much pertinent data as possible from the selected agencies;
oftentimes, apples -to -apples comparisons are difficult to make, and data from other cities is sometimes
not forthcoming. CDA reviewed the City's relevant job descriptions and compared them with similar job
descriptions in each of the study agencies. Job matches were considered appropriate when approximately
80% of the job position content was similar with the City's corresponding position. We did not use a
survey tool, but instead contacted comparable agencies requesting "raw" data for the study. We find that
this helps us to have a better understanding of each comparable agency's classification and compensation
Page 1 7
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
structure and ensures better matches between Federal Way's positions and comparable positions. A
detailed comparison of each benchmarked position is provided in Appendix E.
Out of approximately 120 classifications surveyed, 97 positions were matched; 18 positions were not
matched due to lack of appropriate comparable positions.z CDA recommends "slotting in" these non -
matched positions within the revised salary schedule based on internal equity with the benchmarked
positions. Several classifications that are used across multiple departments, such as administrative
assistants and maintenance worker classifications, are not benchmarked individually; we found that most
of the comparable agencies use these classifications universally, with generalized job descriptions and
salary ranges. Appendix F provides a list of positions that we were unable to benchmark, with suggestions
for slotting these positions into the revised salary schedule.
This study does not include additional compensation items that would factor into a total compensation
analysis, such as health benefits, paid leave, retirement contributions, longevity, or other premium pay
items. We encourage the City to survey these items in the future in order to determine the
competitiveness of its full employee compensation package.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Appendix G contains a suggested sample salary schedule that the City may consider, based on the market
salary survey findings. The sample schedule uses the market median of the maximum of the salary range,
sets the Federal Way position salary range maximum at the market, and follows a similar structure that
the City now uses, which includes 6 steps with a 26% spread between the minimum and maximum of the
salary range; and 4.5% between each step (except for the sixth and final step, which includes a 6.2%
increase from the fifth step).
While the current salary schedule has generally 2.5% between ranges, we are recommending a less -
structured salary schedule that relies primarily on market findings. In cases where we were not able to
find a sufficient number of matches for a position, we have provided suggested salary setting and
benchmarking guidelines (Appendix F) and applied those to the sample salary schedule.
Several suggested adjustments we have made to the salary schedule include:
• A salary range for Directors, rather than a flat rate salary, based on practices in the selected
comparable market.
• Banding in some positions where job duties are similar and are similarly paid in the market.
• Banding in some positions to maintain appropriate salary differentials between classification
hierarchies, and to prevent wage compression between classifications.
• Banding in some positions, such as Facility, Parks and Street Maintenance Workers, where a
current salary range applies to multiple department classifications. For the Maintenance Worker
1 classification, we averaged the market maximum of the salary ranges of the benchmarked
z CDA considers four matches to be sufficient for statistical purposes. Positions with less than four matches were not analyzed
in the study.
Page 1 8
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
Maintenance Worker 1 positions to recommend the top step of the City's salary range.
Incidentally, doing so keeps the existing 11% differential in place between the Maintenance
Worker 1 and 2 classifications.
• Using the current State minimum wage as a basis to set certain positions, such as the Lead
Lifeguard position.
This salary schedule is purely suggestive at this point; we recognize that some of these changes will need
to be bargained with respective represented employee groups. This is meant to provide an idea of what
market -based salaries for City positions would look like and cost to implement.
We recommend that the City pursue a method of implementation that is fair, reasonable, and mindful of
fiscal resources. To that end, we propose the following example of a methodology for implementing the
recommended salary schedule, bearing in mind that any implementation should consider the incumbent's
performance, qualifications, City personnel policies, and any other individual factors:
1. For those employees whose salaries fall within the new salary ranges, they should remain at
their current salaries. Employees would move up to the closest step in the salary range during
their annual performance evaluation.
2. For those employees whose salaries fall above the maximum of the new pay range, they should
remain at their current salaries. Future cost -of -living increases should be eliminated or reduced
until the salary range catches up to the employee's salary
3. For those employees whose salaries fall below the new pay range minimum, they should be
brought up to the pay range minimum.
It is important to emphasize that the market study compares the City's salary ranges, not necessarily the
specific salaries of individual incumbents within a position classification. We estimate that this method
of implementation would result in an initial cost increase of around $425,000 - $475,000 in salaries. This
figure does not include salary -driven costs such as retirement contributions.
5. CONCLUSION
The 2020 Federal Way Classification and Compensation Report includes a review of the City of Federal
Way's classifications, workload and organizational structure, and current salaries as compared to a
selected market of similar public employers. The study found that, while the City's job descriptions and
classifications generally match the duties and responsibilities that City employees are performing, the City
performs these duties with less employees than comparable City employers in the area. The findings
related to this observation are broad and necessitate further nuanced study. The salary survey found that
the City, on average, pays more than 5% less than the comparable market of public employers for like
classifications.
We made several recommendations as to how the City might pursue deeper analysis related to its needs
and duties as it relates to employees and organizational structure. We also recommended a new market -
Page 1 9
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
based salary schedule that would allow current employees to be "phased in" to the new schedule based
on current salary levels.
While these suggestions serve as important information for the City's policymakers to consider, we
strongly recommend that the City determine a compensation philosophy that will guide policy and a
salary -setting process that will reflect the City's priorities in the future. In such a philosophy/policy
statement, the City should consider the following:
- Pay level: where does the City want to be in relation to the greater market? For example, within +/-
5% of the median would provide direction for future decision -making.
- Base pay: external market value versus use value (ie internal equity)
- Variable pay: does the City want to offer additional incentive pay, in accordance with the market and
current law? If so, what kind?
- Total compensation: what items are included, and how important do these factor into the City's
compensation strategy? Is the City's market philosophy different on wages vs. benefits?
- Resources: How will the City attract desirable talent in light of its funding needs and available
resources?
- Measurement: How often will the City measure its current practices in relation to a comparable
market, and how will that comparable market be determined? For example, sample of position
salaries should be benchmarked every 2-3 years, and a full study should be conducted every 5-7 years.
Throughout the report, we have demonstrated the methods that we used to study and make
recommendations related to these items; we encourage the City to consider these methods and put them
in practice in a consistent and timely way so as to stay abreast of the market, keep up employee morale,
and guide future budgeting and resource allocation.
Validation. This report on the classification, compensation and workload analysis of City of Federal Way
staffing and positions was prepared by Cabot Dow, the President and principal human resources
management consultant at Cabot Dow Associates, Inc. Support was provided by other human resources
professionals Alexandra Sheeks (Salary Survey) and Stephanie Brown (Job Classification). This Report is
intended to be fully responsive to City's contract for professional services and reflects the consultant's
independent professional methodology, tables, judgments, and findings.
6. APPENDICES
A. Scope of Work Verification
B. Workload Analysis
C. Comparable Agency Analysis
D. Salary Study Summary Results
E. Position Salary Comparison
F. Positions Not Benchmarked
G. Suggested Market -Based Salary Schedule
Page 1 10
2020 Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study — Final Report - December 2020
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 City of Federal Way Classification and Compensation Study
Appendix A
Scope of Work Verification
Cabot Dow Associates
December 2020
Appendix A — Scope of Work Verification
We have listed each of the Scope of Work items enumerated in the City's Professional Services
Agreement here with a brief explanation of how we met each of the contracted items:
Scope of Work Item
I Description
Completion
A. Classification Plan and Workload Analysis
Al. Make recommendations about
Discuss job classification analysis
CDA met with HR staff in July
job evaluation methodologies and
methodology, City classification
2019 to discuss the project
meet with staff.
background, make
scope and analysis
recommendations
methodology and
background. CDA
recommended a PAQ
process issued through the
City's HR department.
A2. Establish timelines, identify
Finalize project scope of work
CDA met with HR and
project steps, etc.
management staff in July
2019 to finalize the scope of
work.
A3. Assist with employee
Hold meetings with employee
CDA held two staff meetings
communications at the beginning of
groups, provide written material
in July 2019 to explain the
the study.
study, process, and answer
staff questions.
A4. Conduct planning meetings
Regular status updates, phone
CDA held in -person and
throughout project
calls with HR staff, preliminary
phone meetings with City
milestone reports
staff throughout the project.
A5. Conduct interviews for job and
Meet with management,
CDA met with staff as
workload analysis
supervisors, and employees as
needed for necessary
needed to determine job content
information throughout the
and workload
project.
A6. Initiate and conduct PAQs for job
Gather written materials for
CDA developed and, with
analysis and recommend changes
review of job classifications
assistance from HR staff,
distributed PAQforms to all
staff; reviewed all PAQs and
recommended draft job
description changes for City
review.
A6a. Workload research & analysis
Research organizational
CDA conducted a macro -
structures and staffing levels in
level workload analysis and
comparable cities
reviewed various methods of
workload analysis.
AT Present recommendations to
Meet with staff; draft changes to
CDA provided draft changes
City management staff & draft new
classifications for staff review
to classifications for staff
classifications
review.
A8. Finalize class specifications and
Prepare final classifications in
CDA provided all job
make recommendations.
advance of market survey
description changes to HR
staff in advance of market
survey.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Appendix A — Scope of Work Verification
Scope of Work Item
A9. Recommend and conduct an
employee review (aka appeal)
process
B1. Review and select comparable
cities
B2. Conduct salary survey
B3. Develop report summarizing
data
B4. Develop compensation plan
134a. Classification Analysis
B5. Recommend classification levels
and series
B6. Make other pay practice
recommendations
B7. Implementation
recommendation for employees
above or below market
B8. Presentation to management,
Council, Mayor
B9. Meet with City employees to
explain and summarize results
B10. City implementation support,
including employee communications
Description
Provide guidelines and adjudicate
employee review requests for
classification changes
Review current methodology for
selecting comparable cities; make
recommendations for selection
criteria and select comparable
market
Gather salary data from
comparable cities and compile
into an Excel spreadsheet
Review and summarize survey
findings.
Recommend revised salary
schedule based on results of
classification study and salary
survey.
Application of classification
analysis methods and
classification of 110 jobs
Based on classification analysis
and salary survey data, make
recommendations
Make other recommendations
based on survey and
organizational observations
Provide options for bringing
employees to appropriate market
rate or "taking the foot off the gas
pedal" on overmarket salaries
Present salary survey findings to
City staff and elected officials
Hold meetings with City employee
groups
Provide support to HR staff,
including draft written
communications to employees
Completion
Not conducted; revised job
descriptions were reviewed
and approved by
Management Team.
CDA reviewed and selected
comparable agencies for the
study; met with City
Leadership Team for
guidance and agreement in
comparables selection.
CDA gathered job
descriptions, salary
schedules, and other
relevant information from
comparable agencies;
conducted follow-up with
agencies for clarification.
Preliminary report provided
to City in November 2020.
Revised salary schedule
provided in final report.
No changes recommended.
No changes recommended.
Recommendations provided
in final report.
Recommendations provided
in final report.
Presentations made to City
staff and Council in
November and December
2020.
Presentation made to City
staff in November 2020.
Provided throughout
project.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 2
Appendix A — Scope of Work Verification
Scope of Work Item
Description
Completion
1311. Manage appeals process
Draft a specific salary study
Salary study results shared
review process for employees;
with management team,
review employee requests and
supervisors, and employees
make recommendations
through meetings;
opportunity provided for
questions and review.
C. Study Conclusion
C1. Prepare written report
Prepare draft summary report of
CDA prepared a draft
entire project, including
summary report, including
classification and workload
milestone reports
analysis, salary study, and
throughout the project.
recommendations
C2. Provide instructional information
Provide instructional information
Recommendations provided
to staff to assist in future
in final report.
benchmarking and follow up;
includes recommendations for
periodic review of classification
and compensation system
C3. Meetings throughout project
Meetings with City management
CDA met with staff
and elected officials (not including
throughout the project to
regular HR staff briefings or
gather input, receive policy
employee meetings or interviews)
direction, and provide
information and updates.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
2020 City of Federal Way Classification and Compensation Study
Appendix B
Workload Analysis
Cabot Dow Associates
December 2020
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Table of Contents
I. ORGANIZATION & WORKLOAD SURVEY - INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1
a. Per Capita Analysis.............................................................................................................. 1
b. Authorized Budget Analysis................................................................................................. 5
c. Demand Analysis................................................................................................................. 5
d. Incremental Baseline Analysis............................................................................................ 17
II. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 17
Appendices and Supplemental Materials...................................................................................... 22
I. ORGANIZATION & WORKLOAD SURVEY - INTRODUCTION
Based on the RFP and discussions with City officials, the Consultant looked at three approaches
to workload analysis, a/k/a organization and staffing analysis:
a. Per Capita Analvsis
The first methodology is a per capita analysis that looks at the number of FTEs to population ratios
for a variety of city departments and functions. This is the least complicated kind of analysis that
renders "rough justice" as to how the City's staffing compares to other cities performing "like"
services with "like" personnel and to set the table for recommendations.
The database for comparison is displayed in the table below. The position inventory of FTEs is
taken from the respective 2019-20 Budget documents, accessible on the city websites. A sample
for using a per capita analysis as a tool for comparing staffing and policy -making, going forward,
is provided in Appendix B.
The table below was populated by the Consultant by (1) taking the breakdown of City of Federal
Way's 340 FTEs on Page B-10 of the 2019-20 Budget in each Department/Division and then (2)
inserting the number of FTEs budgeted for staffing of like Department/Divisions in the comparison
cities.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 1
Appendix B - Workload Analysis
CITY TO CITY
Federal
Way
Position
Inventory/FTEs
2019
Legislative/Exec Offices
Administration
6.04
Economic
Development
1.00
Emergency Mg
1.00
Information
Technology
7.00
Human Resources
3.50
City Clerk
2.50
Subtotal Legis/Exec
Office
21.04
Municipal Court
Staffing
Court Operations
13.00
Probation Services
3.00
Subtotal Municipal
Court
16.00
Subtotal Finance
Staffing
8.00
Law Office Staffing
Civil Legal Services
4.80
Auburn
Burien
Kent
Kirkland
Lakewood
Puyallup
Renton
Avg
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
15.00
4.00
5.00
9.59
3.00
4.50
11.63
7.53
3.00
2.50
2.00
Contract
1.00
1.00
5.00
2.42
1.00
x
x
1.00
1.30
1.00
3.00
1.46
18.00
4.00
37.00
27.20
4.00
8.00
20.50
16.96
8.00
2.00
15.00
9.20
4.00
4.00
13.00
7.89
5.00
3.00
5.00
4.80
5.00
4.00
6.00
4.69
50.00
15.50
64.00
51.79
18.30
22.50
59.13
40.17
County
County
15.00
15.50
5.00
7.00
12.00
10.90
County
County
4.75
3.00
5.00
3.88
3.00
3.93
x
x
19.75
18.50
10.00
10.88
15.00
14.83
24.00
6.30
37.00
28.80
7.00
9.00
17.50
18.51
4.00
3.00
6.00
4.00
2.50
3.50
5.50
4.07
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates - December 2020
Appendix B - Workload Analysis
CITY TO CITY
Federal
Way
Criminal Prosec
Services
8.20
Subtotal Law
13.00
Community Dev
Staffing
Administration
3.90
Planning
6.80
Building
13.00
Code Enforcement *
1.00
Subtotal Comm Dev
24.70
Police Dept Staffing
Administration
2.00
Support Services
58.00
Field Operations
103.00
Subtotal Police
163.00
Park, Rec & Cultural
Svcs
Administration
1.80
General Recreation
5.83
Comm Center/Facilities
11.33
Dumas Bay Centre
3.00
Park Maintenance
15.50
Performing Arts/Events
1.00
Auburn
Burien
Kent
Kirkland
Lakewood
Puyallup
Renton
Avg
7.00
0.00
11.80
Contract
7.00
4.50
8.50
6.47
11.00
3.00
17.80
4.00
9.50
8.00
14.00
9.61
4.00
2.00
10.00
6.99
1.50
2.00
2.00
4.07
9.00
6.25
4.00
19.36
4.00
7.00
31.50
11.59
11.00
7.05
33.00
27.00
7.00
11.00
20.00
16.58
3.00
1.00
PD
2.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
2.17
27.00
16.30
47.00
55.35
14.50
21.00
57.50
34.09
7.00
4.00
8.25
21.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
7.04
15.00
7.00
53.03
28.00
12.00
7.00
32.40
22.06
118.00
76.00
161.00
81.00
100.00
63.00
128.00
103.86
140.00
87.00
222.28
130.00
115.00
73.00
163.40
132.95
County
3.00
4.00
6.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.43
9.00
15.50
28.20
11.50
2.00
4.00
15.17
12.20
15.50
7.00
31.00
9.95
7.50
12.00
28.75
15.96
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16.00
10.50
37.50
24.50
7.75
10.75
25.00
18.86
5.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates - December 2020
Appendix B - Workload Analysis
CITY TO CITY
Federal
Way
Subtotal Park, Rec/Cult
38.46
Public Works Dept
Staffing
Administration
2.61
Capital Project Eng
N/A
Development Services
1.85
Traffic Services
5.28
Street Services
15.60
Solid Waste/Recycling
2.41
Surface Water Mgt
20.75
Fleet & Equipment
1.00
Subtotal Public Works
49.50
Total Ongoing Staffing
340.00
Resident Population
97,440
FTEs/1000 Population
3.49
Auburn
Burien
Kent
Kirkland
Lakewood
Puyallup
Renton
Avg
48.50
38.00
102.70
50.95
19.25
28.75
70.92
51.30
5.00
4.00
22.00
3.10
1.50
2.50
2.00
5.73
10.00
0.00
25.00
21.50
7.00
5.00
8.42
10.99
15.00
0.00
22.40
13.00
6.00
10.00
5.00
10.20
15.00
0.00
9.00
3.05
2.00
5.00
39.50
10.51
21.00
11.60
21.00
24.24
8.00
14.00
24.45
17.76
2.00
x
x
x
x
x
3.50
2.75
17.00
14.40
18.80
38.25
County
15.00
25.24
21.45
12.00
0.00
10.00
7.45
1.00
5.00
9.00
1 6.35
97.00
30.00
128.20
110.59
25.50
56.50
117.11
80.70
394.50
195.10
640.73
454.99
223.05
229.88
510.56
382.64
80,615
51,850
128,900
87,240
59,350
41,001
104,100
79,008
4.89
3.76
4.97
5.22
3.76
5.61
4.90
4.84
Using Appendix B, a "draft" approach (taken from professional sports) can be an option for allocating which department gets priority for addressing
staffing needs. For example, if the Information Technology Department staffing per 1000 is 32.8% of the average and the Community Development
Department is 80.9% of the average,' the IT Department Director gets a higher draft pick than the Community Development Director when
available funds are earmarked by City Council for staffing.
' Percentile or ranking can also be a useful tool.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates - December 2020 4
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
b. Authorized Budget Analysis
A second methodology is an authorized budget analysis, sometimes referred to as a minimum
staffing analysis for a variety of city departments and functions. This analysis reflects the
City's priorities as to staffing various operations for the delivery of City services. It often spots
areas where greater funds may be required. The City utilizes a program budget which is a
planning tool used to allocate limited resources that lie within the City's ability to fund various
services.
An alpha list to use in making an authorized budget analysis, or minimum staffing analysis, as
a tool for policy -making is provided in Appendix C. A minimum staffing approach is one in
which the City Council will need to address by prioritizing City functions through the budget
process, e.g. using a tool based on community surveys and/or national staffing standards (e.g.
ICMA, APWA, or Upjohn).
c. Demand Analvsis
Actual workload analysis, sometimes referred to as a demand analysis for services city
departments/divisions are staffed to provide. The demand analysis of workload requires
complex data analysis that is beyond the scope of this study or the current capacity of the
city. However, this type of analysis is the most reliable as it is based on objective assessment
of data and the decision -makers are in a position to make data -driven decisions.
It is recommended that the City evaluate how important such an analysis is and survey its
options for doing such an analysis, which will require the assistance of the cities selected for
comparison purposes? The challenge here is that there is no standardized workload data
format from city to city and city budgets reveal that each city has its own custom for
measuring workload, or demand for city services. Example: Kent (more quantitative) vs.
Renton (more qualitative) vs. Puyallup (mix of qualitative and quantitative).
The workload measures in the City of Federal Way 2019-20 Budget are identified below and
provide a good starting point to making workload comparisons with other cities.
2 The Upjohn Institute, ICMA and APWA have done work in support of workload analysis, staffing and
organization comparisons so some standardization as to what are best practices can be made.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 5
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Federal Way Workload Measures - Comparison Worksheet
Source: City of Federal Way 2019-20 Adopted Budget
Workload Measures: (also outcome and efficiency measures are listed)
Metric
Mayor's Office
2019
# of Total FTEs managed
340.0
# of Total expenditure budget managed (in millions of $)
$110.47
# of Media Releases
49
Efficiency Measures:
# of Employees per 1000 population
3.49
$ General fund budget per capita
531
Workload Measures:
Economic Development
Metric
N/A - 2019-20 Operating Budget includes list of accomplishments
but not workload measures
Emergency Management
Metric
Workload Measures:
NIMS ICS Compliance
Update GFW Emergency Management Plan to be NIMS compliant
1
Conduct Emergency Management table top/functional exercises
for staff assigned to the GFW EOC — 3 were conducted
• Conduct monthly Emergency Management oversight and
planning committee meetings —11 were conducted
Outcome Measures:
# of people trained in NIMS ICS Training
30
# of table top exercises conducted
3
Efficiency Measures:
# of Training GFW EOC staff in NIMS ICS
100%
# of Conducting exercises and EOC activation
3
# of Public Education and Involvement Meetings
12
Workload Measures:
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Information Technoloy
Metric
Information Systems
New systems implementation
1
# of Users served
400
# of Personal computers (PCs) maintained
500
# of support calls received annually
3,000
# of applications maintained
119
# of Servers / LAN /
92
Communication
# of phones operated and maintained
460
# of cellular phones operated and maintained.
220
# of cellular data cards operated and maintained.
15
# of pagers operated and maintained
0
# of WEB site visits
200,000
# of radios maintained
260
GIS
# of map requests and analyses
150
# of standard data layers
100
GAC/web
# of web pages maintained
250
# of Bulletin pages broadcasted
125
# of Hours of TV broadcasting per day
24
# of Cable customer calls handled
25
Outcome Measures:
Information Systems
of technical response within 2-4 hours
80.0%
of IT system up -time during normal business hours
99.5%
Communication
• % of communications up -time during normal business hours
99.9/0
GIS
of users who rate GIS system as meeting expectations
99.0%
# of map requests by the public
15
Human Resources
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of employee applications processed
1,900
# of Public Safety Testing applications processed
535
# of recruitments coordinated
75
# of training hours provided
900
# of Wellness Your Way Accounts Managed
435
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
• # of Onsite Biometric Participants
320
Outcome Measures:
new employee orientations given in 3 days of employment
100%
of exit interviews completed
100%
of Employee turnover rate
10%
of minority employees in City workforce
25%
# rating: Worker's compensation experience factor (credits/debits)
.9500
City Clerk
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of Agenda Bills submitted to City Council
260
# of Legal Notices prepared and published annually
25
# of Council Agendas prepared and published annually
45
# of Ordinances processed annually
25
# of Resolutions processed annually
15
# of City Agreements processed annually
245
# of City Meetings noticed per the Open Public Meetings Act
260
# of Appointments made to Citizen Commissions/Committees
35
# of Hearing Examiner Public Hearings coordinated and supervised
10
# of Public Record Requests processed
350
# of Notarial Acts performed
135
# of Boxes of Records which met retention that are destroyed 125
or transferred to State Archivist
City Council
Metric
N/A - 2019-20 Operating Budget includes list of accomplishments but not workload
measures
Community Development
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of documents formatted/edited.
672
# of walk-in clients.
450
# of phone calls received.
1162
# of Planning Commission meetings.
15
# of passport applications processed.
2258
Outcome Measures:
of documents completed on time.
95.0%
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Planning
I
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of Pre -application conferences held.
42
# of drop -in questions -telephone and front counter.
11,500
# ofLand use/subdivision applications received.
100
# of Administrative Decisions
160
# of Planning Commission meetings supported.
15
Building
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of Total permits issued/reviewed.
3,500
$ Valuation of issued permits.
$80.4M
Outcome Measures:
• # of New Single Family (NSF) permits issued < 30 days
80%
NSF review timelines run 7 to 233 days; average of 61 days per project.
Project review timelines where staff waits on applicant to respond.
Net review time averages 40.7 days.
# of Tenant Improvement permits (TI) issued, under 30 days
75%
# of Total permit inspections per year.
8,100
# of Total Citizen Action Request investigations per year.
1,899
# of Total Records Requests completed per year.
160
Total revenue receipted versus Total revenue forecasted (%).
100.0%
Efficiency Measures:
Average staff hours per NSF permit— Review/Inspection.
4/15
Average staff hours per TI permit — Review/Inspection.
4/10
Inspection Hours
7,000
Community Services
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of community services contracts managed.
46
$ Amount of community services dollars administered.
$536,000
# of community services contract payments processed.
184
# of community services applications processed.
75
# of CDBG applications processed.
10
# of CDBG contracts managed.
12
# of CDBG dollars administered.
$721,000
Outcome Measures:
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
• % of contracts fully executed in timely manner.
100.0%
# of Human Service Commission meetings supported
14
# of owner occupied housing units stabilized
100.0%
Finance
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of invoices paid annually
11,450
# of transactions receipted annually at Finance counter compared to
total transactions receipted at City Hall
6,982/21,605
— 32.3%
# of new business licenses issued 800 / renewed
— 5,276
Outcome Measures:
0 GFOA CAFR Awards - # of documents submitted / awarded — 31/31
0 GFOA Budget Award - # of documents submitted /awarded —18/18
Note: Switched to biennial budget beginning with 1997/1998 document.
Unqualified Audit Opinion — consecutive years
31
Bond Rating per Moody's
Aa3
Investment return: total SIP and 6 month T-Bill benchmarks
0.49% SIP
0.475 T-Bill
# of month Cash reconciled w/in 15 days of receiving bank statement
12
Efficiency Measures:
FTE Staffing: Finance/City-Wide
8/340.00
Average working days to compile MFR
3
Average number of weeks to issue a regular
2-3 wks
business license
Law — Civil
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of contracts drafted/reviewed
530
# of Ordinances/Resolutions Drafted
20
# of Litigation matters (excludes condemnation litigation)
15
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 10
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
# of Labor Agreements
4
Efficiency Measures:
# of Contracts reviewed per attorney per year
177
# of projects/files opened — major issues (not including
25
subfiles)
Law — Criminal
Metric
Workload Measures:
$ Asset Forfeiture
10
# of Cases filed — criminal citations
3,300
# of Domestic Violence cases received in System*- (included in above
criminal citation filings)
450
Outcome Measures:
• # of Total resolved cases
3,000
Efficiency Measures:
• # of Criminal cases per prosecutor*
825*
*Doesn't include cases reviewed unit not charged
Municipal Court
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of Judicial Officers
2.0
# of Administrator/Supervisor
2.0
# of Clerk Staff (Actual FTE)
9.0
# of Traffic Infraction Filings/Parking
10,000
# of Non -Traffic Infraction Filings
270
# of DUI Filings
185
# of Criminal Traffic Filings
1,100
# of Criminal Non -Traffic Filings
1,800
# of Civil Filings
6
# of Photo Enforcement Filings
21,000
# of Total Filings
34,361
# of Infraction Hearings Held/Parking
4,500
# of DUI Hearings Held
1,800
# of Criminal Traffic Hearings Held
2,700
# of Criminal Non -Traffic Hearings Held
6,800
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 11
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
# of Photo Enforcement Hearings Held
6,500
# of Total Hearings Held
22,300
Parks & Recreation
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of commissions and committees supported
4
# of Capital Projects Managed
3
Outcome Measures:
# of Total Acres of Park and Open Space
1124
# of Total Square Feet of Facilities operated and maintained
251,791
Recreation
Metric
# of Total Recreation & Cultural Services classes held
11520
# of Total senior classes / drop -in services
1,350
# of Total Teen Participants
350
Outcome Measures:
Recovery ratio
71.1%
Efficiency Measures:
# of volunteer hours, Senior Services
3,300
# of Recreation & Cultural Services enrollments
11,700
# of Recreation & Cultural Services participant attendance
141,600
Community Center
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of operational hours
4,910
# of birthday party rentals
500
# of special event rentals
100
# of meeting rentals
400
# of swim classes
2,200
Efficiency Measures:
Operating within or better than designated utility tax contribution
Yes
Efficiency Measures:
# of active passes
3,300
# of community center class enrollments
1,400
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 12
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
# of pass holder visits
180,000
# of daily admissions
75,000
Dumas Bay Centre
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of use days
250
# of overnight stays
215
# of non -charged users
8
Outcome Measures:
$ Revenue generated
$630,000
Recovery ratio
98.0%
Efficiency Measures:
# of contracts managed
2
# of retreats
115
Park Maintenance
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of parks with athletic fields
5
# of sites requiring routine safety inspections
35
# of park acres routinely maintained
657
# of developed parks that require litter control
32
# of restroom facilities
10
# of city owned major facilities maintained
8
# of other city owned buildings maintained
10
Outcome Measures:
• of work orders completed w/in requested time frame
75%
• acres of athletic fields maintained in good condition
75%
• of park land mowed on schedule % of trash removed on schedule
85%
• of trash removed on schedule
90%
• of restrooms cleaned and sanitized daily
95%
Park Maintenance Facilities
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of square feet maintained
251,791
# of major buildings maintained
8
# of other buildings maintained
10
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 13
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
# of departments serviced
10
# of service contractors used
28
Outcome Measures:
• of work orders completed w/in requested time frame
85%
• of trash removed on schedule
100%
• of restrooms cleaned and sanitized daily
100%
Public Works
Metric
Administration
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of responses for information from constituents
2,162
# of word processing requests
970
Outcome Measures:
of community requests responded to in same day
95%
of word processing documents completed on time
99%
of time a "live" person is available to handle constituent calls
99%
Development Services
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of development review committee meetings attended
65
# of Engineering Approval reviews
7
# of Commercial Building Permit reviews
84
# of Plat Applications (Full & Short)
34
# of Single Family Applications
476
# of Final Plats
7
Outcome Measures:
Average review time - projects under construction (# of days)
10
Average review time - pre -application (# of days)
10
Average review time - building permits (# of days)
30
Average review time — SEPA (# of days)
45
Average review time - site plan review (# of days)
30
Average review time — Use Process Review (# of days)
25
Average review time - outside agency review (# of days)
10
Response time on requests for modifications (# of days)
10
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 14
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Response time on requests for inspections
2
Traffic
Metric
Workload Measures:
# of traffic signals
89
# of citizen action requests processed
440
# of development review applications
260
# of employees at commute trip reduction sites
4,800
Outcome Measures:
# of timing plans developed for traffic signal coordination
100
# of traffic control changes implemented
50
# of neighborhood projects balloted
4
Percent of development applications reviewed on time
100%
• # of City employees changing travel mode to non -single occupancy vehic (SOV) — 50
# of Neighborhood Traffic Safety Projects presented to Council
4
Efficiency Measures:
Percent reduction in delays at signalized intersections
5%
Percent change from Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel modes
1.5%
Streets
Metric
Workload Measures:
$ Annual CIP Fund administered
$17.5M
$ Grant dollars administered
$6.2M
# of lane miles repaired/rehabilitated
7.0
# of Right of Way permits issued
450
# of street center lane mile within city limits
244
# of curb miles of sidewalk within city limits
271.6
# of acres of right-of-way landscaping maintained within city limits
31.8
# of curb miles mowed within city limits
61
Outcome Measures:
of CIP project completed on time and within budget
100%
of call -out situations responded to w/in 45 minutes (after hour response time) 100%
Efficiency Measures:
$ Value of CIP project managed per engineer
$4.4M
# of Citizen Action Report (CAR) forms processed
600
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 15
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Solid Waste & Recycling
Metric
Workload Measures:
Number of special recycling collection events held
2
Number of outreach materials (brochures, newsletters, etc.) produced - 6
Number of grants managed
3
Outcome Measures:
Quantity of outreach materials printed and distributed
80,000
$ Grant revenue obtained
$126,600
Tons of material diverted per special recycling event
80
Surface Water Management
Metric
Workload Measures:
Y $ Annual SWM revenues administered
$4.00M
Y $ Grant funding administered
$3.14M
Water quality articles published
20
Y Volunteer hours on surface water related projects
600
Y Number of Commercial Business Inspections (Private Drainage Facilities) 807
Y Number of 811 Utility Locates Performed
3,495
Y Number of Pond Facilities and Detention Tanks Maintained
368
Number of Water Quality Vaults Maintained
49
Y Number of LID Facilities Maintained (Filtera, Modular Wetland, Rain Garden) 43
Y Number of Catchbasin, Outfall, and Control Structures Inspected and Maintained
12,293
Outcome Measures:
Percent of planned CIP projects completed
100.0%
Percent completion of storm monitoring and sampling targets
100.0%
Percent of planned lake and stream & water quality projects completed on time 100.0%
I
�_H
Efficiency Measures:
• Number of SWM infrastructure units* maintained per maintenance FTE (6) 3,900
Number of Citizen Action Requests Received and responded to
192
Percent of emergency events responded to within 45 minutes (after-hours response
time) —100%
A sample questionnaire for use by Department Heads to compare demands for services in Federal
Way vs. other cities is provided in Appendix D. This will require each Department to contact their
counterparts in survey cities to assure accuracy in data collection and some standardized
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 16
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
workload data format to fill out for "apples to apples" comparison purposes. This can be relatively
time-consuming and is certainly not bullet-proof.
d. Incremental Baseline Analvsis
Incremental Baseline Analysis selects the workload indicators and staffs to incremental changes
from year to year. This analysis is drawn from the moral legitimacy of the status quo, and makes
staffing changes from there.
CONCLUSION
Overall, Federal Way provides services with 1.0 - 1.5 FTE per capita less than the area survey
cities. The average FTEs per capita is 4.84. While multiple factors are in play, it is logical to
conclude that Federal Way employees, as a rule, carry a higher workload (approximately 28%
higher) than their counterparts in the area survey cities. Table 1 is ranked by Assessed Valuation
from high to low and the FTEs per capita in each of the seven survey cities shown supports this
conclusion.
• Auburn
• Burien
• Kent
• Kirkland
• Lakewood
• Puyallup
• Renton
This phenomenon involves ability to pay. Federal Way property tax revenues are well below the
average of the area survey cities. Table 2 is ranked by property tax revenues for 2018 from high
to low. Likewise, Federal Way total retail sales generated are slightly below the average of the
area survey cities. Table 3 is ranked by total retail sales 2018 from high to low as well.
The Consultant is not in a position to make recommendation as to the number of positions needed
to perform the workload in an efficient and effective manner and to provide wellbeing and life-
work balance for staff without further direction from the City. As it is, the Consultant is left with
using professional judgment as to how the City's staffing compares to other cities and "flag" those
departments or functions that are lagging the most, by comparison.
In the meantime, the Consultant has completed the following steps to determine how City of
Federal Way staffing levels (FTEs) compared to those in other area cities performing similar
services.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 17
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Step 1:
Secure 2019-20 Budget Documents from the seven salary survey cities.
Budget documents are useful in revealing what functions are performed by each city and what
the staffing level is for those functions listed below.
Budget documents are also useful in revealing workload indicators measured by
the respective city, e.g. City of Kent. See Appendix H in Supplemental Materials.
Step 2:
Populate a worksheet to include department operations, for staffing comparisons to Federal
Way.3 Attachments 1 through 16 are worksheets for each function. Eliminate the
functions/services of the surveyed cities that Federal Way does not provide, e.g. airport,
cemetery, golf course, museum, water, wastewater, etc.
Step 3:
Calculate number of FTEs per 1000 population by department operation for Federal Way and for
each of the salary survey cities.
Step 4:
Draw preliminary conclusions from the tables below. The resident population, assessed
valuation, square miles, FTEs, property tax revenues, retail sales activity are provided to assess
relative tax base. Utility taxes have not been included as these are discretionary with City
Council.
3 Fire/EMS — Only Kirkland of the salary survey cities staffs their own fire departments.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 18
Appendix B -Workload Analysis
TABLE 1
Overall: Federal Way provides services with 1.0 -1.5 FTE per capita less than the area survey
cities.
Area
2019-
Resident
Assessed
Square
Survey
20
FTE
FTEs/Cap
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Adjusted
Adjusted
Kirkland
p.54
87,240
$25,234,642,663
19.60
489.70
5.86
Kent
p .43
128,900
$18,521,965,624
34.42
683.30
5.30
46
Renton
Ap5.7
104,100
$16,831,608,505
23.61
551.50
5.30
Auburn
pp. 20
80,615
$10,559,076,807
21
29.86
412.60
5.12
Federal
p 8-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
Way
22.49
340.00
3.49
Burien
51,850
$7,272,853,906
10.11
190.70
3.68
Lakewood
p89 ,
59,350
$6,002,783,089
18.91
214.30
3.61
Puyallup
pp. 07
41,001
$5,666,549,214
14.25
260.30
6.35
Average
73,127
$11,454,466,488
20.86
382.72
5.04
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates - December 2020 19
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
TABLE 2
Overall: Federal Way property tax revenues are well below the average of the area survey
cities. The following table is ranked by property tax revenues for 2018 from high to low:
Area Survey
Levy
Resident
Property Tax
Property Tax
City
Rate
Population
Revenues
Per Capita
Kirkland
1.15698
87,240
$29,776,943
$341.32
Kent
1.62704
128,900
$30,135,896
$233.79
Renton
1.15364
104,100
$19,417,686
$186.53
Auburn
2.03239
801615
$19,136,885
$237.39
Federal Way
1.06161
971440
$10,856,945
$111.42
Puyallup
1.52651
41,001
$9,428,731
$229.96
Burien
1.23516
511850
$7,817,186
$150.77
Lakewood
1.15205
591350
$6,915,523
$116.52
Average
1.46479
73,127
$17,011,793
$232.63
Source: Senior Taxing Agencies — www.dor.gov. Table 30 — 2018 - Property Tax Levy Detail
TABLE 3
Overall: Federal Way total retail sales generated are slightly below the average of the area
survey cities. The following table is ranked by total retail sales 2018 from high to low:
Area Survey
Levy
Resident
Total
Retail Sales
City
Rate
Population
Retail Sales
Per Capita
Renton
1.15364
104,100
$3,066,277,295
$29,455.11
Kirkland
1.15698
87,240
$2,769,484,255
$31,745.58
Puyallup
1.52651
41,001
$2,605,343,869
$63,543.42
Kent
1.62704
128,900
$2,507,380,381
$19,452.14
Auburn
2.03239
80,615
$1,915,564,049
$23,761.88
Federal Way
1.06161
97,440
$1,671,681,428
$17,156.01
Lakewood
1.15205
59,350
$1,252,160,144
$21,097.90
Burien
1.23516
51,850
$875,021,914
$16,876.03
Average
1.41197
85,343
$2,141,604,558
$29,418.87
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 20
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Step 5:
Determine what level of detail is needed to compare staffing levels among survey cities (before
consideration of city priorities and demands for service). Attachments are provided in Appendix
H for the following City departments and functions:
• City Attorney
• City Clerk
• City Council
• Community Development
• Economic Development
• Emergency Management
• Facilities Maintenance
• Finance
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Mayor/Administration
• Municipal Court
• Parks Maintenance
• Parks/Recreation
• Performing Arts
• Permits
• Police
• Public Works'
• Stormwater Maintenance
• Street Maintenance
• Wastewater Maintenance
• Water Maintenance
' Public Works operations: Engineering, traffic, streets, surface water, clean water, fleet maintenance.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 21
Appendix B —Workload Analysis
Appendices and Supplemental Materials
Appendix
B-1—
Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Page
23
Appendix
B-2
— Authorized Budget Analysis & Staffing Model
Page
47
Appendix
B-3
— Demand Analysis & Staffing Model
Page
48
Appendix
B-4
- Questionnaire Responses: Forced Field Analysis
Page
49
Appendix
B-5
— Questionnaire Responses: Best Evaluation Tools
Page
60
Appendix
B-6
— Staffing Comparisons At -a -Glance
Page
68
Appendix
B-7 —Workload Indicators by City
Page
72
Bibliography
Page 108
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 22
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
APPENDIX B-1
Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Department/Function
Federal Way as Pct.
of Cities Average
•
Performing Arts
N/A
•
Police
N/A
•
Information Technology
33.5%
•
Finance
35.0%
•
Human Resources
36.0%
•
Economic Development
36.3%
•
City Clerk
43.3%
•
Public Works/Engineering
49.3%
•
Emergency Management
54.1%
•
Mayor/Administration
54.9%
•
Parks/Recreation
60.9%
•
Permits
63.6%
•
Community Development
68.0%
•
Parks Maintenance
61.4%
•
Street Maintenance
71.2%
•
Facilities Maintenance
74.9%
•
Stormwater Maintenance
78.4%
•
Municipal Court
85.9%
•
City Attorney
109.7%
•
City Council
156.1%
•
Wastewater Maintenance
N/A
•
Water Maintenance
N/A
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 23
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Department -by -Department Analysis
City Attorney
Area
2019-20
Resident
City
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Atty
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
8.0
5
0.1951
1
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
17.8
1
0.1381
2
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
11.0
2
0.1365
3
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
14.0
3
0.1345
4
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
13.0
4
0.1334
5
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
9.5
6
0.0842
6
Burien
p• 2 41,
55
51,850
3.0
8
0.0579
7
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
4.0
7
0.0459
8
Average
79,008
9.61
0.1216
X
Variance
Federal
y
As Pct. of
eAverag
o
109.7/
Note: Kirkland contracts out a variety of special legal services, e.g. prosecution, labor, litigation
Federal Way: Legal and support staff provides civil legal services and litigation, legislative support,
prosecution, legal counsel on a variety of issues, contracts and ordinance drafting, negotiation of
contracts and real estate transactions, and risk management support.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 24
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
City Clerk
Area
2019-20
Resident
City
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Clerk
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
4.0
4
0.0976
1
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
5.0
3
0.0758
2
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
5.0
5
0.0620
3
Burien
P. 2-26,
S5
51,850
3.0
2
0.0579
4
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
6.0
1
0.0576
5
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
5.0
2
0.0388
6
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
4.8
5
0.0344
7
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
2.5
6
0.0257
8
Average
79,008
4.69
X
0.0593
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
43.3%
Federal Way: Act as the clerk of the Council for all Council Meetings; prepare Council meeting
agendas, materials, and official minutes; maintain an effective records retention/destruction
schedule for all city records per State guidelines; administer requests for public document in
accordance with the public disclosure Act; maintain and update information about the City,
Council, and Council -appointed Commmissioners/Committees; coordination of
Commission/Board vacancy and appointments process; administer Oaths of Office to Elected
Officials; Prepare and ensure timely publication of Public Notices; maintain the official City records
and files, including Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts/Agreements; coordination of the City's
Lang Use hearing Examiner program; Enforce Business Licensing regulations; perform Notary
Public services, and miscellaneous special projects as assigned.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 25
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Community Development
Area
2019-20
Resident
Comm
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Dvlpmnt
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
53.35
4
0.6115
1
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
53.5
1
0.5139
2
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
20.0
7
0.4878
3
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
47.0
2
0.3646
4
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
24.0
5
0.2977
5
Burien
p• 2 54,
S5
51,850
15.3
8
0.2951
6
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
27.5
3
0.2822
7
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
16.5
6
0.2780
8
Average
79,008
32.81
X
0.4153
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
68.0%
Federal Way: The Community Development Department staff provides oversight of
development and implementation of land use controls, building construction, code
enforcement, and community services programs within the policy framework provide by the
City Council: Administration, Planning and environment, Building code enforcement, abatement
and housing assistance services, human services and diversity in the community.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 26
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Permit Division
Area
2019-20
Resident
Permit
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Division
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
27.0
2
0.3095
1
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
11.0
6
0.2683
2
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
33.0
1
0.2560
3
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
20.0
3
0.1921
4
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
11.0
5
0.1365
5
Burien
p• 2 54,
S5
51,850
7.05
8
0.1360
6
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
13.0
4
0.1334
7
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
7.0
7
0.1179
8
Average
79,008
16.58
X
0.2099
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
63.6%
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 27
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Economic Development
Area
2019-20
Resident
Economic
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Dvlpmnt
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
Contract
N/A
Renton
p.3-39
104,100
5.0
1
0.0480
1
Burien
P. xii
51,850
2.5
4
0.0482
2
Auburn
p.100
80,615
3.0
2
0.0372
3
Puyallup
PP. *7
40
41,001
1.0
4
0.0244
4
Lakewood
p.245
59,350
1.0
4
0.0168
5
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
2.0
3
0.0155
6
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
1.0
4
0.0103
7
Average
79,008
2.42
X
0.0284
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
36.3%
Federal Way - The City's Economic Development staff works to produce solutions to attract and
retain businesses, jobs, and investments along with improving the tax base and enhancing the
quality of life in Federal Way.
Area
Econ
Development
Organization
City
FTEs
Chart
Kirkland
Consultant*
City Manager's Office
Renton
5.0
Comm & Econ Dev
Auburn
3.0
Mayor/Admin Office
Kent
2.0
Econ & Comm Dev
Puyallup
1.0
City Manager's Office*
Burien
1.0
Econ Dev Dept
Lakewood
1.0
Comm & Econ Dev
Federal Way
1.0
Mayor's Office
Average
2.42
Note: Kirkland reduced City Manager budget by 0.85 FTE, which was in the 2017-18 budget
for Economic Development Manager and shifted to consultant services in the 2019-20 budget.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 28
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Economic Development
(continued)
Notes:
Auburn - 2019 Budget, page 100 — Mayor/Administration Office
Burien — 2019 Budget, page xii — Economic Development Department
Kent — Phone call to R. Rylin — Economic & Community Development Dept.
Lakewood — 2019 Budget, page245 — Community & Economic Development Dept.
Puyallup— Per Tom Utterback, CD Director, the City has not had a staff position dedicated directly
to economic development in the past 10 years (there was one for a few years prior to then). The
function has been handled by a team approach, involving both the Development Services and City
Manager departments. Within the past two months, however, the City Council authorized the
re-establishment of an full-time in-house "Economic Development Manager" FTE, to reside within
the City Manager's office. The City has just undergone a recruitment to fill that position and the
new staff person will be starting at the beginning of January.
Renton — Page 3-39-46 of 2019 Budget — Community & Economic Development
Sammamish — 2019 Budget, page 53 — Uses the team approach, involving City Manager and
Community Development Departments to staff the Economic Development function.
Shoreline — 2019 Budget, City Staff Directory — City Manager's Office
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 29
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Finance
Area
2019-20
Resident
Finance
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Dept
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
28.8
2
0.3301
1
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
9.0
5
0.2195
2
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
37.0
1
0.2870
3
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
24.0
3
0.2977
4
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
17.5
4
0.1681
5
Burien
p. 2-37, S5
51,850
6.3
8
0.1215
6
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
7.0
6
0.1179
7
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
8.0
7
0.0821
8
Average
79,008
18.51
X
0.2343
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
35.0%
Federal Way - The Finance Department staff works to provide accurate financial information in
support of the budget process and City operations. The Finance Department staff work involves
accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, general accounting, financial planning, cash and
investment management, cash receipting, business licensing, internal control monitoring, audit,
monthly, quarterly and annual financial reporting, budget preparation and financial analysis.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 30
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Human Resources
Area
2019-20
Resident
Human
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Resources
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
13.0
2
0.1249
1
Kent'
pp.43-46
128,900
15.0
1
0.1164
2
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
9.2
3
0.1055
3
Auburn'
pp.20-21
80,615
8.0
4
0.0992
4
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
4.0
5
0.0976
5
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
4.0
7
0.0674
6
Burien
p. 2-31, S5
51,850
2.0
8
0.0386
7
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
3.5
6
0.0359
8
Average
79,008
7.89
5
0.0999
X
Variance
Federal Way
As Pct. of
Average
36.0%
Federal Way: Human resources staff functions include testing, training, recruitment and
retention of employees, foster positive employee/labor relations, maintain programs that
promote employee wellness, safety, productivity, performance. Compliance with labor laws and
regulations. Labor contract administration. Oversight as to the administration of City personnel
policies, decision and direction. Does not include Risk Management.
'Renton HR has 3.25 FTEs in Risk Management Division.
'Kent HR has 2.0 FTEs in Risk Management function.
' Auburn had 1.0 FTE in Risk Management support function.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 31
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Information Technology
Area
2019-20
Resident
Info
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Tech
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
27.2
2
0.3118
1
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
37.0
1
0.2870
2
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
18.0
3
0.2233
3
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
20.5
4
0.1969
4
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
8.0
5
0.1951
5
Burien
p• 2 37,
S5
51,850
4.0
7
0.0771
6
Federal
Way
p. B-10
97,440
7.0
6
0.0718
7
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
4.0
8
0.0674
8
Average
79,008
16.96
X
0.2147
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
33.5%
Federal Way - The Information Technology Division staff works on designing, purchasing,
configuring, maintaining, supporting and upgrading all data, voice, and video systems; manage
contracted services, staff training; Geographical Information Systems (GIS); Government Access
Channel (GAC) broadcasting; cable; Internet/Intranet (WWW) services; and mail and duplications.
IT staff provides technical services, support, and enhancements to the city's information
technology systems. These services cover all data processing hardware and software including
applications, operating systems, special systems, networks, LAN/WAN/MAN, staff training,
equipment acquisitions, contract/project management, database administration, programming
and all other items related to city's computing needs.
Communication Services include technical services, support, maintenance and enhancements for
city telephone systems, cellular phones, pagers, radio equipment, building wiring and all other
communications -related needs.
Geographical Information System (GIS) services include developing and maintaining the city's
spatial database, producing maps, analyzing data, generating reports, providing staff training, and
developing user-friendly interfaces for staff and public to the city's GIS. This division provides
production and support resources to all city departments.
A/V, Government Access Channel (GAC) & Cable Rate Services include local government
information broadcasting (livebroadcast City Council meetings and taped video programs, as well
as news, events, and general city information via billboard -type messages). In addition, the
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 32
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
division oversees cable TV franchise agreements and regulations, and is responsible for
coordinating and responding to citizens' complaints regarding cable services.
Internet, Intranet, & Web Services include developing and maintaining the city's web, FTP, SMTP,
VPN, and IGN services; providing training for staff; monitoring system security; developing
interfaces; and integrating internal systems with Internet services. We will continue to enhance
our web services, to include more online documents, applications, and forms; online payments;
and e-commerce.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 33
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Mayor/Administration
Area
2019-20
Resident
Mayor
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Admin
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
13.0
1
0.1613
1
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
5.5
7
0.1341
2
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
10.6
3
0.1215
3
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
10.63
2
0.1018
4
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
5.0
8
0.0842
5
Burien
P. 2-15, S5
51,850
4.0
5
0.0771
6
Federal
Way
p. 8-10
97,440
5.34
6
0.0548
7
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
6.5
4
0.0504
8
Average
79,008
7.89
X
0.0999
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct.
of
Average
54.9%
Federal Way - The Mayor is elected by and represents the people of Federal Way. The Mayor's
Office staff works to implement the City Council's vision. The Mayor provides executive leadership
over City staff and Departments. The Mayor's Office staff includes the Mayor, communications,
public defender, government affairs, and media relations. The Mayor's Office staff works to
provide coordination of the Federal/State Lobbyist activities.
The Mayor's Office includes the following divisions: Administration, Economic Development,
Performing Arts & Event Center, Emergency Management, Information Technology, Human
Resources, City Clerk, and Public Information Government Affairs.
Area cities:
The cities of Auburn, Kent and Renton have full-time mayors who provide executive leadership
for each city with the support of a city administrator.
The cities of Burien, Kirkland, Lakewood, and Puyallup have part-time mayors. These cities have
adopted the Council -Manager form of government and each hires a city manager who provide
the executive leadership for each city.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 34
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Municipal Court
Area
2019-20
Resident
Munic
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Court
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
10.88
4
0.2652
1
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
18.50
2
0.2121
2
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
10.00
5
0.1685
3
Federal
Way
p. B-10
97,440
16.00
3
0.1642
4
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
19.75
1
0.1532
5
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
15.00
3
0.1441
6
*Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
X
X
N/A
*Burien
N/A
51,850
X
X
N/A
Average
79,008
14.83
X
0.1911
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
85.9%
*Cities without their own municipal court staffed by city employees - the cities of Auburn and
Burien adjudicate civil and criminal matters occurring within the City of Auburn through an
interlocal agreement with King County District Court — South Division.
Federal Way - The Municipal Court is staffed by City employees. The Court is organized under
RCW 3.50 with jurisdiction over violations of the Federal Way Revised Code and Revised Code of
Washington provisions adopted by the City within the City's boundaries. Municipal court staff
provide court and case flow management services, probation and security contracts support,
accounting, case processing, customer service, probation services, staff supervision and
probation compliance.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 35
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services'
Area
2019-20
Resident
Pks/Rec
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Dept
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
102.70
1
0.7967
1
Burien
p. 2-37, S5
51,850
38.00
6
0.7329
2
Renton
App. 7-5
1041100
70.92
2
0.6813
3
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
48.50
4
0.6016
4
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
50.95
3
0.5840
5
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
28.75
7
0.4817
6
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
19.25
8
0.3243
7
Federal
Way
p. B-10
97,440
38.46
5
0.3951
8
Average
79,008
51.30
X
0.6493
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
60.9%
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department staffing is housed within five divisions: Parks
Administration, Parks General Recreation, Federal Way Community Center, Dumas Bay Centre,
and Parks Maintenance.
The Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services staff is responsible for park planning, recreation,
community center, Dumas Bay Centre, cultural services, customer information, facility and
maintenance operations. The staff also provides leadership to meet its mission of providing
quality recreation programs, special events, park development, acquisition and care of over 1,100
acres of park land and six major facilities. The staff also provides support to the Parks, Recreation,
and Public Safety Council Committee, Arts Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and
Youth Commission.
s Golf Course FTEs have been excluded: Auburn on Green River, Kent Riverbend, Renton Maplewood.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 36
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Attachment 11
Parks Maintenance
Area
2019-20
Resident
Mntce
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Parks
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Puyallup
pp.37-40
411001
10.75
5
0.2622
1
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
25.00
2
0.2402
2
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
37.50
1
0.2909
3
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
16.00
6
0.1985
4
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
15.50
3
0.1591
5
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
7.75
4
0.1306
6
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
35.75
7
0.4098
7
Burien
p• 2 61,
S5
51,850
10.5
8
0.2025
8
Average
79,008 20.46
X
0.2590
X
Variance
Federal
Way As Pct. of
Average
61.4%
Federal Way - The Park Maintenance Division is responsible for maintenance of the many City
parks but also responsible for facility maintenance and operations at City Hall Police, Storage
Building, Steel Lake Annex, Steel Lake Maintenance Facility, the exterior of the Community Center,
the Dumas Bay Centre, and the Brooklake Community Center. Staff maintains parks but also
performs repairs and maintenance of facilities, manage contract services, coordinate annual
facility and safety inspections and provide physical facilities support to all departments and public
meetings.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 37
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Public Works /Engineering
Area
2019-20
Resident
Public/Wks
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Dept
FTEs
1000
population
Rank
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
102.0
3
1.2653
1
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
56.5
4
1.3780
2
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
117.11
2
1.1250
3
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
128.2
1
0.9946
4
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
49.5
5
0.5080
5
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
110.59
6
1.2677
6
Burien
p• 2 50
S5
51,850
30.00
7
0.5786
7
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
25.50
8
0.4297
8
Average
79,008
81.41
X
1.0304
X
Variance
Federal Way
As Pct. of
Average
49.3%
The Public Works Department is organized into seven divisions. The Administrative Services
Division provides the overall management of the department. The Development Services Division
provides the engineering plan reviews and inspections of development projects. The Traffic
Division provides transportation planning, traffic operations, and neighborhood traffic services.
The Street Systems Division provides the street improvements and maintenance functions. The
Surface Water Management Division provides the surface water systems improvements and
maintenance functions. The Solid Waste and Recycling Division manage the solid waste/recycling
utility and franchise contract.
Note: Kirkland additional FTEs performing engineering work that is budgeted in other funds
than the general fund, e.g., 3.5 FTEs in surface water management.
Note: Maintenance functions in streets, stormwater, water, wastewater, solid waste, facilities
are excluded, and accounted for elsewhere, if budgeted within the PWD.
When comparing staffing levels, Public Works has more challenges that most other departments,
so core areas of responsibility have been identified from city budget documents. For example,
Federal Way Public Works Department is responsible for Capital Engineering, Surface Water
Management, Solid Waste Management, Fleet Management, Traffic and Traffic Operations,
Development and Right of Way permitting, Streets Maintenance, Administration and oversight of
Sound Transit activities. By contrast, the budget at City of Kent reveals that the Public Works
Department is additionally responsible for sanitary sewer and domestic water utilities for a
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 38
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
portion of the City of Kent. On the other hand, permitting, solid waste, Sound Transit and fleet
maintenance are budgeted within other departments.
Thus, to provide a more accurate and useful comparison, Attachment 12A below breaks out the
number of FTEs in various non -maintenance areas of responsibility that are within the Federal
Way Public Works Department budget and compares with staffing levels in the various survey
cities as identified in Public Works Department budgets.
On an operations level, the Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts retained the Matrix Consulting
Group out of Mountain View, CA, to conduct an organizational and management study of the
Public Works department. As part of that study, the consultant conducted a survey of 8
comparable communities, comparing data relating to each public works operation. This included
total staffing, operating budgets, automated information management systems, street
maintenance, fleet services, water, and wastewater functions.' This City should consider
launching a study like this if the City Council thinks it would be instructive in their budget process.
9 http://www.falmouthmass.us/DocumentCenter/View/41/Management-Review-PDF
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 39
Appendix B-1- Workload Analysis -Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Public Works: Other Services
City
Aub
Burien
Kent
Kirkland
Lakew
Puyall
Rent
Avg
FWay
Development
Services
15.00
0.00
22.40
13.00
6.00
10.00
5.00
10.20
1.85
Traffic Services
15.00
0.00
9.00
3.05
2.00
5.00
39.50
10.51
5.28
Street Services
21.00
11.60
21.00
24.24
8.00
14.00
24.45
17.76
15.60
Solid
Waste/Recycling
2.00
X
x
x
x
x
3.50
2.75
2.41
Surface Water Mgt
17.00
14.40
18.80
38.25
County
15.00
25.24
21.45
20.75
Fleet & Equipment
12.00
0.00
10.00
7.45
1.00
5.00
9.00
6.35
1.00
Notes:
Excludes wastewater and domestic clean water functions, since Federal Way is not responsible
for providing these services to the community.
Includes fleet services when budgeted within PWD.
Includes solid waste when budgeted within PWD.
Excludes street, surface water, facilities maintenance functions for which Federal Way is
responsible. These functions are separated out and compared in separate attachments.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates - December 2020 40
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Public Works: Street Maintenance
Area
2019-20
Resident
Mntce
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Streets
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
14.00
5
0.3415
1
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
24.24
2
0.2779
2
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
21.00
3
0.2605
3
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
24.45
1
0.2349
4
Burien
p. 2-50, S5
51,850
11.60
7
0.2237
5
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
21.00
3
0.1629
6
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
15.60
4
0.1601
7
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
8.00
6
0.1348
8
Average
79,008
17.76
X
0.2248
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
71.2%
Note: The four street system engineer positions are not included in the above Federal Way
maintenance table because Attachment 13 is intended to compare maintenance staffing levels.
The Street Systems Division staff provides maintenance of the local street system and oversees
all capital street projects. Staff activities include engineering services, right-of-way permits,
pavement management, sidewalk inventory, structures maintenance, road surfaces
maintenance, road shoulders maintenance, vegetation and street trees maintenance, litter
control, emergencies, snow and ice removal, and miscellaneous services. Manage private
contractors for street sweeping, right of way landscape maintenance and WSDOT maintenance
and emergency contract services. The Division staff provides administrative, coordination and
record keeping for the daily operation and maintenance of the transportation and pedestrian
network. The staff also develops long range and comprehensive planning goals; prioritizes, and
implements maintenance programs and capital improvement programs. In addition, the staff
monitors private sector maintenance contracts and the WSDOT streets maintenance contract and
develops and constructs the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) street improvement
projects, annual asphalt overlays, sidewalk replacement, and minor capital improvement projects.
The Division staff also applies to various sources for street -related grants, loans, etc. and
administers these funds.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 41
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Public Works: Storm/Surface Water Maintenance
Area
2019-20
Resident
Mntce
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Storm
FTEs
1000 population
Rank
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
38.25
1
0.4384
1
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
15.00
6
0.3658
2
Burien
p• 2 50,
S5
51,850
14.40
8
0.2777
3
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
25.24
3
0.2425
4
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
20.75
20
0.2130
5
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
17.00
7
0.2109
6
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
18.80
4
0.1458
7
*Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
County
x
N/A
Average
79,008
21.45
0.2715
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
78.4%
*Storm/Surface water maintenance for Lakewood is done by Pierce County employees
Federal way - The SWM staff is responsible for the comprehensive management of the City's
natural and manmade surface water systems. This involves protecting developed and
undeveloped properties from flooding, runoff and water quality problems while continuing to
accommodate new residential and commercial growth. The SWM Division staff also promotes the
preservation of natural drainage systems, protection of fishery resources, and wildlife habitat.
The staff provides all surface water related services within the City of Federal Way. These services
are provided through the following programs: Administration/Engineering Services, Water
Quality, and Maintenance Services.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 42
Appendix 13-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Parks: Facilities Maintenance
Area
2019-20
Resident
Mntce
Rank
Staffing per
Staffing
City
Budget
Population
Facilities
FTEs
1000
population
Rank
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
28.75
1
0.2762
1
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
9.00
5
0.2195
2
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
22.00
2
0.1707
3
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
11.00
4
0.1365
4
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
11.30
3
0.1160
5
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
7.95
6
0.0911
6
Burien
p• 2 50,
S5
51,850
4.00
8
0.0771
7
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
2.95
7
0.0505
8
Average
79,008
12.24
0.1549
X
Variance
Federal
Way
As Pct. of
Average
74.86%
Federal Way — The Park Maintenance Division staff is responsible for facility maintenance and
operations of City Hall, Police Storage, Steel Lake Annex, Steel Lake Maintenance Facility, the
landscape at the Community/Senior Center, Dumas Bay Centre, and other City buildings.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 43
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Emergency Management
Area
2019-20
Resident
Emergency
Rank
Staffing per
Staffin
g
City
Budget
Population
Managemen
t
FTEs
1000
population
Rank
Puyallup
pp.37-40
41,001
1.25
3
0.0305
1
Renton
App. 7-5
104,100
3.0
1
0.0288
2
Lakewood
p.38, 89
59,350
1.3
2
0.0219
3
Auburn
pp.20-21
80,615
1.0
4
0.0124
4
Kirkland
p.53
87,240
1.0
4
0.0115
5
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
1.0
4
0.0103
6
Kent
pp.43-46
128,900
X
X
Burien
p. S550,
51,850
X
X
Average
79,008 1.5
0.0190
X
Variance
Federal
Way As Pct. of
Averag
e
54.1%
Federal Way - Emergency Management works to prepare the City of Federal Way and the Greater
Federal Way community for natural or manmade disasters through public education,
presentations, training, planning and building intergovernmental coopera-tion. Ensuring that the
City stays eligible for Department of Homeland Security grant funding. Emergency Management
also ensures that the City and the Greater Federal Way community can respond to and recover
from disasters via exercises, drills, training and maintaining the emergency operations center in a
state of constant readiness.
Notes on Emergencv Management Services in Area Cities:
Auburn Fire is via Valley Regional Fire Authority (VRFA); including Emergency Mgt with 1 FTE;
working with SKFR — Brent Swearingen, Fire Chief (253) 288-5800.
Burien Fire is via KCFD No. 2 — Mike Marrs (206) 242-2040; no FTE is dedicated just to EM.
Federal Way Fire is via So. King Fire & Rescue (SKFR) — Mary Stevens (253) 946-7255, which
has its own EOC.
Kent Fire is via Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA); including Emergency Mgt —
Matt Morris, Fire Chief (253) 856-4300.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 44
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
Lakewood Fire is via West Pierce Fire & Rescue; including Emergency Mgt — Jim Sharp, Fire Chief
(253) 983-4563; collective staffing with City of Lakewood at 1.3 FTEs is dedicated to EM.
Puyallup Fire is provided by East pierce Fire & Rescue — Bud Backer (253) 863-1800.
Puyallup has primary responsibility for Emergency Management; but, East Pierce Fire & Rescue
dedicates 0.25 FTE (AC level) in support of this EM function.
Renton Fire is via Renton Fire Authority (RFA) — Rick Marshall (425) 276-9500; Emergency Mgt is
staffed by the City of Renton.
Email Responses received in response to two Questions:
1) Do you have your own staff or do you rely on City of Federal Way for Emergency
Management services. ANSWER: We staff our own EOC, and do not rely on FWEM
2) If you do have your own staff, how many FTEs are dedicated to Emergency
Management?
3/26/2020 — Mary Stevens
ANSWER 1: In general, we have 1 Assistant Chief and 1 split .5 FTE we share with Valley
Regional. However the VRFA ER Manager is resigning in a few weeks, so we will be down
to just the 1 Assistant Chief ongoing .
ANSWER 2: For this COVID-19 event, we recently staffed up 3 Fire Officers + 2 Assistant
Chiefs to temporarily work it on a full time basis. The .5 FTE we share with VRFA is not
included in this.
3/26/2020 — Brent D. Swearingen, Fire Chief, VRFA
We share one highly qualified emergency manager with South King Fire and Rescue. While the
strict answer to your question of FTEs would be %. I think it is important to note that all of our
personnel are trained in NIMS and are familiar with working in a DOC or EOC. For instance, I
worked for two weeks as the Sno County EOC Operations Chief during the Oso mudslide, but I am
not listed as a partial emergency management employee for our agency. As far as the cities that
we serve, we cooperate with their emergency management staff and would staff positions in a
fully activated EOC. Please feel free to contact me if you have other questions or need more
information on this topic.
3/26/2020 — Bud Backer, Fire Chief, East Pierce Fire & Rescue
We have moved the responsibility for EM back to our member cities who are legally required to
provide the function. (Milton, Edgewood, Bonney Lake, Sumner and Town of South Prairie.)
For the Fire District purpose, we will work with each city when they have an event. It will be up
in the air during a Regional event. Of course the County is responsible for the unincorporated
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 45
Appendix B-1— Workload Analysis —Per Capita Analysis & Staffing Model
area. For our internal preparedness, we have 0.25 FTE assigned, as it is one of the many hats one
of our Assistant Chiefs wear.
3/26/2020—Jim Sharp, Fire Chief, West Pierce Fire & Rescue
We are part of an Emergency Management consortium through an ILA with the Cities of
Lakewood and University Place. Collectively, we employ 1.3 FTEs who are directly committed to
our emergency management programs; one full-time Emergency Management Coordinator and
a 15-hour per -week Emergency Management Assistant. Each of the three agencies have other
employees that provide oversight and/or some level of support to the program, but they are not
dedicated EM employees.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 46
Appendix B-2 — Workload Analysis — Authorized Budget Analysis
APPENDIX B-2
Authorized Budget Analysis
(Council Priorities)
Illustratinn
Department/Function
Ordinal Ranking - TBD
•
City Attorney
•
City Clerk
•
City Council
•
Community
Development
•
Economic
Development
•
Emergency
Management
•
Facilities Maintenance
•
Finance
•
Human Resources
•
Information
Technology
•
Mayor/Administration
•
Municipal Court
•
Parks Maintenance
•
Parks/Recreation
•
Performing Arts
N/A
•
Permits
•
Police
N/A
•
Public Works10
•
Stormwater
Maintenance
•
Street Maintenance
•
Wastewater
Maintenance
N/A
•
Water Maintenance
N/A
"Public Works operations: Excludes street, surface water, facilities maintenance functions for which
Federal Way is responsible. These functions are separated out and compared in separate attachments.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 47
Appendix B-3 — Workload Analysis — Demand Analysis
APPENDIX B-3
Demand Analysis
(Staff to Units of Service)
Illustratinn
Department/Function
Federal Way Demand Quotient: 1-4
•
Performing Arts
N/A
•
Police
1
•
Information
Technology
1
•
City Clerk
1
•
Permits
1
•
Municipal Court
1
•
Public Works"
2
•
Stormwater
Maintenance
2
•
Street Maintenance
2
•
Facilities Maintenance
2
•
Emergency
Management
2
•
Parks Maintenance
3
•
Human Resources
3
•
Economic
Development
3
•
Parks/Recreation
3
•
Community
Development
3
•
Finance
4
•
Mayor/Administration
4
•
City Attorney
4
•
City Council
4
•
Wastewater
Maintenance
N/A
•
Water Maintenance
N/A
u Public Works operations: Excludes street, surface water, facilities maintenance functions for which
Federal Way is responsible. These functions are separated out and compared in separate attachments.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 48
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
APPENDIX B-4
City of Federal Way
Workload Analysis Questionnaire
Responses: Forces in Play
FORCED FIELD ANALYSIS
Force Field Diagram: What is Keeping Us from Getting to a Desired Future State?
Driving Forces (Stressors) Restraining Forces
xxx t xxxx
S
T
A
T
U
S
Q
U
O
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 49
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
RESPONDENTS
1. Name: Brian Davis
Department: Community Development
Position: Director
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Forces not identified.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Forces not identified.
2. Name: Sarah Bridgeford
Department: Community Development
Position: Community Services Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Quantity of work and natural cycle. We largely operate on an annual and
biennial cycle with anticipated and planned workload changes. There are some
bodies of work on a three- or five-year cycles as well. In recent years, the
additional projects have all coincided with the larger cyclical work. I am not sure
this could be avoided.
• Demands on other divisions and departments have also impeded meeting
deadlines. IT often has delays due to workload resulting in slower response
times to data and tech needs. Similarly, we have had some delays with law
review; this is not as consistent as with IT, but occasionally occurs in response to
workload.
• Changes in staffing resulting in covering work as mentioned.
• New projects and ongoing work as mentioned.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 50
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
• 1 have found staff at the City across all departments to be quite helpful and
flexible. The flexibility and teamwork have resulted in moving projects forward
in a timely fashion and, in some cases, making up for time delays.
I would also note that salaried staff in the Community Services Division work
longer hours to complete work. Additionally, we have needed to hire temp staff
and have work with consultants to complete project based work in the last year
and a half.
3. Name: Scott Sproul
Department: Community Development
Position: Building Official
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
Yes, with low staff levels when one person is out sick, vacation or a person finds
new place of employment other have to take on more work than they can
complete in a day. Staff ends up with a 1/3 more work. Larger effect to the
community as they do not get a timely response.
Insufficient staff levels. Lack of adequate training and support. Inconsistencies
in processes.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• modified public hours
• more staff increases morale
4. Name: Kari Cimmer
Department: Community Development
Position: Administration and Permit Center Supervisor
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Too many tasks assigned at the same time, the unpredictability in length of time to
perform some tasks which causes overlap into time for other tasks.
• Any time a staff member is out of the office, other staff in the same work group are
significantly impacted. The work focus becomes (during those times) to do only what
has to be done because there is not enough time to get to everything.
• Alternatively, there is burn out because staff are hesitant to take their vacation time
because they know the impact on others when they're out.
• Also, some staff do not become proficient with the software provided to do theirjobs.
When these staff need help, this can take significant & valuable time away from staff
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 51
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
who have become proficient and need to help them instead of doing their own assigned
work.
• Antiquated software programs that need constant mending.
• Old and slow office equipment and technical issues that aren't taken care of quickly due
to lack of IT staff.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Most software has been provided to accomplish tasks. Scanners and printers are
available for use by staff. A good PC is provided for staff.
• Management that listens to staff concerns and acts on them.
5. Name: Robert'doc' Hansen
Department: Community Development
Position: Planning Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• The amount of work assigned, time deadlines for each project and work space
conditions. Working in the cubical interferes with completion of work when discussion
in the adjacent cubicle is continual. Using earphones is not uncommon.
• Interruption for the need to provide customer service is always a major impeding force.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Apparent comradery amongst several planners so that they can easily interact to obtain
opinions on difficult solutions.
6. Name: Stephanie Courtney
Department: Mayor's Office/City Clerk's Division
Position: City Clerk/Records Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Daily demands of what has to get done and urgent or time sensitive needs from the
Mayor's office or Council take priority for my position. I am at the mercy of the council
schedule and start planning the next meeting before the current meeting is concluded.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 52
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
• 1 try very hard to communicate with my staff and help them when I can or suggest ways
of handling tasks that come up. I also allow them to help other staff, until it becomes a
point of time management for our division.
• 1 think it would help to have time to regroup and future plan and be able to assign projects
to my staff in the areas that they enjoy. It becomes frustrating and defeating to never
have time to accomplish big projects that help the big picture and always running to
complete the thousand little tasks that create one day.
7. Name: Jean Stanley, Sun So, and Julianne Briggs
Department: Human Resources Department
Position: HR Manager in conjunction with HR Analysts
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Extremely high workload, the majority with tight deadlines, and lack of staff and
resources.
• The immediate attention an employee expects when coming to HR with a question or
needing assistance.
• Higher turnover rate (retirements are increasing) requiring a higher demand in
recruitments and filling positions as quickly as possible. The number of retirements is
increasing inquiries to HR staff regarding retirement plans and steps they need to take
to prepare.
• Increased desire by citizens and leadership for more Police Officers which in turn
increases the recruitment effort, processing more applications, conducting more
interviews, etc. The Civil Service Secretary/Chief Examiner responsibility use to be
about 50% of the workload. Over the years, I have seen it increase to about 80% of the
workload. In the meantime, she still has her other areas of responsibility to complete.
Some agencies have one person dedicated to Civil Service.
• The need to schedule vacations.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Teamwork
• Cross training
• Prioritizing
• Laughing
8. Name: Thomas Fichtner
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 53
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
Department: Information Technology
Position: IT Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• The reactionary approach due to not being able to catch up, prevents employees from
working efficiently.
• Stress and burn out is noticeable among employees.
• Frequent interruptions and changing priorities from the leadership does not help
employees stay focused and get tasks accomplished before they are directed to other
priorities.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• The feeling that most have of being on the same team and the feeling that their co-
workers are family. Although that is changing as long-term employees are leaving the
City.
9. Name: Ray Gross
Department: Mayor's Office Emergency Management
Position: Emergency Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Lack of staffing is the major obstacle.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Clear direction from the Mayor on his priorities and goals for Emergency Management,
partnership with City Departments and jurisdictions along with community volunteers
are the major forces that help Emergency Management meet its goals.
10. Name: Sue White
Department: Municipal Court
Position: Court Administrator
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Phone calls, heavy customer service at the front counter that needs to be staffed at all
times.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 54
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
• The customer is the priority so other tasks can be put on the back burner and tend to
accumulate.
• We have speedy trial issues to ensure as well.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Use of Temp help is a necessity. We would never be able to keep our heads above
water without our Temp help, work volunteers and partial help from a person from the
legal department.
• The combination of all three keeps us afloat.
11. Name: John Hutton
Department: Parks
Position: Parks Director
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• This city has long had a reputation for doing more with less, but the unplanned,
unbudgeted work is one of the biggest issues we face day to day. In Parks case we have
taken on several properties and facilities that must be attended to each day and none of
this was funded and our workforce has not increased with the massive amount of extra
responsibility. This results in morale problems and burnout and eventually good people
leave the organization taking with them valuable skills, abilities and institutional
knowledge
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• The pride and level of professionalism that the current staff has is the only reason we
get work done.
12. Name: Jason H. Gerwen
Department: Parks Department (Maintenance Division)
Position: Parks & Facilities Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• An inability to say "NO"
• Overcommitted for years, has staff burnt out and their willingness to go the
extra mile is diminishing.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 55
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
• Several staff will not accept overtime anymore, because they have given up so
much time to the city since 2011 that they've had it.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Pride, dedication, support from management
13. Name: Cody Geddes
Department: Parks
Position: Recreation Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• 1 think we are able to get the work done but we do not provide time or the
ability to create new programming or expand because we are only able to meet
the status quo.
• In comparing us to other cities and departments a lot of coordinators are
supported with specialists or recreation assistants.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• We have a great support system and team.
• We have great support from other departments even though everyone is
stretched thin.
14. Name: Sarah Hamel
Department: Public Works
Position: Capital Engineering Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Assignments of other tasks from management, construction delays, consultant delays.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Outside consultants.
15. Name: Richard Perez
Department: Public Works
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 56
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
Position: City Traffic Engineer
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Political myopia and interference;
• financial and permitting software that is not user-friendly and increasingly time-
consuming (especially for occasional users);
• low morale due to continuing to fall behind on pay and electeds continually paying
attention to police staffing and pay to the exclusion of the rest of the departments;
• having to fight with Finance to get resources committed per the adopted budget;
difficulty getting vacant positions filled due to low pay.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• An incredibly dedicated and knowledgeable staff that generally works together well
despite occasional conflicts;
• A department director that supports his staff and runs interference on political issues as
much as possible.
16. Name: Desiree' Winkler
Department: Public Works
Position: Deputy Public Works Director
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Public Works maintenance. Unable to get work done due to lack of staff. We were
unable to hire as many seasonal employees as previous years. There just were not
enough qualified candidates to fill the already -funded positions. (function of the
economy being so good right now).
• Since falling behind, difficult to get back on schedule .... so constantly behind.
• Public Works — Engineering: loss of senior staff (retirements, going to Lakehaven for
better pay). New staff to train and get up to speed has caused projects to fall behind.
Shorthanded. Utilize a lot of consultants to carry out work.
• Only ONE PERSON knowing how to do a specific task. This is partially due to lack of staff
and partially due to not making the effort to cross train other staff in multiple job duties.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 57
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
• We are small and don't have a lot of layers and process. If an employee needs a decision
made by a manager or director, he/she is accessible and available to make the decision
quickly and efficiently.
• Also, working at empowering staff to make decisions at the lowest possible level.
• Working at providing more training — whether formal training, cross -training with in-
house staff.
17. Name: EJ Walsh
Department: Public Works
Position: Director of Public Works
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
• Inadequate staffing levels and having to deal with whatever the current fire is.
• We are constantly in a reactive mode with how far behind we are due to inadequate
resources. Much of this ultimately dictates us deferring maintenance which means
when we ultimately can do something it has become significantly more complicated and
costly.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• The largest force that helps staff is a sense of commitment to the City, as mentioned in
#3, there are a lot of long-term staff that are committed to the community and doing
what they can to improve the life of the citizens.
• Within public works there is also a high sense of comradery, drive for personal
excellence, and pride in what we do. That helps us cover a lot of shortfalls. However, as
staff continues to be recruited to better paying jobs that base continues to erode.
18. Name: Cole Elliott
Department: Development Services
Position: Manager
What work is not getting done in order to address current priorities?
While staff provides good customer service, their willingness to go the extra mile in
research of citizen questions is no longer getting done. Many times, the time required
to provide a full and complete first review is not available. Instead the major issues are
identified and the fine details are left for future reviews.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 58
Appendix B-4 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Forces in Play
• Billing has typically not been accomplished on a regular schedule due to high priority
projects. Often these high priority projects have political pressure expectations that
staff meet unrealistic schedules.
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
Projects that are giving special priority due to political influences. Projects that allow
modifications which are contrary to standard policy or procedures.
• During monthly invoicing it has been noted that Amanda pulls incorrect invoices
repeatedly and causes staff to repeat the same procedure multiple times using several
different computers to obtain the correct invoice.
19. Name: Theresa Thurlow
Department: Public Works
Position: Surface Water Division Manager
What are forces that impede employees from getting work done?
Projects that are giving special priority due to political influences. Projects that allow
modifications which are contrary to standard policy or procedures.
• During monthly invoicing it has been noted that Amanda pulls incorrect invoices
repeatedly and causes staff to repeat the same procedure multiple times using several
different computers to obtain the correct invoice.
What are forces that help employees in getting their work done?
• Typically, the staff communication and willingness to assist co-workers with work load
issues.
• Long-time employees ingrained knowledge of the City's regulations, requirements,
policies and procedures. Their ability to convey the potential critical path issues to the
customers, so that the customer understands the time required to complete processes.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 59
Appendix B-5 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Best Evaluation Tools
APPENDIX B-5
City of Federal Way
Workload Analysis Questionnaire
Responses: Best Evaluation Tools
Name: Sarah Bridgeford
Department: Community Development
Position: Community Services Manger
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
Staff turnover, accrued time, sick leave usage.
• As with some other positions, the positions in the Community Services Division are most
frequently not quantifiable or comparable to one another. Achievement of performance
targets (on time and quality) is likely to be a better measurement than quantity of
outputs with a couple of exceptions.
Name: Scott Sproul
Department: Community Development
Position: Building Official
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Review time, application received — permit issuance time, customer satisfaction.
• Quality of work over quantity completed. High work load leads to poor decisions
made just to get work out the door
• Number of building inspections per inspector
Name: Brian Davis
Department: Community Development
Position: Director
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Per capita comparisons of neighboring jurisdictions. We routinely lose people to
Auburn, Renton, Kent, etc., so finding out why would help us retain employees and
stabilize our departments.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 60
Appendix B-5 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Best Evaluation Tools
Name: Kari Cimmer
Department: Community Development
Position: Administration and Permit Center Supervisor
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Personal reconnaissance. Seeing what staff actually do, what the workload is like,
keeping notes and therefore, really understanding what we do. Then, comparing
apples to apples.
Name: Robert'doc' Hansen
Department: Community Development
Position: Planning Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Number of hours actually committed to a particular project with consideration of
the amount of time spent with the public customer, or value added time. Each
contact with a customer will consume 20 to 30 minutes when the planner is on
counter duty, resulting from the time to go to the customer, serving the customer,
and then returning to the interrupted project. I can guesstimate the amount of
hour it takes to complete a project considering their other duties including counter
time. Where some jurisdictions have a planner whose total responsibility in counter
time (I was one such person in another jurisdiction in the past), each planner here is
assigned counter duty for 8 hours each week amongst other tasks. This involves a
considerable amount of time to the projects assigned to them.
Name: Stephanie Courtney
Department: Mayor's Office/City Clerk's Division
Position: City Clerk/Records Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• 1 believe written word is never understood as well as personal interviews where
follow-up questions can provide an opportunity to better understand the
employee's frustration over too many expectations or tasks.
Name: Jean Stanley, Sun So, and Julianne Briggs
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 61
Appendix B-5 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Best Evaluation Tools
Department: Human Resources Department
Position: HR Manager in conjunction with HR Analysts
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
For HR the ratio of HR staff to the number of employees, including
temporary/seasonal employees, in each agency. Keeping in mind Federal Way has 5
labor contracts but does not have the responsibility of Risk Management. In 1996
when the Police Department was formed, HR had 4 FTE's and even though the PD
has grown through the years, HR experienced cuts and for a long period of time was
down to 2.5 FTE's. Over the past 8 years and with the support of the Mayor, we
have increased to 3.5 FTE's.
Name: Thomas Fichtner
Department: Information Technology
Position: IT Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• The workload analysis should begin with the review of the position questionnaire
that each staff member filled out. This is more than a job description as it was
intended to capture all of the duties that staff is performing. Compare that with
similar job titles/positions and the corresponding duties from other comparable
jurisdictions and similar industry. This should show that similar job positons/titles
do not have as nearly as many responsibilities compared with Federal Way.
Name: Ryan Call
Department: Law
Position: City Attorney
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
For prosecutors, numbers are very telling, as the cases tend to be simple and
repetitive in topic. Case load counts should be a good comparable for them. For civil
attorneys, cases and issues vary in complexity significantly. Generally, we use the
same criteria initially used to identify comparable cities — population, city valuation.
For support staff, I would think a comparison of the ration of attorney hours worked
to support staff supporting them would be helpful.
Name: Ray Gross
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 62
Appendix B-5 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Best Evaluation Tools
Department: Mayor's Office Emergency Management
Position: Emergency Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Face to face interview / discussion.
Name: Sue White
Department: Municipal Court
Position: Court Administrator
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Statistically compare our number of judges and clerks to the surrounding areas.
Most courts have 1 judge and more clerks than Federal Way. Also, a time and
motion study would record the actual steps taken to process each case. It is not
necessarily the number of filings, it is the workload that goes into each one.
Name: John Hutton
Department: Parks
Position: Parks Director
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Comps are probably the best tool available.
Name: Jason H. Gerwen
Department: Parks Department (Maintenance Division)
Position: Parks & Facilities Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Speaking to individual employees and speaking to employees in the same positions
in comparable cities. Similarities? /Differences? Outline them.
• Establishing what a reasonable work load is for a position and then determining how
much/many "other duties as assigned" apply to that position. In my observations,
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 63
Appendix B-5 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Best Evaluation Tools
professional knowledge and networking I believe that parks maintenance workers
are carrying a very heavy work load which is not a reasonable work load. Duties and
tasks that are under their jurisdiction or responsibility area may not have been
attended to or addressed in some cases for years.
Once there is establishment of the reasonable work load, you then need to hire new
staff (may need to be incrementally) to fill those responsibility areas that are not
getting attended to. When you are hiring additional staff this will allow current
employees to catch their breath and to actually have individual employees feel like
they have a chance to be on top of their work load, even stretched a little bit is ok,
but not buried which is how most if not all in the Parks Maintenance Division feel.
Many times because of the heavy work load we are lucky to get 15 minutes right
before a meeting to prepare for it. When in reality the meeting topic needs and
deserves hours or days of preparation time.
Name: Cody Geddes
Department: Parks
Position: Recreation Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Recreation is best evaluated on the number of employees we currently have
compared to other agencies with like size and numbers.
• Look at programs offered and program areas in like size cities.
Name: Sarah Hamel
Department: Public Works
Position: Capital Engineering Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Projects listed on the Capital Improvement plans, success at obtaining funding, staff's
knowledge, skills and abilities.
• Historical data on past projects completed.
Name: Richard Perez
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 64
Appendix B-5 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Best Evaluation Tools
Department: Public Works
Position: City Traffic Engineer
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
This varies dramatically, based on position responsibilities. In my division alone, it can
be as wide as number of citizen requests, value and number of contracts managed,
number of permit submittals reviewed, number of new traffic signal timing plans
generated, quantities of various infrastructure elements managed, the variety of
responsibilities assigned to each individual, number of staff reports submitted to
Council, number of CTR-affected employers, number of project and multi -jurisdictional
meetings attended, value of operating budget managed, number and value of grants
applied for and awarded...
Name: Desiree' Winkler
Department: Public Works
Position: Deputy Public Works Director
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
• Depends....
• Engineers and inspector FTEs can be evaluated based on the size of the capital
improvement program / budget.
• Engineering reviewers and inspector FTEs can be evaluated based on the quantity of
permits in process / under construction.
• Plans examiners, planners, building inspector FTEs can be evaluated based on dollar
valuation of permits in process / under construction.
• Maintenance staff FTEs can be evaluated based on the quantity of infrastructure
maintained (lane -miles of streets; acres of parks; number of catch basins, etc.)
Support / Admin staff based on the number of employees they need to support (such as
HR, IT, Finance, etc).
Name: Cole Elliott
Department: Development Services
Position: Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 65
Appendix B-5 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Best Evaluation Tools
• Generally, in Development Services We use the Active Review smart sheet and Active
Inspection smartsheet to gauge workload and as an aid in projecting workload.
• For Right-of-way inspection and permit we use the daily sheets to determine level of
workload.
• Forecasting right-of-way inspection workload is much more difficult. The permitting
program has a workload projection tool which is not user friendly.
Name: EJ Walsh
Department: Public Works
Position: Director of Public Works
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
Staffing levels for Public Works is typically compared by lane road miles and signalized
intersections, number of stormwater ponds, miles of storm sewer, and number of
stormwater inlets. Large geographic cities with little infrastructure (more rural) require
less maintenance staff then dense development, however comparison of straight
geographical area or residents does not create a realistic picture of maintenance and
engineering needs.
• For staffing levels, unfortunately Public Works is more complicated than some other
departments, so to create an accurate picture confirmation of areas of responsibility is
also needed. For example, within Federal Way we are responsible for Capital
Engineering, Surface Water Management, Solid Waste Management, Fleet
Management, Traffic and Traffic Operations, Development and Right of Way permitting,
Streets Maintenance, Administration and oversight of Sound Transit activities. In
comparison, the City of Kent is additionally responsible for sanitary sewer and domestic
water utilities for a portion of the City of Kent, however all permitting, solid waste,
Sound Transit and fleet fall within other departments so a straight comparison limited to
geographic size or residents will not yield an accurate result of needs.
• As proposed, it does not appear any of the above has yet been accounted for.
Name: Theresa Thurlow
Department: Public Works
Position: Surface Water Division Manager
In your opinion, what are the best evaluation tools for evaluating workload?
I'm assuming this relates to how I evaluate workload within my Division. I don't know if
they are the best, but the tools we use are first a workplan for the year, the must do
items from a regulatory permit, the have to do to keep the infrastructure functional or
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 66
Appendix B-5 — Workload Analysis — Workload Analysis Questionnaire: Best Evaluation Tools
to fulfil legal commitments not related to regulatory work, and then should do for
quality of the program, and last would like to do to make improvements in the program.
This year that workplan is transitioning to Smartsheet, primarily used by staff as a task
and tracking tool and then I also use it as a workload forecasting and planning tool.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 67
Appendix 13-6 — Workload Analysis —Staffing Comparisons
APPENDIX B-6
STAFFING COMPARISONS12
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Police
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Dept. FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
163.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
133.0
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
City
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Atty FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
13.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
9.61
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
City
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Clerk FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
2.5
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
4.4
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
City
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Council FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
4.2
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
1.4
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Comm Dev
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
27.5
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
32.8
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Permit
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Div FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
15.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
16.6
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Planning
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Div FTEs
12Not included in this summary are other Departments or functions in the survey cities such as
Clean Water, Wastewater, Cemetary, Airport, Golf Course, Library, Museum.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 68
Appendix B-6-Workload Analysis - Staffing Comparisons
Federal Way I p. B-10 1 97,440 1 $10,226,806,438 22.49 6.8
AVERAGE 1 1 79,008 1 $12,869,925,687 21.54 11.6
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Finance
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Dept
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
8.0
AVERAGE
1
1 79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
18.5
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
HR
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Dept FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
3.5
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
7.9
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Inform
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Tech FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
7.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
17.0
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Mayor
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Admin FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
5.3
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
7.9
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Econ
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Dev FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
1.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
2.4
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Emerg
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Mgt FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
1.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
1.5
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Municipal
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Court FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
16.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
14.8
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Pks/Rec
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Dept FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
38.5
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates - December 2020 69
Appendix B-6-Workload Analysis - Staffing Comparisons
AVERAGE 1 79,008 $12,869,925,687 1 21.54 51.3
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Recreat
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Div FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
5.8
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
12.2
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Mntce
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Parks FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
15.5
AVERAGE
1
1 79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
18.9
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Facilities
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Div FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
11.3
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
16.0
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Perf
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Arts FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
0.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
0.0
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Pub Wks
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Eng FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
49.5
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
80.7
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Pub Wks
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Dev/Div FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
1.9
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
10.2
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Pub Wks
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Traf/Div FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
5.3
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
10.5
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Mntce
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Streets FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
15.6
AVERAGE
1
1 79,008
$12,869,925,687
1 21.54
17.8
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates - December 2020 70
Appendix B-6—Workload Analysis — Staffing Comparisons
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Mntce
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Storm FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
20.75
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
21.5
Area
2019-20
Resident
Assessed
Square
Fleet
City
Budget
Population
Valuation
Miles
Mntce FTEs
Federal Way
p. B-10
97,440
$10,226,806,438
22.49
1.0
AVERAGE
79,008
$12,869,925,687
21.54
6.5
Other departments not included: airport, cemetery, golf course, museum, and library .
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 71
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
APPFNDIX R-7
WORKLOAD INDICATORS BY CITY
1. City of Auburn 2019-20 Budget (included performance measures)
Some Qualitative, e.g.
Some Quantitative, e.g. see below
Note: Limited treatment of workload activity. More outcome/performance oriented.
ADMINISTRATION
Emergency Management
# of disaster presentations
# of students instructed through CERT Program
# of contacts with the public at events
Communitv & Human Services
# of housing repair services provided
# of national night out events registered
# of graduates from City of Auburn civics academy
Economic Development
# of net new businesses
Facilities
# of Carte Graph/tracking work requests
# of HVac and Electrical work orders
Multimedia
# of design and print work order services
Human Resources & Risk Management
$ Insurance assessment, showing reduction in claim's total incurred costs
$ L&I claims cost
Finance
# of utility biling on-line payments
# of utility accounts receivable over 90 days as a % of utility revenue
# of invoices processed
Solid Waste
# of tons of commercial & residential garbage collected
# of tons of yard waste & recycling collected
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
72
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
of residential waste diverted from landfill
AL DEPARTMENT
# of resolutions & ordinances prepared
# of criminal misdemeanor cases filed by office
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
# of building permits issued
# of code enforcement cases opened and closed
# of days in project permit processing (average #)
PURI IC WORKS
Engineering
# of construction permits issued
# of public works projects contracted
# of private storm systems inspected
of street wiping refreshed
Streets
# of street lights repaired within 96 hours of being notified
of street sign reflectivity
Water
# of system losses (system loss is the amount of water produced less the amount of water sold
or authorized for beneficial use)
# of customer service complaints per 1000 custom service accounts
# of gallons per day of residential water connection
Sewer
# of linear feet of sanitary sewer pipe cleaned
# of linear feet of sanitary sewer remotely inspected
# of manhole inspections
Storm
# of tons of debris hauled
# of acres of ponds maintained
# of catch basins inspected to meet permit conditions
Equipment Rental
# years vehicle life cycle on averages
# of preventative maintenance services performed
# of unscheduled (unplanned) maintenance performed
# of additional maintenance performed during preventative maintenance services
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 73
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Recreation
# of volunteer hours
# of participants in classes & special events
$ of facility rent revenue
Golf CniirsP
$ total golf course operating revenue
$ total green fees revenue
$ total power carts & merchandise revenue
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
# of requests for IT services
# of hits on GIS portal site
# of time the network is available
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 74
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
2. City of Burien 2019-20 Budget
Some Qualitative, e.g. City's Manager's office, Parks & Recreations, and Streets.
Some Quantitative, e.g. Economic Development, City Clerk Divisions, Human Resources,
Information Systems, Finance, Legal, Planning and Building.
Activity/Performance Measures — Economic Development Division
# of Burien Businesses Assisted
# of potential new businesses assisted
# of licensed businesses in Burien
# of employees in Burien
change in Sales Tax revenue
change in Business & Occupation Tax revenue
Unemployment Rate
Activity/Performance Measures — City Clerk Division
# of customer public records 177 213 205 317
# of staff hours to complete public records
requests 404 365 343 507
# of business licenses processed 3,692 3,726 3,739 3,848
# of pet licenses processed 412 1,588 8 50 1,683
Activity/Performance Measures — Human Resources Division
# of employees using five days or less of sick leave
# of days missed due to work related injuries or illness
# of L&I Workers Compensation claims
Average # of training hours per regular full-time
and part-time employee (self -reported)
of employee performance evaluations completed within 15 days of evaluation due date
of employees employed by the City of Burien for more than three years
Activity/Performance Measures — Information Systems Division
# of customer requests for Information Systems services
# of customer requests for GIS products/services
# of supported workstations
# of supported mobile devices
Activity/Performance Measures — Finance Department & Citywide Services
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 75
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• variance of adopted vs. actual General Fund Revenue
• variance of adopted vs. actual General Fund expenditures
$ Investment Pool Income
# of accounts payable checks issued
# of accounts receivable invoices issued
Consecutive years receiving the GFOA Budget
Presentation Award
Consecutive years receiving the GFOA Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting
Adjusting journal entries resulting from audit
Vendor checks voided due to Finance
Department error
Performance Measures - Legal Department
# of code compliance files opened
# of code compliance files successfully closed
# of code compliance complaints resolved
without opening a file
# of ordinances and resolutions drafted or reviewed
Performance Measures — Public Works Department
Right -of -Way permits issued
Reported potholes
# of stormwater ponds
Total catch basins (City and privately owned)
Performance Measures — Building Division
# of permits issued
# of e-permits issued
Building valuation of permits issued (in millions)
# of inspections completed
Performance Measures — Planning Division
of land use permit reviews completed by
target date
# of land use review applications received
# of pre -application meetings held
# of Planning Commission meetings held
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 76
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
3. City of Kent 2019-20 Budget
City Administration:
Mayor & City Council Division
• # of City Council meetings (workshops, special meetings, etc.)
• # of Council committee meetings (operations, public safety, park, public works)
• # of Mayor Leadership Team meetings
• # of CAO reports
City Clerk Division
• # of contracts
• # of public records requests
• # of ordinances/resolutions/damage claims
Economic & Community Development
• # of code enforcement investigations
Note: Economic Development workload is stated in terms of "accomplishments" listed
Permitting & Inspections
• $ value of projects
• # of permits issued
• # of plans reviewed
• # of franchise utility permits
• # of grade and fill/civil construction permits
• # of critical area review permits
• # of street use, side sewer and water meter permits
• # of pre -application meetings
Finance
Administrative Division
• # of operations committee agenda items
• # of community and council presentations
• # of management reports issued
• # of financial policies developed/amended
Financial Planning & Tax Division
• # of budgeted line items
• # of supplemental budget changes
• # of position control line items
• # of registered taxpayers
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 77
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• # of returns filed
Accounting, Reporting & Payroll Division
• # of new GASBs implemented
• # of pages in CAFR
• # of investment transactions
• # of AP transactions
• # of PCard transactions
• # of Journal entries posted
Customer Service Division
• # of meters read
• # of drainage accounts
• # of transactions processed
• # of A/R statements with balance due
• #ofJW/ACH payments
• # of business licenses issued
Human Resources
Administration
• # of employee transactions processed
• # of city policies updated
• # of employees trained on lean process improvement
Benefits Division
• # of personnel transactions processed
• # of leaves administered
• # of exit interviews processed for benefited positions
• # of new hire orientations
Labor, Class & Compensation Division
• # of grievances
• # of union MOUs
• # of reclassifications
• # of negotiated CBAs
Recruitment Division
• # of requisitions created
• # of job applications reviewed
• # of candidates hired
Risk Management Division
• $ cost of risk as % of budget
• # of Workers' Comp claims/100 employees
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 78
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• # of lost time days/100 employees
Information Technology
Administrative Division
• $ cost of software/hardware maintenance contracts
• # of contracts negotiated
• # of public records requests completed
Technical Services Division
• # of service tickets closed
• # of hours spent on service tickets
Multimedia Division
• # of graphics jobs
• # of video jobs
• # of printshop jobs
• # of press jobs
IT Development Division
• # of service tickets closed
• # of hours spent on service tickets
Project Management Division
• # of projects
• # of completed projects
Law
• # of criminal case filings
• # of contested traffic hearings handled by prosecutors
• # of contested traffic infractions negotiated by prosecutors
• # of work requests handled by criminal
Municipal Court
• # of infractions
• # of criminal citations
• # of school zone camera citations
Parks, Recreation & Community Services
Administration
• # of Departmental commissions
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 79
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• % of General Fund budget within adopted targets
• # of contracts reviewed for compliance, excluding recreation entertainment contracts
Facilities Division
• # of square footage maintained
• # of work orders opened
• % of work orders closed
• # of tenant improvements
• # of capital projects and lifecycle replacements
Riverbend Golf Complex Division
• # of rounds at 18-hold golf course
• $ sales for driving range balls
• $ retail sales at merchandising center
Housing & Human Services Division (9.0 FTE)
• # of GF human services funded
• # of Kent residents served by funded programs
• # of public defense assignments
• # of home repairs completed
Parks Maintenance & Operations Division
• # of parks & open space acres maintained
• # of city and facilities acres maintained
• # of street trees maintained
• # of times restrooms are maintained
• # of field preps for fastpitch/baseball/softball
Parks Planning & Development Division
• major planning effort
• in-house design/construction
• manage contracted design/construction
• major coordination effort
• # of Green Kent events
Recreation & Cultural Services Division
• duplicated adaptive recreation program visits
• duplicated teen program visits
• annual senior center visitors
• annual cultural program attendance
• access to recreation scholarships provided
Public Works
Administration Division
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 80
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• # of contracts processed
• # of projects bid
• # of grants
Design Division
• $ Transportation impact fees
• # of awarded construction projects
Construction Division
• # of capital projects in construction
• # of civil permits
• $ cost of construction projects managed
• # of federal funded projects in construction
• # of utility & street use permits
Land Survey and GIS Division
• # of work order requests for GIS
• # of work order requests for survey
Environmental Division
• # of backflow devices tested
• # in attendance at water festival
• # stormwater requests tracked
Transportation Division
• # of residential traffic calming requests
• # of traffic signal maintenance requests
Streets Division
• # of work orders for street maintenance
• # of potholes repaired
• # of street signs installed
• # of tons of debris/litter removed
Water Division
• # of gallons of water demand — Gallons in Billions
• # of service connections
• # of water quality tests
Sewer Division
• # of linear feet of lines cleaned — both sewer & storm
• # of manhole inspections
Drainage Division
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 81
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• # of assets inspected
• # of structures cleaned
• # of repairs completed
• # linear feet of lines cleaned
Fleet Services Division
• # of annual fleet work orders
• # of annual fleet PM's
• # of new vehicles purchased
• # of labor hours — segments
• % of repairs scheduled
Warehouse Division
• # of warehouse customers served
• # of small equipment repairs
• # of hydrant meter rental and permits issued
• # of customer pick up and deliveries
Vegetation Division
• # of street vegetation work orders
• # of drainage vegetation work orders
• # of water vegetation work orders
• # of resident requests
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 82
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
4. City of Puyallup 2019 Budget
Qualitative terms apply to a mixture of listed "accomplishments" within each department.
Quantitative terms apply to a mixture of measurable items as:
City Manager
# of regular council meetings
# of council study sessions
# of budget and strategic planning sessions
# of special meetings
# of city manager reports
annual budget document
daily website updates
Emergency Management
quarterly EOC team trainings (4)
community preparedness presentations
monthly emergency management reports
Municipal Court - hearings
# of arraignments
# of pre-trial conferences
# of community court hearings
# of readiness hearings
# of motions
# of jury trials
# of bench trials
# of Sen and STI hearings
# of Reviews (includes criminal and infraction cases)
# of contested hearings
# of mitigation hearngs
# of photo enforcement motions
Finance
# of Accounts Payable invoices entered
# of purchasing card entries
# of Account Receivable invoices
# of cash receipts processes
# of payroll checks printed
# of direct deposits
Human Resources
# of employment applications screened
# of personnel action forms entered
# of background reports processed
# of authorization to fill positions processed
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 83
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
# of recruitments (job postings)
# of new employee orientations held
# of processed unemployment claims
# of COBRA notifcations processed
# of pre -employment background investigations processed (Civil Service)
# of employee investigations administered
# of civil service processes administered
# of leaves processed under FMLA
# of successfully negotiated CBAs
# of external compensation surveys
# of Healthcare & Wellness committee meetings
# of LEOFF disability board meetings
# of civil service commission meetings
# of recognition committee meetings
# of reclassification reviews
# of in-house employee trainings
City Clerk:
# of hours of customer service
# of ordinances
# of resolutions
# of public records requests
# of claims for damages
# of special licenses and permits issued
# of council meeting agendas
# of council meeting minutes
# of board and commission agenda and minutes
# of passport applications processed
Parks & Recreation:
# of recreation classes
# of recreation special events
# of sports programs (leagues)
# of special events
# of senior services trips
# of senior services special events
# of senior services classes
# of square feet of buildings
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 84
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
5. City of Kirkland 2019-20 Budget (included performance measures)
Some Qualitative, e.g. community feedback, cost-effective legal counsel, relationships to city
council goals
Some Quantitative, e.g. see below
Note: Limited treatment of workload activity. More outcome/accomplishments oriented.
Economic Development
# of businesses helped with consultant services
# of jobs in the community
# of new business in the year
$ lodging tax revenues
Parks & Recreation
# of parks maintenance FTEs per 100 acres maintained
# of volunteers
# of volunteer hours
Infrastructure
# of streets maintenance FTEs per 100 miles of streets maintained
# of water/sewer maintenance crew per 100 miles of water/sewer mains
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 85
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
6. City of Lakewood 2019-20 Budget (included performance measures)
Some Qualitative, e.g. community feedback, cost-effective legal counsel, relationships to city
council goals
Some Quantitative, e.g. see below
Note: Limited treatment of workload activity. More outcome/accomplishments oriented.
City Manager
Average # of items on study session agendas
# of new social media followers - Facebook
# of new social media followers - Twitter
# of multimedia items produced - videos
1 per month 1 per month 1 per month
# of new community partners
# of presentations on State of the City
Admnistrative Services
# of lodging contracts managed
Finance
# of invoices paid annually
of vendors paid within 30 days of invoice date
of accounts receivable aged balances over 60 days versus annual billing
GFOA Award Received for Current Year CAFR
GFOA Award Received for Biennium's Budget Document
Clean Audit (for prior Fiscal Year)
Bond Rating Per Standard & Poor's
Information Technology
# of new systems implemented n/a
# of users served
# of personal computers maintained
# of support calls received annually
# of applications maintained
# of servers maintained (LAN/WAN)
# of phones operated and maintained
of IT system up -time during normal business hours
of communications up -time during normal business hours
Human Resources
Number of current (unexpired) collective bargaining agreements at end of
quarter (averaged over 4 quarters)
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 86
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
Voluntary employee turnover rate
Average number of recruitments per HR Analyst
Average number of applications received per position recruitment
Average number of days to create civil service eligibility list
Average number of days to complete external non -civil service recruitment
Average percentage of regular employees hired in same period in prior year and still employed
Average number of regular FTEs filled City-wide
Number of categories (out of 112 total) where workforce underutilization rate is 3% or greater
Average percentage of performance evaluations that were completed during the quarter they
were due
Risk Management
Percentage of employees in compliance with mandatory training
Percentage of employees who participate in monthly safety training promotions, excluding
mandatory
Percentage Stay at Work applications submitted per total
Workers Compensation Loss Ratio
Percentage of vehicle accidents that were preventable
Workers compensation experience factor
Community & Economic Development
# of Dangerous Building Abatements/Business License Closures
# of dangerous building abatements performed in the year
# of public nuisance abatement actions initiated
# of Business Licenses issued in the year
# of the City's business licenses converted to the State Department of Revenue's online
permitting system.
Economic Development
Business Retention and Expansion:
# of Completed business retention and expansion visits with follow up assistance.
# of government contracting forums conducted.
Business Recruitment & Attraction
# of new businesses that have chosen to locate in Lakewood
# of economic development division assists in site selection and/or permit assistance through to
certificate of occupancy, including several national tenants.
Housing
# of new single-family, middle market -rate projects
# of developer forums conducted
# attending developer forums, that included outreach to individual real estate groups.
Current Planning
# of preliminary plat subdivisions approved in the year
# of short plat subdivisions approved in the year
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 87
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
# of final plat subdivisions approved in the year
# of planning permits issues in the year
# of building permits issued in the year
# of clients served at the permit counter
# of electronic permits
# of stop work and unsafe building orders
Communitv Services
Building Division
Measure Target
# of permits issued
# of plan reviews performed
# of inspections performed
Permit fees
Valuation
Planning
Areas: Permit Type Target
# of Days
# of Permits
w/i n Target
# of Permits % w/in Target
# of Permits % w/in Target
# of Permits % w/in Target
Areas: Zoning Certification
Conditional Use
Administrative Use -
Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Short Plat
Sign Permit
Building Permit
Shoreline Permit
Long -Range Planning
Measure Target
Complete comprehensive plan update
# of privately initiated amendments processed
Code Development: Ongoing
Business Licensing
Cottage Housing
Marijuana regulations
Sign Code
Zoning Map Changes Annual
Rental Housing Inspection Program Annual
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 88
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
Critical Areas & Flood Plain
CBD subarea plan
Title 18A update
Low Impact Development Regulations (Site Development)
Complete visioning process
Complete Annual Assignments: Annual
Capital Facilities Plan Update
Tracking Housing
Prepare Multi -Family Tax Credit Report
Economic Development
Measure Target
$ investment created through economic development efforts
# of business retention/expansion of interviews conducted
# of new market rate, owner -occupied housing units constructed annually
# of projects where permit assistance was provided
# of special projects completed
# of economic development inquiries received
# of lodging contracts managed 16
# of participants attending forums, focus groups, or special events
# of new companies located in Lakewood
# of new development projects assisted
increase in retail sales revenue
Community Services
Measure Target
# of persons with new or improved access to public facility or infrastructure
# of persons with new or improved access to public service
# of affordable rental units rehabilitated
# of owner -occupied units rehabilitated
# of new affordable housing units constructed
# persons with access to affordable housing through fair housing activities
# units assisted that are occupied by the elderly
# of homebuyers receiving direct financial assistance through down payment assistance/closing
costs
# of jobs created
$ program income received (CDBG & NSP)
Human Services
Measure Target
Monthly (average) Attendance at Lakewood Collaboration Meetings
# of Human Services Contracts Managed (allocations, site visits, reimbursements, annual perf
reviews)
Senior Services
Measure Target
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 89
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
# of unduplicated seniors served
$ revenue generated from grants, fees, donations & in -kind support
# of volunteer hours
Facilities
Measure Target
# of special use permits generated at park sites (not FSP)
Fort Steilacoom Park
Measure Target
# of acres of open space to maintain
# of special use permits for park use
# of returning customers
Street Landscape
Measure Target
# of sites maintained
# of special projects completed outside regular maintenance schedule
Street Operations & Maintenance
Measure Target
# of mylakewood311 service requests regarding street maintenance
of completed MyLakewood311 requests
# of potholes responded to
# of reported downed signs
# of traffic signal major equipment failures (ot traffic accidents)
# of after hour call outs
# of 311 calls regarding garbage in the ROW
# of traffic signals maintained each year
# of City street lights bulb replacement
Stormwater Operations & Maintenance
Measure Target
# of City street curb miles swept
# of catch basins cleaned or inspected
# of hours of storm drain pipe video inspections recorded
# of linear feet of storm drain pipe cleaned
# of tons of sweeping and vactor waste disposed of
# of gallons of vactor liquid waste disposed of
Property Management
Measure Target
# of square feet of coverage per building maintenance employee
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 90
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
# of unscheduled system failures
# of Service requests outside regular maintenance needs
Public Works Engineering Department
Measure Target
# of traffic signals operated and maintained
# of City maintained street lights
Annual transportation capital funds administered
Percentage of CIP Projects completed on schedule
Percentage of CIP Projects completed within original estimate
Engineering Services
Measure Target
# of businesses/properties inspected for SWM compliance
# of volunteer hours for water quality sampling
Percent of Site Development Permits reviewed within target 30 days
Percent of ROW permits issued within target timeline 5 days
Criminal Prosecution
Measure Target
# of incidents received via e-distribution
(all jurisdictions)
# of reports received via e-distribution
(all jurisdictions)
# of discovery demands processed
# of victim contacts made
# of criminal case filed (includes citations)
# of service/referrals made
Municipal Court
Measure Target
# of community presentations per year
# of incidents with offenders involving risk management
# of work crews hours performed annually in lieu of jail n/a
$ Cost saved by using alternative sentencing n/a
$ Cost saved from reduced number of court transports
# of veterans court participants n/a
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 91
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
7. City of Puyallup 2019 Budget
Qualitative terms apply to a mixture of listed "accomplishments" within each department.
Quantitative terms apply to a mixture of measurable items as:
City Manager
# of regular council meetings
# of council study sessions
# of budget and strategic planning sessions
# of special meetings
# of city manager reports
annual budget document
daily website updates
Emergency Management
quarterly EOC team trainings (4)
community preparedness presentations
monthly emergency management reports
Municipal Court - hearings
# of arraignments
# of pre-trial conferences
# of community court hearings
# of readiness hearings
# of motions
# of jury trials
# of bench trials
# of Sen and STI hearings
# of Reviews (includes criminal and infraction cases)
# of contested hearings
# of mitigation hearngs
# of photo enforcement motions
Finance
# of Accounts Payable invoices entered
# of purchasing card entries
# of Account Receivable invoices
# of cash receipts processes
# of payroll checks printed
# of direct deposits
Human Resources
# of employment applications screened
# of personnel action forms entered
# of background reports processed
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 92
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
# of authorization to fill positions processed
# of recruitments (job postings)
# of new employee orientations held
# of processed unemployment claims
# of COBRA notifcations processed
# of pre -employment background investigations processed (Civil Service)
# of employee investigations administered
# of civil service processes administered
# of leaves processed under FMLA
# of successfully negotiated CBAs
# of external compensation surveys
# of Healthcare & Wellness committee meetings
# of LEOFF disability board meetings
# of civil service commission meetings
# of recognition committee meetings
# of reclassification reviews
# of in-house employee trainings
Parks & Recreation
# of Recreation Classes
# of Recreation Special Events
# of Sports Programs (Leagues)
# of Sports Special Events
# of Senior Services Trips
# of Senior Services Special Events
# of Senior Services Classes
# of Square Feet of Buildings
Public Works
PUBLIC WORKS - COLLECTIONS — WASTEWATER DIVISION:
ACTIVITY
# of Mains O/M
# of Mains R/R
# of Laterals O/M
# of Laterals R/R
# of Manholes O/M
# of Manholes R/R
# of Lift stations
# of Force Mains
# of CCTV
# of Auxiliary Equipment
# of Mapping
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 93
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
# of Records
# of Monitoring
COLLECTIONS — STORM AND SURFACE WATER DIVISION:
ACTIVITY
# of Mains O/M — linear ft.
# of Mains R/R — ea.
# of Channels O/M — ea.
# of Channels R/R — ea.
# of Culverts O/M — ea.
# of Culverts R/R — ea.
# of Inlets O/M — ea.
# of Inlets R/R —ea.
# of Outlets O/M — ea.
# of Outlets R/R — ea.
# of Manholes O/M — ea.
# of Manholes R/R —ea.
# of Basins O/M — ea.
# of Basins R/R — ea.
# of BMP Inspections —ea.
# of Lift Stations — ea.
# of Vaults O/M — ea.
# of Vaults R/R — ea.
# of Vactor Solids - Tons
# of Auxiliary Equipment — ea.
# of Mapping —ea.
# of Records — ea.
# of Monitoring —ea.
# of Enforcement —ea.
# of Administrative — ea.
# of Training — ea.
# of Locates — ea.
STREETS DIVISION
# of Flashing Beacons - Maintained Each
# of Asphalt Overlay / Rebuild Mile
# of Chip Seal Miles
# of Annual Street Light Maintenance Each
# of Service Request / Constituent Tracking / Work Orders Each
# of Standby Hours
# of Traffic Management / Signal Interconnect Hours
# of Signals Maintained Each
# of 4 Way Stop / Red Flasher Enhanced — Maintained Each
# of Sweeper Miles
# of Right -of -Way Mowing Hours
# of Crack Seal Mile
# of Snow Removal / Sanding Operations Hours
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 94
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
# of Anti -Ice / De-ice Operations Hours
# of Special Events Hours
# of Sidewalk Repairs — Grinding / Patching Each
# of LF (linear feed) Center Line Striping
# of Intersection Markings Maintained Each
# of New ADA Curb Ramps Each
# of tons Asphalt Patching — Remove and Replace
# of Pothole Repairs Each Avg.
# of Alley Maintenance Miles
WATER DIVISION
Activity Workload
# of Customer Service Contacts
# of Water Mains
# of Service Lines
# of Fire Hydrants
# of Meters
# of System Control Valves
# of Pressure Reducing Valves
# of Leak Detection
# of Locates
# of Flushing
# of Air Relief
# of Water Shed
# of Pump Stations
# of Chlorine Stations
# of Telemetry
# of Cross Connection Control
# of Auto -Cad Drafting
# of Records
# of Water Quality Complaints
# of House Keeping
# of Training
# of Administrative
# of Water Samples
# of Non -Division Work Request
CITY ENGINEER
Office of City Engineer [Department]
Current Workload Indicators:
# of Consultant Contracts YTD
Consultant Contracts YTD $ Value
# of Construction Contracts YTD
# of Construction ContractsYTD $ Value
# of Total Contracts
# of Total Contract Value $
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 95
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
Development Services [Departmentl
STAFFING/WORKLOAD ANALYSIS:
# of Building Permits Issued
# of All Permits Issued
# of Bldg. Plan Reviews
# of Building Inspections Performed
# of Planning Permit Submittals
# of New Code Compliance Cases
$ Bldg ConstructionValuation
Other Sample Workload Indicators
# of Total Planning Commission agenda items prepared
# of Total "over-the-counter" permits issued
# of Total on-line permits issued via the city's website
# of Total sign permits issued
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 96
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
8. City of Renton 2019-20 Budget
Qualitative terms apply to a mixture of listed "accomplishments" within each department.
Quantitative terms apply to a mixture of measurable items as:
• Facebook activity
• service or program awareness to community
• increase in citizen volunteer activity
• launch of new programs or systems
• simplification of processes
• use of automation
• percentage change in permits or case filings
• number of meetings staffed
• monthly permit activity
• customer service and satisfaction surveys
• drainage projects
• human resources recruitment
• number of traffic signal controllers upgraded
• number of miles of pavement markings
• number of new replacement signs
• upgrades of pressure reducing valve stations
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 97
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
9. City of Federal Way 2019-20 Budget
Some Qualitative, e.g. stated in lists of accomplishments.
Some Quantitative, e.g. see below
Note: Limited treatment of workload activity. More accomplishments oriented.
Workload Measures:
Mayor's Office
• # of Total FTEs managed
• # of Total expenditure budget managed (in millions of $)
• # of Media Releases
Efficiency Measures:
• # of Employees per 1000 population
• General fund budget per capita
Workload Measures:
Economic Development
N/A
Emergency Management
Workload Measures:
• NIMS ICS Compliance
• Update GFW Emergency Management Plan to be NIMS compliant
• Conduct Emergency Management table top/functional exercises for staff assigned to
the GFW EOC
• Conduct monthly Emergency Management oversight and planning committee meetings
Outcome Measures:
• # of people trained in NIMS ICS Training
• # of table top exercises conducted
Efficiency Measures:
• # of Training GFW EOC staff in NIMS ICS
• # of Conducting exercises and EOC activation
• # of Public Education and Involvement Meetings
Workload Measures:
Information Technolc
Information Systems
• New systems implementation
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 98
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• # of Users served
• # of Personal computers (PCs) maintained
• # of support calls received annually
• # of applications maintained
• # of Servers / LAN /
Communication
• # of phones operated and maintained
• # of cellular phones operated and maintained.
• # of cellular data cards operated and maintained.
• # of pagers operated and maintained
• WEB site visits
• # of radios maintained
GIs
• #of map requests and analyses
• # of standard data layers
GAC/web
• # of web pages maintained
• # of Bulletin pages broadcasted
• # of Hours of TV broadcasting per day
• # of Cable customer calls handled
• Outcome Measures:
Information Systems
• % of technical response within 2-4 hours
• % of IT system up -time during normal business hours
Communication
• % of communications up -time during normal business hours
GIs
• % of users who rate GIS system as meeting expectations
• # of map requests by the public
Human Resources
Workload Measures:
• # of employee applications processed
• # of Public Safety Testing applications processed
• # of recruitments coordinated
• # of training hours provided
• # of Wellness Your Way Accounts Managed
• # of Onsite Biometric Participants
Outcome Measures:
• % new employee orientations given in 3 days of employment
• % of exit interviews completed
• % of Employee turnover rate
• % of minority employees in City workforce
• Worker's compensation experience factor
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 99
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
City Clerk
Workload Measures:
• # of Agenda Bills submitted to City Council
• # of Legal Notices prepared and published annually
• # of Council Agendas prepared and published annually
• # of Ordinances processed annually
• # of Resolutions processed annually
• # of City Agreements processed annually
• # of City Meetings noticed per the Open Public Meetings Act
• # of Appointments made to Citizen Commissions/Committees
• # of Hearing Examiner Public Hearings coordinated and supervised
• # of Public Record Requests processed
• # of Notarial Acts performed
• # of Boxes of Records which met retention that are destroyed or transferred to State
Archivist
City Council
N/A
Community Development
Workload Measures:
• # of documents formatted/edited.
• # of walk-in clients.
• # of phone calls received.
• # of Planning Commission meetings.
• # of passport applications processed.
Outcome Measures:
• % of documents completed on time.
Planning
Workload Measures:
• # of Pre -application conferences held.
• # of drop -in questions -telephone and front counter.
• # of Land use/subdivision applications received.
• # of Administrative Decisions
• # of Planning Commission meetings supported.
Building
Workload Measures:
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 100
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• # of Total permits issued/reviewed.
• $ Valuation of issued permits.
Outcome Measures:
• # of New Single Family (NSF) permits issued < 30 days
(NSF review timelines run 7 to 233 days; average of 61 days per project.
Project review timelines where staff waits on applicant to respond.
Net review time averages 40.7 days.)
• # of Tenant Improvement permits (TI) issued
• # of Total permit inspections per year.
• # of Total Citizen Action Request investigations per year.
• # of Total Records Requests completed per year.
• Total revenue receipted versus Total revenue forecasted (%).
Efficiency Measures:
• Average staff hours per NSF permit— Review/Inspection.
Average staff hours per TI permit — Review/Inspection.
• Inspection Hours
Communitv Services
Workload Measures:
• Number of community services contracts managed.
• Amount of community services dollars administered.
• # of community services contract payments processed.
• # of community services applications processed.
• # of CDBG applications processed.
• # of CDBG contracts managed.
• # of CDBG dollars administered.
Outcome Measures:
• % of contracts fully executed in timely manner. 0 Number of Human Service Commission
meetings supported.
• Number of Owner -occupied housing units stabilized.
Finance
Workload Measures:
• # of invoices paid annually
• # of transactions receipted annually at Finance counter compared to total transactions
receipted CHall
• # of new business licenses issued / renewed
Outcome Measures:
• GFOA CAFR Awards - # of documents submitted / awarded
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 101
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• GFOA Budget Award - # of documents submitted /awarded (switched to biennial budget
beginning with 1997/1998 document)
• Unqualified Audit Opinion — consecutive years
• Bond Rating per Moody's
• Investment return: total SIP and 6 month T-Bill benchmarks
• # of month Cash reconciled within 15 days of receiving bank statement
Efficiency Measures:
• FTE Staffing: Finance/City-Wide
• Average working days to compile MFR
• Average number of weeks to issue a regular
• business license
Law - Civil
Workload Measures:
• # of contracts drafted/reviewed
• # of Ordinances/Resolutions Drafted
• # of Litigation matters (excludes condemnation litigation)
• # of Labor Agreements
Efficiency Measures:
• # of Contracts reviewed per attorney per year
• # of projects/files opened — major issues (not including
• subfiles)
Law — Criminal
Workload Measures:
• $ Asset Forfeiture
• # of Cases filed — criminal citations
• # of Domestic Violence cases received in System*- (included in above criminal citation
filings)
Outcome Measures:
• # of Total resolved cases
Efficiency Measures:
• # of Criminal cases per prosecutor (Doesn't include cases reviewed unit not charged
Municipal Court
Workload Measures:
• # of Judicial Officers
• # of Administrator/Supervisor
• # of Clerk Staff (Actual FTE)
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 102
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• # of Traffic Infraction Filings/Parking
• # of Non -Traffic Infraction Filings
• # of DUI Filings
• # of Criminal Traffic Filings
• # of Criminal Non -Traffic Filings
• # of Civil Filings
• # of Photo Enforcement Filings
• # of Total Filings
• # of Infraction Hearings Held/Parking
• # of DUI Hearings Held
• # of Criminal Traffic Hearings Held
• # of Criminal Non -Traffic Hearings Held
• # of Photo Enforcement Hearings Held
• # of Total Hearings Held
Parks & Recreation
Workload Measures:
• # of commissions and committees supported
• # of Capital Projects Managed
Outcome Measures:
• # of Total Acres of Park and Open Space
• # of Total Square Feet of Facilities operated and maintained
Recreation
• # of Total Recreation & Cultural Services classes held
• # of Total senior classes / drop -in services
• # of Total Teen Participants
Outcome Measures:
• Recovery ratio
Efficiency Measures:
• # of volunteer hours, Senior Services
• # of Recreation & Cultural Services enrollments
• # of Recreation & Cultural Services participant attendance
Community Center
Workload Measures:
• # of operational hours
• # of birthday party rentals
• # of special event rentals
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 103
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• # of meeting rentals
• # of swim classes
Efficiency Measures:
• Operating within or better than designated utility tax contribution
Efficiency Measures:
• # of active passes
• # of community center class enrollments
• # of pass holder visits
• # of daily admissions
Dumas Bay Centre
Workload Measures:
• # of use days
• # of overnight stays
• # of non -charged users
Outcome Measures:
• Revenue generated
• Recovery ratio
Efficiency Measures:
• # of contracts managed
• # of retreats
Park Maintenance
Workload Measures:
• # of parks with athletic fields
• # of sites requiring routine safety inspections
• # of park acres routinely maintained
• # of developed parks that require litter control
• # of restroom facilities
• # of city owned major facilities maintained
• # of other city owned buildings maintained
Outcome Measures:
• % of work orders completed w/in requested time frame
• % acres of athletic fields maintained in good condition
• % of park land mowed on schedule % of trash removed on schedule
• % of restrooms cleaned and sanitized daily
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 104
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
Park Maintenance Facilities
Workload Measures:
• # of square feet maintained
• # of major buildings maintained
• # of other buildings maintained
• # of departments serviced
• # of service contractors used
Outcome Measures:
• % of work orders completed w/in requested time frame
• % of trash removed on schedule
• % of restrooms cleaned and sanitized daily
Public Works
Administration
Workload Measures:
• # of responses for information from constituents
• # of word processing requests
Outcome Measures:
• % of community requests responded to in same day
• % of word processing documents completed on time
• % of time a "live" person is available to handle constituent calls
Development Services
Workload Measures:
• # of development review committee meetings attended
• # of Engineering Approval reviews
• # of Commercial Building Permit reviews
• # of Plat Applications (Full & Short)
• # of Single Family Applications
• # of Final Plats
Outcome Measures:
• Average review time
- projects under construction (# of days)
• Average review time
- pre -application (# of days)
• Average review time
- building permits (# of days)
• Average review time
— SEPA (# of days)
• Average review time
- site plan review (# of days)
• Average review time — Use Process Review (# of days)
• Average review time
- outside agency review (# of days)
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 105
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
• Response time on requests for modifications (# of days)
• Response time on requests for inspections
Traffic
Workload Measures:
• # of traffic signals
• # of citizen action requests processed
• # of development review applications
• # of employees at commute trip reduction sites
Outcome Measures:
• # of timing plans developed for traffic signal coordination
• # of traffic control changes implemented
• # of neighborhood projects balloted
• Percent of development applications reviewed on time
• # of City employees changing travel mode to non -single occupancy vehicle (SOV)
• # of Neighborhood Traffic Safety Projects presented to Council
Efficiency Measures:
• Percent reduction in delays at signalized intersections
• Percent change from Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel modes
Streets
Workload Measures:
• $ Annual CIP Fund administered
• $ Grant dollars administered
• # of lane miles repaired/rehabilitated
• # of Right of Way permits issued
• # of street center lane mile within city limits
• # of curb miles of sidewalk within city limits
• # of acres of right-of-way landscaping maintained within city limits
• # of curb miles mowed within city limits
Outcome Measures:
• % of CIP project completed on time and within budget
• % of call -out situations responded to w/in 45 minutes (after hour response time)
Efficiency Measures:
• $ Value of CIP project managed per engineer
• # of Citizen Action Report (CAR) forms processed
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 106
Appendix B-7 — Workload Analysis —Workload Indicators by City
Solid Waste & Recycling
Workload Measures:
• Number of special recycling collection events held
• Number of outreach materials (brochures, newsletters, etc.) produced
• Number of grants managed
Outcome Measures:
• Quantity of outreach materials printed and distributed
• Grant revenue obtained
• Tons of material diverted per special recycling event
Surface Water Management
Workload Measures:
• Annual SWM revenues administered
• Grant funding administered
• Water quality articles published
• Volunteer hours on surface water related projects
• Number of Commercial Business Inspections (Private Drainage Facilities)
• Number of 811 Utility Locates Performed
• Number of Pond Facilities and Detention Tanks Maintained
• Number of Water Quality Vaults Maintained
• Number of LID Facilities Maintained (Filtera, Modular Wetland, Rain Garden)
• Number of Catchbasin, Outfall, and Control Structures Inspected and Maintained
Outcome Measures:
• Percent of planned CIP projects completed
• Percent completion of storm monitoring and sampling targets
• Percent of planned lake and stream & water quality projects completed on time
Efficiency Measures:
• Number of SWM infrastructure units* maintained per maintenance FTE (6)
• Number of Citizen Action Requests Received and responded to
• Percent of emergency events responded to within 45 minutes (after-hours response
time)
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 107
Appendix B — Workload Analysis — Bibliography
RIRI inGRAPHY
APWA https://www.apwa.net/
ICMA https://icma.org/
City Budgets (2019-20) posted on City websites:
Auburn
Burien
Kent
Kirkland
Lakewood
Puyallup
Renton
Indonesian Study
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321289092 Managing Personnel with Workload
Analvsis the Experience of Indonesian Customs
Interest Arbitration Awards https://www.perc.wa.gov
City of Bellevue v. IAFF Local 1604 (Bloch, 1982), City of Redmond v. Redmond Police Association
(Wilkinson, 2007), City of Federal Way v. IAFF Local 2919 (Krebs, 2002).
Upjohn Institute https://www.upiohn.org/
Workload Study Research
http://www.faImouthmass.us/DocumentCenter/View/41/Management-Review-PDF
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 108
2020 City of Federal Way Classification and Compensation Study
Appendix C
Comparable Agency Analysis
Cabot Dow Associates
December 2020
Appendix C — Comparable Agency Analysis
Statement of the Issue
The issue to be addressed in this paper is as follows:
A. What public agencies are to be used for comparison to the City of Federal Way?
B. What metrics are to be used for selection of these comparison agencies?
C. What would a neutral arbitrator likely decide, if presented this issue, especially when
it comes to cities?
While there is no applicable statute for city-wide and non -uniformed personnel in the
State of Washington to guide the City in its selection of comparables, there are legislative and
arbitral guidelines that can be followed to assure objectivity and balance in the selection of
comparable cities. This paper is partially based on the comparable jurisdictions criteria set forth
in Ch. 41.56.465 RCW, Washington Public Employees' Collective bargaining Act and the
application of the criteria by interest arbitrators of stature overtime.
The statute for uniformed personnel in pertinent part directs the parties in collective
bargaining of wage, hours, benefits and working conditions to the selection of comparators on
the basis of "like personnel" of "like employers" of "similar size". RCW 41.56.465.
"Like personnel" in this case logically refers to personnel working in similar jobs with
similar job requirements.
• "Like employers" necessarily refers to cities comparing to cities.
• "Similar size" has been defined by most arbitrators as resident population and assessed
valuation, the provision of services to local taxpayers and protection of property.'
City of Federal Way has a resident population of 97,440 and an Assessed Valuation of
$10,226,806,438 at the time the Study was launched.
The statute also directs arbitrators to "...such other factors that are normally or traditionally
taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of
employment. The factor most commonly used when applying this criterion is that of labor
market or geographical proximity, the area within which the employer competes for labor. Also
worthy of consideration is the relative ability of the City to pay.
City of Federal Way is located in King County, between Seattle and Tacoma, Washington.
Most of the City's employees live in King or Pierce County zip codes and commute to and from
work a distance of 30 miles or less. Zip code data was made available to the consultant for the
purposes of validation of the use of geographic proximity. Exit data was also made available to
make the consultant aware of other local employers for which employees leaving the City of
' City of Bellevue v. IAFF Local 1604 (Bloch, 1982), City of Redmond v. Redmond Police Association
(Wilkinson, 2007), City of Federal Way v. IAFF Local 2919 (Krebs, 2002).
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 1
Appendix C — Comparable Agency Analysis
Federal Way have left to work. The following quote by Arbitrator Howard Bloch in City of Bellevue
v. IAFF Local #1604 interest arbitration (1982) is undoubtedly the most frequently cited authority
for selection of comparables located in a metropolitan area:
"In interest arbitration, we usually look first for relevant
local and regional comparisons because area peer parity is most
meaningful to all those involved. The reasons have been
explained with exceptional clarity by UCLA Professor Irving
Bernstein, a distinguished arbitrator, in the following excerpt
from his authoritative work on wage arbitration:
Comparisons are preeminent in wage determination
because all parties at interest derive benefit from
them. To the worker they permit a decision on the
adequacy of his income. He feels no discrimination if
he stays abreast of other workers in his industry, his
locality, his neighborhood They are vital to the
union because they provide guidance to its officials
upon what must be insisted upon and a yardstick for
measuring their bargaining skill. In the presence of
internal factionalism or rival unionism, the power of
comparisons is enhanced. The employer is drawn to them
because they assure him that competitors will not gain
a wage -cost advantage and that he will be able to
recruit in the local labor market. Small firms (and
unions) profit administratively by accepting a ready-
made solution; they avoid the expenditure of time and
money needed for working one out themselves.
Arbitrators benefit no less from comparisons. They
have the appeal of Precedent and awards based
thereon are apt to satisfy the normal expectations of
the parties and to appear just to the public'.
(Emphasis added.) Z
In short, area comparisons of like jobs is a criterion of
fundamental importance in interest arbitration.
z. Arbitration of Wages Publications of the Institute of
Industrial Relations (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1954), p. 54.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 2
Appendix C — Comparable Agency Analysis
In an interest arbitration involving the City of Sea Tac and IAFF Local 2919 (2002),
Arbitrator Alan R. Krebs applied the statutory criteria and rendered his opinion as it pertains to
selection of comparables for the City of Federal Way :2
While the governing statute requires a comparison with public fire departments of
similar size, it does not define how "similar size" is to be determined. In making this
determination, interest arbitrators have been constrained by the nature of the statistics
which the parties have placed into evidence. The most commonly referenced criteria are
the population and assessed valuation of the communities served. Consideration is also
frequently given to the proximity of the jurisdiction to be compared and whether it is in
a similar economic environment, such as in a rural area or part of a large
metropolitan area. The parties agree that the primary considerations for selecting
comparable jurisdictions are location, population, and assessed valuation.
Arbitrator Krebs includes the following conclusion in his Award:
"...these represent all jurisdictions proposed by the parties within King, Pierce, and
Snohomish Counties falling within population and assessed valuation bands of between
66% and 150% of Sea-Tac. Such a band provides a sufficient number of comparable
jurisdictions. A jurisdiction which is 66% the size of Sea-Tac is two-thirds its size, just as
Sea-Tac would be two-thirds the size of a jurisdiction which is 150% larger."
The following quote from Arbitrator Jane Wilkinson's opinion in City of Redmond and
Redmond Police Association (2007)3 is also often cited as authoritative when it comes to the
selection of comparables:
With respect to comparator pay, RCW 41.56.465(c)(i) requires the arbitrator to
compare bargaining unit's wages, hours and conditions of employment with those of
"like personnel of like employers of similar size ...." When practical, arbitrators have
long used a jurisdiction's population, assessed valuation and often geographic
proximity as criteria for selecting "like employers of similar size."(fn:4) Sometimes in
order to fine tune the selection or when the three criterion prove inadequate,
arbitrators will go further and consider other demographic indicators, such as retail
sales tax revenues, population of the service area, cost of living, crime rates (for
police) or the number of "like personnel" employed by the putative comparator.
Because comparator selection is not a science, arbitrators prefer to limit the number
of criterion used to the favored three (population, assessed valuation and if feasible,
geographic proximity). The automatic inclusion of additional criterion has not been
shown to improve the results. Moreover, in this arbitrator's view, other demographic
criterion should be eschewed unless the proponent demonstrates that such criterion
have a demonstrable effect on wages.
z PERC Case No. 15951-*-01-370
3 PERC CASE NO. 19305-M-05-6270
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 3
Appendix C — Comparable Agency Analysis
fn:4 Arbitrator Krebs ably stated in City of Redmond (Int'I Association of Fire
Fighters, Local 2829), PERC No.17577-1-03-0406 (Krebs, 2004), at 5:
[When arbitrators select comparators, the] most commonly referenced criteria are
the population and assessed valuation of the communities served. Consideration is
also frequently given to the proximity of the jurisdiction to be compared and whether
it is in a similar economic environment, such as in a rural area or part of a large
metropolitan area.
Selection of Comparables for Salary Study
In order to identify a Master List of comparators of similar size to Federal Way and located
in the Puget Sound area, we started with King -Pierce -Snohomish counties. We looked at
information on file provided by the City as to migration of Federal Way employees to other
agencies and find that there are sufficient number of cities to support confining our search to
King and Pierce counties when it comes to comparables.'
In regard to the "size" band of comparability, the following decision was issued in City of
Bellevue v. IAFF Local 1604 (Gaunt, 1988):5
Clearly, parties and arbitrators have settled upon narrower ranges than + 50% when a
sufficient number of comparators can be found closer in size. The decisions by
Arbitrators Beck, Krebs and Snow, however, convince this Chair that the phrase "similar
size" in RCW 41.56.460(c) (ii) can appropriately be interpreted to include a range of
public fire departments within one-half to two times the size of the department to
which comparisons are being drawn.
City of Seattle and Seattle Police Management Association, PERC No. 4369-1-82-98
(Beck, 1983); City of Seattle and Seattle
Police Management Association, PERC No. 5059-1-84-114 (Krebs,
1984); City of Renton, 71 LA 271 (Snow, 1978).
While this concededly reaches to the outermost limits of what could reasonably be
construed as "similar size" within the meaning of the statute, the Chair is not convinced
it exceeds those limits.
So, in the matter involving the City of Federal Way, we decided to focus upon the more generous
size band, i.e. 40% smaller and 80% larger as to both population and assessed valuation, compared
to the City of Federal Way. This was largely driven by the objective of maximizing the number of
city job matches when comparing salaries.
' Due to the limited number of Water and/or Sewer Districts of similar size to Lakehaven, it is reasonable
to include Alderwood Water and Wastewater District located in Lynnwood (Snohomish County).
'PERC Case. No. 06811-I-87-00162, www.perc.wa.gov.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 4
Appendix C — Comparable Agency Analysis
Since Federal Way's 2018 resident population was 97,440, the population range is 38,976 to
175,392. Since Federal Way's 2018 assessed valuation was $10,226,806,438, the assessed
valuation range is $4,090,722,575 to $18,408,251,588.
Cities in King and Pierce County were identified for consideration, as cities in Snohomish County
were located more than 30 miles from Federal Way.
In Table 1, the populations, assessed valuations, and commute distance are shown as to how
proximate they are to Federal Way.
Table 1
FEDERAL WAY STUDY MASTER TABLE
Like personnel, using updated position description information
Like employers, best fit is cities to cities
Like size (resident
population, assessed valuation) and within 30
miles of
Federal Way
Agencies
Pop
In/Out
AV
In/Out
Geog
Dist
Fed Way
97440
$10,226,806,438
Up 80%
175392
$18,408,251,588
Cutoff
Dn 40%
38976
$4,090,722,575
30.0
Auburn
80615
In
$10,559,076,807
In
King/P
6.0
Kent
128900
In
$18,521,965,624
In
King
7.4
Puyallup
41100
In
$5,666,549,214
In
Pierce
10.6
Renton
104100
In
$16,831,608,505
In
King
15.7
Burien
51671
In
$7,272,853,906
In
King
16.2
Lakewood
Bellevue
59350
162885
In
In
$6,002,783,089
$56,347,943,123
In
Out
Pierce
King
18.9
25.1
Kirkland
87,240
In
$25,234,642,663
Out
King
30.0
Redmond
87760
In
$20,728,368,765
Out
King
31.6
Shoreline
55730
In
$10,133,836,997
In
King
34.6
Sammamish
63470
In
$16,647,057,763
In
King
38.5
Everett
111200
In
$16,742,280,387
In
Sno
50.0
Marysville
67040
In
$7,144,089,843
In
Sno
58.0
Assessed Valuation Statistics from DOR Table 30 - Sr. Taxing Districts Levies Due 2018
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 5
Appendix C — Comparable Agency Analysis
For the salary survey, the City's Leadership Team elected to also add King County and Pierce
County. While not similar in size, they both have court functions and the consultant concluded
that they are not only in the market but are also likely to have a good number of matches for a
variety of positions. The Leadership Team also elected to add Lakehaven Water/Sewer District
and Puget Sound Transit based on recent experiences pertaining to recruitment and retention.
The added survey agencies are shown in the table below:
Leadership Team:
Area:
Adds:
King Co
King
In
Pierce Co
Pierce
In
Kirkland
King
In
Sound Transit
King/P
In
Lakehaven W&S
King
In
While King County, Pierce County, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District, City of Kirkland and Puget
Sound Transit are not similar in size to Federal Way as to revenue metrics, the Leadership Team
felt that they provided a balance to the "similar size" list of survey cities, i.e. Auburn, Burien, Kent,
Lakewood, Puyallup and Renton. Tables 2, 3 and 4 show comparisons among the area cities as to
assessed valuation, taxable retail sales, assessed valuation per capita, and taxable retail sales per
capita.
Table 2: Assessed Valuation, Retail Sales, and Geographic Proximity Comparison
Area
Resident
Assessed
Taxable
Geographic
City
Population
Valuation
Retail Sales
Proximity
(in miles)
Bellevue
162,885
$56,347,943,123
$8,231,597,007
25.1
Kirkland
87,240
$25,234,642,663
$2,769,484,255
30.0
Kent
128,900
$18,521,965,624
$2,507,380,381
7.4
Renton
104,100
$16,831,608,505
$3,066,277,295
15.7
Auburn
80,615
$10,559,076,807
$1,915,564,049
6.0
Federal Way
97,440
$10,226,806,438
$1,671,681,428
---
Burien
51,850
$7,272,853,906
$875,021,914
16.2
Lakewood
59,350
$6,002,783,089
$1,252,160,144
18.9
Puyallup
41,001
$5,666,549,214
$2,605,343,869
10.6
Average
79,008
$12,869,925,687
$2,141,604,558
14.97
Source:
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Appendix C— Comparable Agency Analysis
Table 3: Assessed Valuation per Capita Comparison
Area
Resident
Assessed
Assessed
City
Population
Valuation
Valuation Per Capita
Kirkland
87,240
$25,234,642,663
$289,255
Kent
128,900
$18,521,965,624
$143,693
Renton
104,100
$16,831,608,505
$161,687
Auburn
80,615
$10,559,076,807
$130,982
Federal Way
97,440
$10,226,806,438
$104,955
Burien
51,850
$7,272,853,906
$140,267
Lakewood
59,350
$6,002,783,089
$101,142
Puyallup
41,001
$5,666,549,214
$138,205
Average
79,008
$12,869,925,687
$157,890
Table 4: Taxable Retail Sales per Capita Comparison
Area
Resident
Taxable
Taxable
City
Population
Retail Sales
Retail Sales Per
Capita
Kirkland
87,240
$2,769,484,255
$31,745.58
Kent
128,900
$2,507,380,381
$19,452.14
Renton
104,100
$3,066,277,295
$29,455.11
Auburn
80,615
$1,915,564,049
$23,761.88
Federal Way
97,440
$1,671,681,428
$17,156.01
Burien
51,850
$875,021,914
$16,876.03
Lakewood
59,350
$1,252,160,144
$21,097.90
Puyallup
41,001
$2,605,343,869
$63,543.42
Average
79,008
$2,141,604,558
$29,418.87
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Appendix C — Comparable Agency Analysis
III. Conclusion
The eleven agencies offer a balance of bigger and smaller public agencies in King and Pierce
Counties. They are competing in the local labor market to recruit and retain employees in many
similar job classifications. Where Federal Way salaries rank in comparison to the survey agencies
will be reported for each position for which the consultant can find a match, with reasonable
assurance that an 80% overlap in qualifications, duties and responsibilities exists. The basis for
the comparisons will be the updated position descriptions as of November and December, 2019.
Comparisons will be made to the job descriptions for like positions in the eleven survey agencies.
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020 8
2020 City of Federal Way Classification and Compensation Study
Appendix D
Salary Study Summary Results
Cabot Dow Associates
December 2020
Appendix D - Summary Chart of All Benchmarked Positions
Salaries more than 5% below the market shown in red; salaries more than 5% above the market shown in green.
Federal Way Positions
Minimum
Salary Range Midpoint
Salary Range Maximum
Federal Way
Median
I % Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Community Development
Administration & Permit Center Supervisor
$
4,973
$
5,495
-9.5%
$
5,636
$
6,230
-9.5%
$
6,298
$
6,965
-9.6%
Associate Planner
$
5,355
$
6,062
-11.7%
$
6,069
$
6,804
-10.8%1
$
6,782
$
7,567
-10.4%
Building Official
$
8,148
$
8,363
-2.6%
$
9,233
$
9,270
-0.4%
$
10,318
$
10,340
-0.2%
CDBG/Human Services Coordinator
$
5,098
$
6,064
-15.9%
$
5,778
$
6,851
-15.7%
$
6,457
$
7,633
-15.4%
Code Compliance Officer
$
5,487
$
5,909
-7.1%
$
6,219
$
6,610
-5.9%
$
6,950
$
7,253
-4.2%
Community Services Manager
$
7,201
$
7,538
-4.5%
$
8,161
$
8,539
-4.4%
$
9,120
$
9,807
-7.0%
Development Specialist
$
4,286
$
4,887
-12.3%
$
4,858
$
5,469
-11.2%1
$
5,429
$
5,960
-8.9%
Director
$
13,266
$ 11,253
17.9%
$
13,266
$ 13,132
1.0%
$
13,266
$
14,457
-8.2%
Inspector/Plans Examiner
$
5,909
$
6,064
-2.6%
$
6,696
$
6,757
-0.9%
$
7,483
$
7,455
0.4%
Lead Development Specialist
$
4,619
$
5,032
-8.2%
$
5,234
$
5,598
-6.5%
$
5,849
$
6,216
-5.9%
Planning Manager
$
7,567
$
8,222
-8.0%
$
8,576
$
9,279
-7.6%
$
9,585
$
10,284
-6.8%
Plans Examiner
$
6,365
$
6,408
-0.7%
$
7,213
$
7,110
1.4%1
$
8,061
$
7,768
3.8%
Principal Planner
$
6,687
$
7,370
-9.3%
$
7,578
$
8,515
-11.0%1
$
8,468
$
9,586
-11.7%
Senior Planner
$
6,210
$
6,849
-9.3%
$
7,037
$
7,812
-9.9%
$
7,864
$
8,685
-9.4%
Finance
Accounting Manager
$
8,148
$
8,286
-1.7%
$
9,233
$
9,387
-1.6%
$
10,318
$
10,570
-2.4%
Accounting Technician 2
$
4,080
$
4,321
-5.6%
$
4,625
$
4,797
-3.6%
$
5,169
$
5,717
-9.6%
Director
$
13,344
$ 11,378
17.3%
$
13,344
$ 13,435
-0.7%1
$
13,344
$
14,938
-10.7%
Financial Analyst
$
5,624
$
6,190
-9.1%1
$
6,373
$
6,899
-7.6%
$
7,122
$
7,652
-6.9%
Payroll Analyst
$
4,852
$
4,837
0.3%
$
5,498
$
5,400
1.8%
$
6,144
$
5,995
2.5%
General
Administrative Assistant 1
$
3,517
$
3,913
-10.1%
$
3,986
$
4,369
-8.8%
$
4,454
$
4,826
-7.7%
Administrative Assistant 2
$
4,182
$
4,715
-11.3%
$
4,740
$
5,273
-10.1%
$
5,297
$
5,874
-9.8%
Office Technician 2
$
3,186
$
3,722
-14.4%
$
3,611
$
4,067
-11.2%
$
4,036
$
4,530
-10.9%
Human Resources
HR Analyst
$
5,624
$
6,147
-8.5%
$
6,373
$
6,899
1 -7.6%
$
7,122
$
7,651
-6.9%
HR Manager
$
10,833
$ 10,561
1 2.6%
$
10,833
$ 12,577
1 -13.9%1
$
10,833
$
14,335
-24.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix D - Summary Chart of All Benchmarked Positions
Salaries more than 5% below the market shown in red; salaries more than 5% above the market shown in green.
Federal Way Positions
Minimum
Salary Range Midpoint
Salary Range Maximum
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Information Technology
GIS Analyst
$ 5,909
$ 6,078
-2.8%
$ 6,696
$ 6,805
-1.6%
$ 7,483
$ 7,455
0.4%
Information Technology Director
$ 12,956
$ 10,388
24.7%
$ 12,956
$ 12,052
7.5%
$ 12,956
$ 13,447
-3.7%
IT Architect
$ 7,025
$ 7,014
0.2%
$ 7,961
$ 7,866
1.2%
$ 8,896
$ 9,038
-1.6%
IT Technician II - Customer Support
$ 4,973
$ 5,255
-5.4%
$ 5,636
$ 5,821
-3.2%
$ 6,298
$ 6,723
-6.3%
IT/Telecom Supervisor
$ 6,687
$ 8,972
-25.5%
$ 7,578
$ 10,251
-26.1%
$ 8,468
$ 11,576
-26.8%
Law
Assistant City Attorney
$ 8,353
$ 7,870
6.1%
$ 9,466
$ 9,467
0.0%
$ 10,579
$ 10,656
-0.7%
Chief City Prosecutor
$ 7,382
$ 8,935
-17.4%
$ 8,366
$ 10,350
-19.2%
$ 9,349
$ 11,760
-20.5%
City Prosecutor
$ 6,852
$ 6,750
1.5%
$ 7,765
$ 8,037
-3.4%
$ 8,678
$ 9,696
-10.5%
Deputy City Attorney
$ 8,992
$ 9,406
-4.4%
$ 10,191
$ 11,064
-7.9%
$ 11,389
$ 12,610
-9.7%
Director/City Attorney
$ 13,345
$ 11,509
16.0%
$ 13,345
$ 13,298
0.4%
$ 13,345
$ 14,905
-10.5%
Domestic Violence Legal Advocate
$ 4,619
$ 4,703
-1.8%
$ 5,234
$ 5,587
-6.3%
$ 5,849
$ 6,486
-9.8%
Lead Paralegal
$ 5,098
$ 5,369
-5.1%
$ 5,778
$ 6,004
-3.8%
$ 6,457
$ 6,644
-2.8%
Legal Assistant - Civil
$ 4,182
$ 4,794
-12.8%
$ 4,740
$ 5,400
-12.2%
$ 5,297
$ 5,995
-11.6%
Legal Assistant - Criminal
$ 4,182
$ 4,604
-9.2%
$ 4,740
$ 5,162
-8.2%1
$ 5,297
$ 5,720
-7.4%
Paralegal - Civil
$ 4,619
$ 5,000
-7.6%
$ 5,234
$ 5,841
-10.4%
$ 5,849
$ 6,413
-8.8%
Mayor
City Clerk
$ 7,754
$ 7,610
1.9%
$ 8,787
$ 8,516
3.2%
$ 9,820
$ 9,440
4.0%
Communications Coordinator
$ 5,624
$ 7,038
-20.1%
$ 6,373
$ 7,824
-18.5%
$ 7,122
$ 8,721
-18.3%
Deputy City Clerk
$ 5,433
$ 5,566
-2.4%
$ 6,157
$ 6,214
-0.9%
$ 6,880
$ 6,862
0.3%
Economic Development Director
$ 12,756
$ 9,422
35.4%
$ 12,756
$ 10,528
21.2%
$ 12,756
$ 11,553
10.4%
Emergency Manager
$ 7,754
$ 7,500
3.4%
$ 8,787
$ 9,547
-8.0%
$ 9,820
$ 10,674
-8.0%
Executive Assistant to the City Council
$ 4,998
1 $ 5,616
1 -11.0%1
$ 5,665
1 $ 6,173
-8.2%
$ 6,331
$ 6,729
-5.9%
Policy Advisor
$ 5,098
1 $ 6,102
1 -16.5%1
$ 5,778
1 $ 6,778
-14.8%1
$ 6,457
1 $ 7,500
1 -13.9%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix D - Summary Chart of All Benchmarked Positions
Salaries more than 5% below the market shown in red; salaries more than 5% above the market shown in green.
Federal Way Positions
Minimum
Salary Range Midpoint
Salary Range Maximum
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Municipal Court
Court Administrator
$
9,727
$
9,292
4.7%
$
9,727
$ 10,449
-6.9%
$
9,727
$
11,476
-15.2%
Court Services Supervisor
$
5,909
$
6,348
-6.9%
$
6,696
$
7,040
-4.9%1
$
7,483
$
8,072
-7.3%
Judicial Specialist
$
3,943
$
4,054
-2.7%
$
4,468
$
4,742
-5.8%
$
4,992
$
5,358
-6.8%
Probation Clerk
$
3,186
$
4,449
-28.4%
$
3,611
$
4,842
-25.4%
$
4,036
$
5,358
-24.7%
Probation Officer
$
5,224
$
5,659
-7.7%
$
5,920
$
6,275
-5.6%
$
6,616
$
6,890
-4.0%
Probation Supervisor
$
6,210
$
6,653
-6.7%
$
7,037
$
7,476
-5.9%
$
7,864
$
8,298
-5.2%
Parks & Recreation
Custodian - Community Center
$
3,335
$
3,498
-4.7%
$
3,780
$
3,996
-5.4%
$
4,224
$
4,356
-3.0%
Deputy Director
$
9,450
$
9,971
-5.2%
$
10,709
$ 11,211
-4.5%
$
11,967
$
12,451
-3.9%
Director
$
12,392
$ 11,124
11.4%
$
12,392
$ 12,828
-3.4%
$
12,392
$
14,354
-13.7%
Facility Maintenance Worker 1
$
4,218
$
4,601
-8.3%
$
4,754
$
5,049
-5.8%
$
5,290
$
5,713
-7.4%
Facility/Aquatic Operator
$
4,659
$
5,058
-7.9%
$
5,279
$
5,857
-9.9%
$
5,899
$
6,615
-10.8%
Graphics/Marketing Coordinator
$
5,098
$
5,511
-7.5%
$
5,778
$
6,167
-6.3%
$
6,457
$
6,832
-5.5%
Parks & Facilities Manager
$
6,524
$
7,693
-15.2%
$
7,394
$
8,750
-15.5%
$
8,263
$
10,093
-18.1%
Parks & Facilities Supervisor
$
5,767
$
6,250
-7.7%1
$
6,535
$
7,092
1 -7.9%
$
7,303
$
7,782
-6.2%
Parks Maintenance Worker 1
$
4,218
$
4,881
-13.6%
$
4,754
$
5,412
-12.2%
$
5,290
$
5,942
-11.0%
Parks Maintenance Worker 2
$
4,659
$
5,394
-13.6%
$
51279
$
5,961
-11.4%
$
5,899
$
6,456
-8.6%
Recreation Coordinator
$
5,098
$
5,386
-5.3%
$
5,778
$
5,966
-3.2%
$
6,457
$
6,646
-2.8%
Recreation Manager
$
6,524
$
7,538
-13.5%
$
7,394
$
8,366
-11.6%
$
8,263
$
9,194
-10.1%
Police
Administrative Assistant 1
$
3,741
$
3,898
-4.0%
$
4,237
$
4,323
-2.0%
$
4,733
$
4,756
-0.5%
Animal Services Officer
$
4,358
$
4,536
-3.9%
$
4,937
$
5,115
-3.5%
$
5,515
$
5,816
-5.2%
Civilian Operations Manager
$
7,025
$
7,401
-5.1%
$
7,961
$
8,229
-3.3%
$
8,896
$
9,057
-1.8%
Commander
$
9,575
$ 11,217
-14.6%
$
10,851
$ 11,217
-3.3%
$
12,126
$
12,110
0.1%
Crime Analyst/Prevention Specialist
$
5,005
$
5,224
-4.2%
$
5,668
$
5,852
-3.1%
$
6,331
$
6,710
-5.6%
Police Chief
$
14,969
$ 11,529
29.8%
$
14,969
$ 13,387
11.8%
$
14,969
$
15,026
-0.4%
Property/Evidence Custodian
$
4,973
$
5,438
-8.6%
$
5,636
$
6,094
-7.5%
$
6,298
$
6,750
-6.7%
Property/Evidence Technician
$
3,926
$
4,511
-13.0%
$
4,447
$
5,062
-12.2%
$
4,967
$
5,625
-11.7%
Public Records Coordinator
$
4,696
$
4,821
-2.6%
$
5,315
$
5,496
-3.3%
$
5,934
$
6,063
-2.1%
Records Specialist 1
$
3,741
$
4,100
-8.8%
$
4,237
$
4,633
-8.5%
$
4,733
$
5,166
-8.4%
Records Supervisor
$
4,619
$
5,366
-13.9%
$
5,234
$
6,084
-14.0%1
$
5,849
$
6,769
-13.6%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix D - Summary Chart of All Benchmarked Positions
Salaries more than 5% below the market shown in red; salaries more than 5% above the market shown in green.
Federal Way Positions
Minimum
Salary Range Midpoint
Salary Range Maximum
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Public Works
Capital Engineer
$
6,687
$
6,936
-3.6%
$
7,578
$
7,937
-4.5%
$
8,468
$
8,931
-5.2%
Capital Engineering Manager
$
8,559
$
9,293
-7.9%
$
9,700
$ 10,641
-8.8%1
$
10,840
$
11,990
-9.6%
City Traffic Engineer
$
8,559
$
8,958
-4.5%
$
9,700
$ 10,840
-10.5%
$
10,840
$
12,087
-10.3%
Construction Inspector
$
5,624
$
5,670
-0.8%
$
6,373
$
6,612
-3.6%
$
7,122
$
7,423
-4.1%
Development Services Manager
$
8,148
$
9,244
-11.9%
$
9,233
$ 10,553
-12.5%
$
10,318
$
11,855
-13.0%
Director
$
13,164
$ 11,425
15.2%
$
13,164
$ 13,171
-0.1%
$
13,164
$
14,680
-10.3%
Engineering Technician
$
4,973
$
5,647
-11.9%
$
5,636
$
6,340
-11.1%
$
6,298
$
7,282
-13.5%
Senior Capital Engineer
$
7,567
$
7,899
-4.2%
$
8,576
$
9,054
-5.3%
$
9,585
$
10,003
-4.2%
Senior Engineering Plans Examiner
$
6,524
$
7,423
-12.1%
$
7,394
$
8,235
-10.2%
$
8,263
$
9,047
-8.7%
Senior Traffic Engineer
$
7,567
$
7,817
-3.2%1
$
8,576
$
8,235
4.1%
$
9,585
$
9,047
5.9%
Senior Transportation Planning Engineer
$
7,567
$
7,633
-0.9%
$
8,576
$
9,412
-8.9%1
$
9,585
$
10,696
-10.4%
Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator
$
5,909
$
6,583
-10.2%
$
6,696
$
8,465
-20.9%
$
7,483
$
9,297
-19.5%
Street Maintenance Supervisor
$
5,767
$
6,486
-11.1%
$
6,535
$
7,355
-11.1%
$
7,303
$
8,223
-11.2%
Street/SWM Maintenance Worker 1
$
4,218
$
4,685
-10.0%
$
4,754
$
7,319
-35.0%
$
5,290
$
8,055
-34.3%
Street/SWM Maintenance Worker 2
$
4,659
$
5,443
-14.4%
$
5,279
$
5,957
-11.4%
$
5,899
$
6,449
-8.5%
Surface Water Manager
$
8,559
$
8,235
3.9%
$
9,700
$
9,663
0.4%
$
10,840
$
11,101
-2.3%
SWIM Engineering Technician
$
4,973
$
5,586
-11.0%
$
5,636
$
6,306
-10.6%
$
6,298
$
7,026
-10.4%
SWIM Inspector
$
5,624
$
5,255
7.0%
$
6,373
$
6,152
3.6%
$
7,122
$
7,050
1.0%
SWIM Maintenance Supervisor
$
5,767
$
6,486
-11.1%1
$
6,535
$
7,341
-11.0%
$
7,303
$
8,096
-9.8%
SWIM Public Education & Outreach Coordinator
$
5,224
$
6,012
-13.1%
$
5,920
$
6,682
-11.4%
$
6,616
$
7,443
-11.1%
SWIM WQ/NPDES Permit Prog Coord
$
6,056
$
6,533
-7.3%
$
6,864
$
7,326
1 -6.3%1
$
7,671
$
8,118
-5.5%
Traffic Operations Engineer
$
6,687
$
7,298
-8.4%
$
7,578
1 $
8,210
1 -7.7%1
$
8,468
1 $
9,388
1
-9.8%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix D - Summary Chart of All Benchmarked Positions
Salaries more than 5% below the market shown in red; salaries more than 5% above the market shown in green.
Federal Way Positions
Minimum
Salary Range Midpoint
Salary Range Maxit%d
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
% Diff
Federal Way
Median
Notes
The following positions were not benchmarked due to lack of matching positions, or because they were added as new classifications after the study was underway:
Accreditation/Volunteer Coordinator
Chef/Kitchen Coordinator
Community Center Services Coordinator
Community Relations Liaison/Contract Administrator
Crime Analyst/Prevention Program Coordinator
Deputy Director - Public Works
Dumas Bay Centre Manager
Electrical Inspector/Plans Examiner
Executive Assistant to the Mayor (new position)
Fleet Coordinator
Graffiti/Sign Abatement Technician
Lead Lifeguard
Paralegal - Criminal
Permit Technician
Quartermaster
SW & Recycling Project Manager
SWM Water Quality Specialist
Transport Officer (new position)
Salary data collected between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020.
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020 5
2020 City of Federal Way Classification and Compensation Study
Appendix E
Position Salary Comparisons
Cabot Dow Associates
December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Community Development
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Administration & Permit Center Supervisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Puyallup
Permit Center/Customer Svc Supervisor
6,482
7,390
8,297
City of Kirkland
Permit Tech Supervisor
5,796
6,637
7,478
King County
Sr. Permit Review Coordinator
5,495
6,230
6,965
Pierce County
Permit & Development Center Supervisor
5,353
1 6,061
6,769
Federal Way
Administration & Permit Center Supervisor
4,973
5,636
6,298
City of Lakewood
Permit Coordinator
4,926
5,466
6,005
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Renton
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,495 6,230 6,965
-9.5% -9.5% -9.6%
Associate Planner
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Project/Program Manager II
6,486
7,355
8,223
City of Auburn
Planner II
6,586
7,341
8,096
City of Kirkland
Associate Planner
6,680
7,269
7,858
City of Kent
Planner
6,260
1 6,947
7,633
Pierce County
Planner 2
6,032
6,851
7,670
City of Renton
Associate Planner
6,091
6,757
7,423
City of Burien
Planner
5,945
6,586
7,226
Sound Transit
Associate Planner
5,000
6,250
7,500
City of Puyallup
Associate Planner
5,453
1 6,217
6,981
City of Lakewood
Associate Planner
5,544
6,151
6,758
Federal Way
Associate Planner
5,355
6,069
61782
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
I j
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,062 6,804 7,567
-11.7% -10.8% -10.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Community Development
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Building Official
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Development Services Manager
9,435
10,517
11,598
City of Kent
Building Services Manager
9,297
10,308
11,319
City of Kirkland
Building Official
8,945
10,243
11,541
City of Burien
Building Official
8,400
9,306
1 10,211
City of Renton
Building Official
8,325
9,235
10,145
Federal Way
Building Official
8,148
9,233
10,318
Pierce County
Building Official
7,752
9,110
10,469
City of Puyallup
Building/Fire Code Official
7,705
1 8,785
9,864
City of Lakewood
Building Official
7,693
8,725
9,756
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
8,363 9,270 10,340
-2.6% -0.4% -0.2%
CDBG/Human Services Coordinator
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Sr. Title VI Program Specialist
6,250
7,917
9,583
City of Kent
Human Services Coordinator
6,260
6,947
7,633
Pierce County
Social Service Program Specialist II
6,032
6,851
7,670
City of Auburn
Human Services Program Coordinator
6,064
6,759
1 7,454
City of Renton
Human Services Coordinator
5,942
6,591
7,240
Federal Way
CDBG/Human Services Coordinator
5,098
5,778
6,457
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,064 6,851 7,633
-15.9% -15.7% -15.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Community Development
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Code Compliance Officer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Code Enforcement Officer II
6,965
7,896
8,828
City of Kirkland
Code Enforcement Officer
6,857
7,462
8,067
City of Auburn
Code Compliance Officer
6,064
6,759
7,454
Pierce County
Code Enforcement Officer
5,909
6,711
1 7,514
City of Kent
Code Enforcement Officer
5,966
6,610
7,253
City of Renton
Code Compliance Inspector
5,795
6,430
7,064
City of Burien
Code Compliance Officer
5,659
6,269
6,878
Federal Way
Code Compliance Officer
5,4871
6,219
6,950
City of Puyallup
Code Compliance Officer
5,453
6,217
6,981
City of Lakewood
Code Enforcement Officer
5,224
5,796
6,368
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,909 6,610 7,253
-7.1% -5.9% -4.2%
Community Services Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Project/Program Manager IV
8,223
9,323
10,423
City of Kent
Human Services Manager
8,219
9,111
10,003
Pierce County
Human Services Division Manager
7,272
8,539
9,807
City of Renton
Human Services Manager
7,538
1 8,366
9,194
Federal Way
Community Services Manager
7,201
8,161
9,120
City of Auburn
Community Services Manager
7,070
7,881
8,691
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,538 8,539 9,807
-4.5% -4.4% -7.0%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Community Development
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Development Specialist
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Permit Review Coordinator
5,240
5,941
6,642
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Permit Specialist 1
4,824
5,547
6,269
City of Renton
Permit Services Specialist
4,999
5,545
6,091
City of Auburn
Permit Technician 11
4,955
1 5,523
6,091
City of Kirkland
Permit Technician
5,061
1 5,508
5,954
City of Kent
Development Permit Technician
4,895
5,431
5,966
City of Burien
Permit Technician
4,880
5,405
5,931
City of Puyallup
Permit Technician
4,368
4,980
5,591
Pierce County
Permit/Development Counter Tech
4,415
4,970
5,526
Federal Way
Development Specialist
4,286
4,858
5,429
City of Lakewood
Permit Technician
4,3731
4,852
5,331
Sound Transit
I No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,887 5,469 5,960
-12.3% -11.2% -8.9%
Director
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Dep Exec Dir - Land Use Planing & Dev
12,083
15,417
18,750
City of Renton
Community & Econ Dev Administrator
12,360
13,710
15,059
City of Kent
Director of Economic & Community Dev
10,561
13,468
16,375
City of Auburn
Director of Community Development
12,054
1 13,436
14,817
Federal Way
Director
13,266
13,266
13,266
City of Burien
Community Development Director
11,580
12,828
14,076
City of Kirkland
Director of Planning & Building
10,926
12,512
14,098
City of Lakewood
Asst CM/Community & Econ Dev Dir
10,560
11,978
13,396
City of Puyallup
Development Services Director
9,864
1 11,244
12,624
King County
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
11,253 13,132 14,457
17.9% 1.0% -8.2%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
4
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Community Development
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Inspector/Plans Examiner
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
General Inspector II
6,642
7,530
8,419
City of Kirkland
Building Inspector
6,446
7,016
7,585
City of Kent
Combination Building Inspector
6,104
6,780
7,455
City of Auburn
Building Inspector
6,064
6,759
1 7,454
City of Renton
Building Inspector
6,091
6,757
7,423
City of Puyallup
Senior Building Inspector
5,851
6,728
7,605
Pierce County
Building Inspector
5,909
6,711
7,514
Federal Way
Inspector/Plans Examiner
5,909
1 6,696
7,483
City of Burien
Combination Bldg Insp/Plans Examiner
5,945
6,586
7,226
City of Lakewood
Building Inspector
5,331
5,915
6,498
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,064 6,757 7,455
-2.6% -0.9% 0.4%
Lead Development Specialist
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Permit Review Coordinator Senior
5,495
6,230
6,965
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Permit Specialist III
5,313
6,108
6,904
City of Kent
Development Permit Technician Lead
5,138
5,700
6,261
City of Puyallup
Senior Permit Technician
4,821
1 5,496
6,170
City of Lakewood
Permit Coordinator
4,926
5,466
6,005
Federal Way
Lead Development Specialist
4,619
5,234
5,849
Pierce County
Permit/Development Counter Tech, Lead
4,631
5,218
5,805
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Renton
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,032 5,598 6,216
-8.2% -6.5% -5.9%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Community Development
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Planning Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Planning Manager
9,070
10,058
11,045
Sound Transit
Manager - Land Use Planning
7,500
10,000
12,500
City of Kirkland
Planning Manager
8,321
9,528
10,736
King County
Project/Program Manager IV
8,223
9,323
1 10,423
City of Renton
Planning Manager
8,325
9,235
10,145
City of Auburn
Planning Services Manager
8,222
9,165
10,107
Pierce County
Planning Manager
7,642
8,745
9,849
City of Lakewood
Planning Manager
7,693
1 8,725
9,756
Federal Way
Planning Manager
7,567
8,576
9,585
City of Burien
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
8,222 9,279 10,284
-8.0% -7.6% -6.8%
Plans Examiner
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Plans Examination Engineer II
6,642
7,530
8,419
City of Auburn
Plans Examiner
6,586
7,341
8,096
Federal Way
Plans Examiner
6,365
7,213
8,061
City of Kirkland
Plans Examiner
6,581
1 7,162
7,743
City of Kent
Plans Examiner
6,414
7,122
7,830
City of Renton
Building Plan Reviewer
6,402
7,098
7,794
City of Puyallup
Senior Plans Examiner
5,851
6,728
7,605
Pierce County
Plans Examiner 2
5,909
6,711
7,514
City of Lakewood
Plans Examiner
5,770
1 6,402
7,034
City of Burien
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,408 7,110 7,768
-0.7% 1.4% 3.8%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Community Development
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Principal Planner
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Sr Project Manager - Land Use Planning
7,500
9,583
11,667
City of Kirkland
Planning Supervisor
7,680
8,795
9,910
Pierce County
Planner 4
7,208
8,235
9,262
City of Renton
Senior Planner
7,240
1 8,029
8,818
Federal Way
Principal Planner
6,687
7,578
8,468
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,370 8,515 9,586
-9.3% -11.0% -11.7%
Senior Planner
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Project/Program Manager III
7,304
8,281
9,258
City of Kirkland
Senior Planner
7,377
8,027
8,678
Sound Transit
Senior Transportation Planner
6,250
7,917
9,583
City of Auburn
Senior Planner
7,070
1 7,881
8,691
Pierce County
Planner 3
6,789
7,743
8,696
City of Kent
Senior Planner
6,909
7,664
8,418
City of Burien
Senior Planner
6,727
7,451
8,176
City of Puyallup
Senior Planner
6,325
7,211
8,096
Federal Way
Senior Planner
6,210
7,037
7,864
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Renton
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,849 7,812 8,685
-9.3% -9.9% -9.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
7
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Finance
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Accounting Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Accounting Manager
8,921
10,313
11,705
City of Kent
Acct & Reporting Manager
8,837
9,808
10,779
Pierce County
Chief Accountant
8,248
9,692
11,137
King County
Finance/Acct Supervisor
8,421
9,547
10,674
City of Burien
Finance Manager
8,610
9,538
10,466
City of Renton
Financial Services Manager
8,325
9,235
10,145
Federal Way
Accounting Manager
8,148
9,233
10,318
City of Puyallup
Finance Manager
8,096
9,229
10,362
City of Auburn
Acct & Fin Reporting Mgr II
8,222
9,165
10,107
City of Kirkland
Accounting Manager
7,891
9,036
10,182
Sound Transit
Supervisor -Accounting
6,667
8,750
10,833
City of Lakewood
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
8,286 9,387 10,570
-1.7% -1.6% -2.4%
Accounting Technician 2
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Accounting Technician III
5,576
6,412
7,249
City of Auburn
Accounting Specialist
4,955
5,523
6,091
City of Kirkland
Acct Support Assoc IV
4,859
5,288
5,717
City of Burien
Accounting Assistant
4,761
5,273
5,786
City of Lakewood
Finance Technician
4,733
5,252
5,770
City of Kent
Acct Services Assistant III
4,321
4,797
5,273
City of Renton
Accounting Assistant III
4,314
4,782
5,250
City of Puyallup
Accounting Technician
4,158
4,740
5,321
Pierce County
Accounting Assistant 2
4,207
4,734
5,261
Federal Way
Accounting Technician 2
4,080
4,625
5,169
Sound Transit
I Accounts Payable Specialist
3,333
4,583
5,833
King County
I Fiscal Specialist II
4,037
4,577
5,117
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,321 4,797 5,717
-5.6% -3.6% -9.6%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
8
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Finance
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Director
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
Director of Finance
12,877
15,132
17,387
King County
Div Dir - Fin & Bus Ops
13,213
14,981
16,749
Sound Transit
Dir - Fin/Analysis/Budget
10,833
13,750
16,667
City of Renton
Admin Services Admin
12,360
13,710
15,059
City of Kent
Finance Director
10,561
13,468
16,375
City of Auburn
Finance Director
12,053
13,435
14,817
Federal Way
Director
13,344
13,344
13,344
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Dir of Finance/IS
11,378
13,158
14,938
City of Kirkland
Finance Director
11,306
12,947
14,587
City of Burien
Finance Director
11,580
12,828
14,076
City of Lakewood
I ACM/Fin & Admin Svcs Dir
10,560
11,978
13,396
City of Puyallup
I Finance Director
10,362
11,814
13,265
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
11,378 13,435 14,938
17.3% -0.7% -10.7%
Financial Analyst
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Budget Analyst II
6,802
7,712
8,622
City of Auburn
Financial Analyst
6,586
7,341
8,096
City of Burien
Financial Analyst
6,402
7,092
7,782
City of Puyallup
Financial Analyst
6,170
7,035
7,899
City of Kent
Sr. Financial Analyst
6,261
6,948
7,634
Pierce County
Budget Analyst
6,032
6,851
7,670
City of Kirkland
Budget Analyst
6,210
6,758
7,305
City of Lakewood
Finance Analyst
5,770
6,402
7,034
Federal Way
Financial Analyst
5,624
6,373
7,122
Sound Transit
Accountant II
5,000
6,250
7,500
City of Renton
Finance Analyst III
5,451
6,041
6,631
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,190 6,899 7,652
-9.1% -7.6% -6.9%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
0
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Finance
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Payroll Analyst
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kirkland
Sr Accounting Associate
5,408
5,885
6,361
City of Renton
Finance Analyst II
5,057
5,610
6,162
Pierce County
Payroll Specialist
4,940
5,581
6,223
City of Auburn
Payroll Specialist
4,955
5,523
6,091
Federal Way
Payroll Analyst
4,852
5,498
6,144
King County
Payroll Specialist
4,654
5,276
5,899
City of Lakewood
Finance Technician
4,733
5,252
5,770
City of Puyallup
Payroll Specialist
4,589
5,232
5,874
Sound Transit
Payroll Specialist
3,333
4,583
5,833
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN 4,837 5,400 5,995
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN 0.3% 1.8% 2.5%
Cabot Dow Associates
10
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - General
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Administrative Assistant 1
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Administrative Specialist
4,488
5,003
5,517
City of Kirkland
Office Specialist
4,342
4,726
5,110
King County
Admin Specialist II
3,942
4,469
4,997
Pierce County
Office Assistant 2
3,916
4,404
1 4,891
City of Renton
Office Assistant II
3,910
4,335
4,760
City of Lakewood
Office Assistant
3,886
4,312
4,737
City of Puyallup
Office Assistant II
3,658
4,205
4,752
Federal Way
Admin Assistant 1
3,517
3,986
4,454
Sound Transit
Recep/Admin Asst
2,917
3,750
4,583
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
3,913 4,369 4,826
-10.1% -8.8% -7.7%
Administrative Assistant 2
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Renton
Administrative Assistant
5,451
6,041
6,631
King County
Confidential Secretary 1
5,240
5,941
6,642
City of Kirkland
Administrative Assistant
5,337
5,808
6,278
City of Auburn
Administrative Assistant
4,955
5,523
6,091
Pierce County
Administrative Assistant
4,715
5,294
5,874
City of Burien
Department Assistant
4,761
5,273
5,786
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Field Ops Admin Asst
4,101
5,185
6,269
City of Lakewood
Administrative Assistant
4,419
5,012
5,604
City of Kent
Administrative Assistant 1
4,433
4,914
5,395
City of Puyallup
Administrative Secretary
4,261
4,857
5,453
Federal Way
Administrative Assistant 2
4,182
4,740
5,297
Sound Transit
Sr. Admin Specialist
3,333
4,583
5,833
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,715 5,273 5,874
-11.3% -10.1% -9.8%
Office Technician 2
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Cust Svc Admin Rep 1
5,058
5,818
6,578
City of Auburn
Office Asst - Plan & Dev
4,158
4,623
5,087
City of Renton
Office Assistant 1
3,722
4,126
4,530
City of Kirkland
Recep/Admin Clerk
3,739
4,067
4,396
King County
Admin Specialist 1
3,585
4,065
4,545
Pierce County
Office Assistant 1
3,418
3,848
4,278
Federal Way
Office Technician 2
3,186
3,611
4,036
City of Puyallup
Office Assistant 1
3,083
3,545
4,007
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
3,722 4,067 4,530
-14.4% -11.2% -10.9%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
11
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Human Resources
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
HR Analyst
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
HR Analyst
6,586
7,341
8,096
City of Renton
ER Analyst
6,501
7,213
7,925
King County
HR Analyst
6,335
7,182
8,029
City of Kent
HR Analyst
6,260
6,947
7,633
Pierce County
HR Analyst
6,034
6,851
7,668
City of Kirkland
HR Analyst
5,856
6,707
7,557
City of Lakewood
HR Analyst
5,659
6,419
7,178
Federal Way
HR Analyst
5,624
6,373
7,122
City of Puyallup
HR Generalist
5,453
6,217
6,981
City of Burien
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,147 6,899 7,651
-8.5% -7.6% -6.9%
HR Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
HR Director
10,561
13,468
16,375
City of Kirkland
HR Director
11,110
12,722
14,335
Pierce County
Dir of HR
10,706
12,577
14,449
Federal Way
HR Manager
10,833
10,833
10,833
City of Puyallup
HR Director
9,388
10,703
12,018
City of Lakewood
HR Director
8,925
10,122
11,319
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Renton
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
10,561 12,577 14,335
2.6% -13.9% -24.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
12
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Information Technology
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
GIS Analyst
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
GIS Specialist
6,250
7,917
9,583
King County
GIS Specialist - Journey
6,802
7,712
8,622
City of Kent
GIS Coord/App Analyst
6,909
7,664
8,418
City of Kirkland
GIS Analyst
6,337
6,896
7,455
Pierce County
GIS Specialist
6,032
6,851
7,670
City of Auburn
Senior GIS Specialist
6,064
6,759
7,454
City of Renton
GIS Analyst 1
6,091
6,757
7,423
Federal Way
GIS Analyst
5,909
1 6,696
7,483
City of Puyallup
GIS Coordinator
5,730
6,532
7,334
City of Lakewood
GIS Analyst
5,770
6,402
7,034
City of Burien
GIS Analyst 1
5,659
6,269
6,878
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,078 6,805 7,455
-2.8% -1.6% 0.4%
Information Technology Director
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Dir-IT Infrastructure & Ops
10,833
13,750
16,667
City of Kent
Director IT
10,561
13,468
16,375
Federal Way
Information Technology Director
12,956
12,956
12,956
City of Kirkland
Chief Information Officer
11,306
12,947
14,587
City of Auburn
Dir of Innovation & Tech
10,871
12,118
13,364
King County
IT Services Delivery Manager
10,674
12,102
13,530
Pierce County
Asst Director of IT
10,215
12,002
13,788
City of Renton
IT Director
9,422
10,449
11,476
City of Lakewood
Chief Information Officer
8,925
10,122
11,319
City of Burien
IS Manager
8,610
9,538
10,466
City of Puyallup
IT Manager
7,899
9,005
10,110
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
10,388 12,052 13,447
24.7% 7.5% -3.7%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
13
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Information Technology
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
IT Architect
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Solutions Engineer
7,500
9,583
11,667
City of Kirkland
Senior Applications Analyst
8,682
9,448
10,215
City of Kent
Business Systems Analyst
7,930
8,846
9,762
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Applications Specialist
7,114
8,181
9,249
Federal Way
IT Specialist - Web/App/Security
7,025
7,961
8,896
King County
IT Systems Specialist Senior
6,965
7,896
8,828
City of Renton
Sr Business Systems Analyst
7,064
7,835
8,606
Pierce County
IT Analyst 2
6,398
7,832
9,266
City of Burien
IS Analyst
6,727
7,451
8,176
City of Auburn
Syst/Network/Bus App Analyst
6,586
7,341
8,096
City of Puyallup
Project Manager
6,325
7,211
8,096
City of Lakewood
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,014 7,866 9,038
0.2% 1.2% -1.6%
IT Technician II - Customer Support
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Desktop Supp. Spec. - Jour/Sr.
5,495
6,668
7,842
City of Auburn
I&T Support Specialist
5,526
6,160
6,793
City of Kent
Tech Support Specialist II
5,540
6,138
6,736
City of Kirkland
Service Desk Analyst
5,498
5,983
6,469
City of Burien
IS Helpdesk Technician
5,255
5,821
6,387
City of Renton
Service Desk Tech/Sr.
4,842
5,783
6,723
City of Lakewood
IT Specialist
5,125
5,686
6,247
Federal Way
IT Technician 11 - Customer Support
4,973
5,636
6,298
Sound Transit
Service Desk 1/11
3,333
5,625
7,917
City of Puyallup
IT Help Desk Coordinator
4,589
5,232
5,874
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,255 5,821 6,723
-5.4% -3.2% -6.3%
IT/Telecom Supervisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
IT Manager
9,415
11,066
12,718
City of Kent
Technical Services Manager
9,526
10,558
11,590
City of Kirkland
IT Manager
8,972
10,274
11,576
King County
IT Supervisor 1
9,041
10,251
11,461
Sound Transit
IT Service Desk Manager
7,500
10,000
12,500
City of Renton
Client Tech Svcs/Support Super
7,607
8,433
9,259
City of Auburn
Customer Support Manager
7,353
8,196
9,039
Federal Way
IT/Telecom Supervisor
6,6871
7,578
8,468
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
8,972 10,251 11,576
-25.5% -26.1% -26.8%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
14
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Law
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Assistant City Attorney
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Assistant City Attorney
7,870
9,734
11,598
City of Renton
Assistant City Attorney
8,747
9,702
10,656
Pierce County
County Attorney 3
8,179
9,467
10,755
Federal Way
Assistant City Attorney
8,353
9,466
10,579
City of Kent
Attorney
6,688
8,599
10,510
City of Puyallup
Assistant City Attorney
7,156
8,158
9,159
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,870 9,467 10,656
6.1% 0.0% -0.7%
Chief City Prosecutor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
Supervising Sr. Deputy
9,413
11,008
12,603
City of Renton
Chief Prosecuting Atty
9,422
10,449
11,476
City of Kent
Chief Prosecuting Atty
8,457
10,251
12,044
City of Auburn
Chief City Prosecutor
8,222
1 9,165
10,107
Federal Way
Chief City Prosecutor
7,382
8,366
9,349
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
8,935 10,350 11,760
-17.4% -19.2% -20.5%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
15
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Law
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
City Prosecutor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Prosecuting Atty
6,688
8,599
10,510
City of Renton
Prosecuting Atty
7,538
8,366
9,194
Pierce County
County Prosecuting Atty 1-3
5,602
8,070
10,537
King County
Dep Pros I-V
5,812
8,005
10,199
City of Auburn
City Prosecutor
7,070
7,881
8,691
Federal Way
City Prosecutor
6,852
7,765
8,678
City of Puyallup
Assoc City Atty
6,812
7,765
8,718
Sound Transit
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,750 8,037 9,696
1.5% -3.4% -10.5%
Deputy City Attorney
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Senior Legal Counsel
11,667
15,000
18,333
Pierce County
Chief Deputy Attorney
9,859
11,530
13,201
City of Kent
Deputy City Attorney
9,423
11,425
13,427
City of Puyallup
Deputy City Attorney
9,388
10,703
12,018
Federal Way
Deputy City Attorney
8,992
10,191
11,389
City of Kirkland
Assistant City Attorney
8,790
10,067
11,343
City of Lakewood
Assistant City Attorney
8,004
9,077
10,150
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Renton
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
9,406 11,064 12,610
-4.4% -7.9% -9.7%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
16
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Law
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Director/City Attorney
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Renton
City Attorney
12,360
13,710
15,059
City of Kent
City Attorney
10,561
13,468
16,375
City of Auburn
City Attorney
12,054
13,436
14,817
City of Kirkland
City Attorney
11,619
13,306
14,992
Pierce County
Senior Counsel
11,311
13,290
15,269
City of Puyallup
City Attorney
11,438
13,040
14,642
City of Burien
City Attorney
11,580
12,828
14,076
Federal Way
Director/City Attorney
13,345
13,345
13,345
City of Lakewood
City Attorney
10,560
11,978
13,396
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
11,509 13,298 14,905
16.0% 0.4% -10.5%
Domestic Violence Legal Advocate
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Domestic Violence Paralegal
5,473
6,102
6,731
King County
Victim Advocate
5,117
5,801
6,486
City of Renton
DV Victim Advocate
4,661
5,587
6,513
City of Puyallup
DV Victim Advocate
4,703
5,362
6,020
Federal Way
Domestic Violence Legal Advocate
4,619
5,234
5,849
Pierce County
Victim Services Specialist
4,611
5,185
5,760
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,703 5,587 6,486
-1.8% -6.3% -9.8%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
17
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Law
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Lead Paralegal
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Legal Administrator
5,833
7,083
8,333
City of Auburn
Paralegal
5,473
6,102
6,731
Pierce County
Legal Assistant 4
5,353
6,061
6,769
City of Renton
City Atty Admin Assistant
5,451
6,041
6,631
City of Burien
Department Asst - Paralegal
5,386
5,966
6,547
King County
Paralegal
5,240
5,941
6,642
City of Puyallup
Paralegal
51191
5,919
6,646
Federal Way
Lead Paralegal
5,098
5,778
6,457
City of Lakewood
Paralegal
5,125
5,686
6,247
City of Kent
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,369 6,004 6,644
-5.1% -3.8% -2.8%
Legal Assistant - Civil
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Legal Secretary
5,000
6,250
7,500
City of Kirkland
Legal Assistant
4,934
5,650
6,366
City of Auburn
Legal Assistant
4,955
5,523
6,091
King County
Legal Admin Specialist III
4,654
5,276
5,899
City of Renton
Legal Assistant
4,644
5,152
5,659
Federal Way
Legal Assistant - Civil
4,182
4,740
5,297
Pierce County
Legal Assistant 2
4,124
4,631
5,139
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,794 5,400 5,995
-12.8% -12.2% -11.6%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
18
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Law
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Legal Assistant - Criminal
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Legal Assistant
4,955
5,523
6,091
King County
Legal Admin Specialist III
4,654
5,276
5,899
City of Kent
Legal Secretary
4,553
5,048
5,542
Federal Way
Legal Assistant - Criminal
4,182
4,740
5,297
Pierce County
Legal Asst 2 - Prosecuting Atty
4,124
4,631
5,139
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
City of Renton
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,604 5,162 5,720
-9.2% -8.2% -7.4%
Paralegal - Civil
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Paralegal
5,000
6,250
7,500
City of Renton
Paralegal
5,531
6,135
6,739
City of Kent
Civil Paralegal
51269
5,841
6,413
Pierce County
Paralegal 2
4,812
5,411
6,011
Federal Way
Paralegal - Civil
4,619
5,234
5,849
City of Puyallup
Legal Assistant - Civil
4,589
5,232
5,874
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,000 5,841 6,413
-7.6% -10.4% -8.8%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
19
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Mayor's Office
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
City Clerk
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Director of Board Administration
10,000
12,917
15,833
King County
Clerk of the Council
10,592
12,418
14,245
City of Renton
City Clerk/PRO
9,422
10,449
11,476
Federal Way
City Clerk
7,754
8,787
9,820
City of Kent
City Clerk
7,830
8,678
9,526
City of Kirkland
City Clerk
7,438
8,518
9,598
City of Auburn
City Clerk
7,640
8,516
9,391
City of Burien
City Clerk
7,610
8,430
9,251
Pierce County
Clerk to the Council
7,259
81349
9,440
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Legal Assistant/Board Clerk
6,994
8,086
9,178
City of Lakewood
City Clerk
7,035
7,981
8,927
City of Puyallup
City Clerk
6,981
7,958
8,935
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,610 8,516 9,440
1.9% 3.2% 4.0%
Communications Coordinator
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Communications Manager
8,622
9,775
10,929
City of Kent
Communications Manager
8,418
9,335
10,252
City of Kirkland
Communications Program Manager
7,561
8,658
9,756
Pierce County
Communications Manager
7,272
8,539
9,807
City of Auburn
Communications Manager
7,070
7,881
8,691
City of Renton
Communications Manager
7,005
7,768
8,530
City of Burien
Communications Officer
6,895
7,638
8,381
City of Puyallup
Public Affairs Officer
6,325
7,211
8,096
Sound Transit
Sr. Communications Specialist
5,417
71083
8,750
City of Lakewood
Communications Manager
5,659
6,419
7,178
Federal Way
Communications Coordinator
5,624
6,373
7,122
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,038 7,824 8,721
-20.1% -18.5% -18.3%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
20
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Mayor's Office
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Deputy City Clerk
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Deputy Clerk - Council
7,875
9,233
10,591
City of Renton
Deputy City Clerk
6,671
7,397
8,122
City of Kirkland
Deputy City Clerk
6,210
6,758
7,305
Pierce County
Council Deputy Clerk
5,590
6,289
6,987
Federal Way
Deputy City Clerk
5,433
6,157
6,880
City of Kent
Deputy City Clerk
5,542
6,140
6,737
City of Auburn
Deputy City Clerk
5,473
6,102
6,731
City of Burien
Deputy City Clerk
5,386
5,966
6,547
City of Puyallup
Deputy City Clerk
5,191
5,919
6,646
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,566 6,214 6,862
-2.4% -0.9% 0.3%
Economic Development Director
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Federal Way
Economic Development Director
12,756
12,756
12,756
Pierce County
Director of Economic Development
9,239
10,852
12,465
City of Kirkland
Economic Development Manager
9,425
10,793
12,161
City of Burien
Economic Development Manager
9,504
10,528
11,553
City of Renton
Economic Development Director
9,422
10,449
11,476
City of Auburn
Economic Development Manager
8,222
9,165
10,107
City of Puyallup
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
9,422 10,528 11,553
35.4% 21.2% 10.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
21
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Mayor's Office
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Emergency Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Renton
Emergency Mgmt Director
9,422
10,449
11,476
Sound Transit
Mgr - Emergency Mgmt
7,500
10,000
12,500
City of Kirkland
Emergency Manager
8,498
9,731
10,964
King County
Emergency Mgmt Program Sr Mgr
8,421
9,547
10,674
Federal Way
Emergency Manager
7,754
8,787
9,820
Pierce County
Emergency Mgmt Program Mgr
6,791
7,744
8,697
City of Auburn
Emergency Manager
6,586
7,341
8,096
City of Puyallup
Emergency Mgmt Manager
6,170
7,035
7,899
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,500 9,547 10,674
3.4% -8.0% -8.0%
Executive Assistant to the City Council
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
Council Administrative 3
6,152
6,919
7,687
King County
Admin Office Coord - Council
5,895
6,912
7,928
City of Renton
City Council Liaison
5,895
6,538
7,180
City of Kirkland
Admin Asst - CMO
5,337
5,808
6,278
Federal Way
Executive Assistant to the City Council
4,998
5,665
6,331
City of Auburn
Council Administrative Assistant
4,955
5,523
6,091
Sound Transit
Board Coordinator
3,333
4,583
5,833
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,616 6,173 6,729
-11.0% -8.2% -5.9%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
22
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Mayor's Office
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Policy Advisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Legislative Analyst 1
7,498
8,791
10,085
Pierce County
Council Legislative Analyst
7,462
8,581
9,701
City of Kent
Exec Asst/Management Analyst
6,102
6,778
7,453
Sound Transit
Govt and Comm Relations Analyst
5,000
6,250
7,500
City of Lakewood
Asst to the City Manager
5,334
6,049
6,763
Federal Way
Policy Advisor
5,098
5,778
6,457
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
City of Renton
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN 6,102 6,778 7,500
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN -16.5% -14.8% -13.9%
Cabot Dow Associates
23
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Municipal Court
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Court Administrator
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Court Administrator
10,561
13,468
16,375
Pierce County
District Court Admin
9,719
11,422
13,126
King County
Division Director
9,292
10,480
11,667
City of Renton
Court Services Dir
9,422
10,449
11,476
Federal Way
Court Administrator
9,727
9,727
9,727
City of Kirkland
Court Administrator
8,236
9,432
10,628
City of Lakewood
Court Administrator
7,394
8,386
9,377
City of Puyallup
Court Administrator
6,981
7,958
8,935
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
9,292 10,449 11,476
4.7% -6.9% -15.2%
Court Services Supervisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
DC Mgr of Operations
7,752
9,110
10,469
City of Kent
Court Supervisor
6,909
7,664
8,418
City of Renton
Court Services Supervisor
6,348
7,040
7,732
King County
Court Manager
6,342
6,867
8,072
City of Kirkland
Judicial Sup Supervisor
5,962
6,828
7,693
Federal Way
Court Services Supervisor
5,909
6,696
7,483
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,348 7,040 8,072
-6.9% -4.9% -7.3%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
24
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Municipal Court
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Judicial Specialist
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Judicial Specialist
4,779
5,301
5,822
City of Renton
Judicial Specialist 1/11
4,420
5,088
5,755
King County
District Court Clerk
4,221
4,789
5,358
Pierce County
Legal Proc Asst 2
4,054
4,742
5,429
City of Kirkland
Judicial Suppt Assoc 1/II
3,902
4,529
5,157
City of Puyallup
Court Clerk
3,897
4,481
5,065
Federal Way
Judicial Specialist
3,943
4,468
4,992
City of Lakewood
Court Clerk
3,886
4,312
4,737
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,054 4,742 5,358
-2.7% -5.8% -6.8%
Probation Clerk
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Probation Clerk
4,779
5,301
5,822
City of Renton
Probation Clerk
4,644
5,152
5,659
City of Kirkland
Probation Assistant
4,449
4,842
5,235
King County
District Court Clerk
4,221
4,789
5,358
City of Puyallup
Probation Assistant
3,571
4,105
4,639
Federal Way
Probation Clerk
3,186
3,611
4,036
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,449 4,842 5,358
-28.4% -25.4% -24.7%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
25
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Municipal Court
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Probation Officer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Probation Officer
6,191
7,036
7,880
City of Kent
Probation Officer
5,822
6,451
7,080
City of Kirkland
Probation Officer
5,789
6,300
6,810
City of Renton
Probation Officer
5,659
6,275
6,890
Pierce County
Adult Probation Offcr 1-2
4,940
6,001
7,062
Federal Way
Probation Officer
5,224
5,920
6,616
City of Lakewood
Court Compliance Officer
4,926
5,466
6,005
City of Puyallup
Probation Officer
4,727
5,436
6,145
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,659 6,275 6,890
-7.7% -5.6% -4.0%
Probation Supervisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Probation Manager
7,511
8,505
9,499
City of Kent
Probation Supervisor
6,909
7,664
8,418
Pierce County
Adult Probation Sup
6,398
7,288
8,178
Federal Way
Probation Supervisor
6,210
7,037
7,864
City of Kirkland
Probation Supervisor
6,030
6,905
7,781
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
City of Renton
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,653 7,476 8,298
-6.7% -5.9% -5.2%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
26
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Parks
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Custodian - Community Center
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
Custodian 1/2
3,498
4,248
4,997
City of Renton
Custodian
3,722
4,126
4,530
City of Kent
Custodian
3,644
4,040
4,436
City of Auburn
Custodian
3,667
3,996
4,324
King County
Custodian
3,338
3,786
4,233
Federal Way
Custodian - Community Center
3,335
3,780
4,224
City of Puyallup
Custodian II
3,134
3,745
4,356
City of Burien
Custodian
3,287
3,641
3,995
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
3,498 3,996 4,356
-4.7% -5.4% -3.0%
Deputy Director
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Deputy Division Director
11,461
12,994
14,527
City of Kent
Deputy Parks Director
11,045
12,235
13,424
Federal Way
Deputy Director
9,450
10,709
11,967
City of Kirkland
Deputy Director
8,896
10,188
11,479
Pierce County
Deputy Dir Parks & Rec
8,248
9,692
11,137
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
City of Renton
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
9,971 11,211 12,451
-5.2% -4.5% -3.9%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
27
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Parks
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Director
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Division Director - P&R
12,905
14,630
16,356
City of Renton
Community Svcs Admin
12,360
13,710
15,059
City of Kent
Director
10,561
13,468
16,375
City of Auburn
Parks, Art & Rec Director
12,054
13,436
14,817
Federal Way
Director
12,392
12,392
12,392
City of Burien
Parks, Rec & CS Director
11,580
12,828
14,076
City of Kirkland
Parks & CS Director
11,124
12,739
14,354
Pierce County
Director - Parks & Rec
9,719
11,422
13,126
City of Lakewood
Parks, Rec & CS Director
9,756
11,065
12,374
City of Puyallup
Parks & Recreation Dir
9,388
10,703
12,018
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
11,124 12,828 14,354
11.4% -3.4% -13.7%
Facility Maintenance Worker 1
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Facilities Tech/Spec
5,058
6,240
7,422
City of Kirkland
Facilities Tech II
5,340
5,923
6,505
City of Renton
Facilities Tech 1
4,999
5,545
6,091
City of Burien
Park & Facility Maint Worker
4,644
5,145
5,645
City of Lakewood
Mainenance Worker
4,551
5,050
5,548
City of Kent
Maintenance Worker 2
4,558
5,048
5,537
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Field Cps Custodial Maint 11
3,912
4,997
6,082
City of Puyallup
Pks Maint Worker II - Fac
4,685
4,988
5,291
Sound Transit
Facilities Specialist
3,853
4,817
5,781
Federal Way
Facility Maintenance Worker 1
4,218
4,754
5,290
Pierce County
Facilities Maint Tech
3,957
4,618
5,278
City of Auburn
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,601 5,049 5,713
-8.3% -5.8% -7.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
28
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Parks
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Facility/Aquatic Operator
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
Facilities Maint Foreman
6,772
6,772
6,772
Sound Transit
Senior Facilities Specialist
4,853
6,772
7,280
King County
Facilities Tech/Spec
5,058
6,240
7,422
City of Kirkland
Fac Services Tech III
5,474
6,072
6,670
City of Puyallup
Parks & Fac Specialist
5,661
5,857
6,052
City of Renton
Facilities Tech II
5,250
5,826
6,402
City of Auburn
Building Maintenance Tech
5,027
5,821
6,615
City of Kent
Maintenance Worker 3
5,020
5,568
6,116
City of Lakewood
Lead Maintenance Worker
4,926
5,466
6,005
Federal Way
Facility/Aquatic Operator
4,659
5,279
5,899
City of Burien
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,058 5,857 6,615
-7.9% -9.9% -10.8%
Graphics/Marketing Coordinator
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Senior Graphic Designer
5,626
6,379
7,131
City of Auburn
Multimedia Design Tech
5,692
6,345
6,997
City of Kent
Graphics Specialist III
5,396
5,989
6,581
Federal Way
Graphics/Marketing Coordinator
5,098
5,778
6,457
Sound Transit
Graphic Designer
4,167
5,417
6,667
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
City of Renton
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,511 6,167 6,832
-7.5% -6.3% -5.5%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
29
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Parks
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Parks & Facilities Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Fac/Parks Superintendent
8,632
9,571
10,510
King County
Supervisor III
8,223
9,323
10,423
City of Kirkland
Parks Maint & Op Mgr
7,822
8,957
10,093
Sound Transit
Area Manager - Facilities
6,667
8,750
10,833
City of Lakewood
Operations Superintendent
7,693
8,725
9,756
City of Auburn
Parks Maintenance Mgr
7,640
8,516
9,391
City of Renton
Park Maintenance Manager
7,361
8,165
8,968
Federal Way
Parks & Facilities Manager
6,524
7,394
8,263
City of Burien
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,693 8,750 10,093
-15.2% -15.5% -18.1%
Parks & Facilities Supervisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Sound Transit
Supervisor -Facilities Maint.
6,250
7,917
9,583
City of Puyallup
Parks Supervisor
6,483
7,391
8,298
City of Kirkland
Parks Maint Supervisor
6,202
7,103
8,004
City of Burien
Pks & Fac Maint Supervisor
6,402
7,092
7,782
City of Kent
Field Supervisor
6,257
6,945
7,633
King County
Parks Dist Maint Coord
6,186
6,832
7,478
City of Renton
Park Maint Supervisor
6,091
6,757
7,423
Federal Way
Parks & Facilities Supervisor
5,767
6,535
7,303
City of Auburn
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,250 7,092 7,782
-7.7% -7.9% -6.2%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
30
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Parks
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Parks Maintenance Worker 1
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kirkland
Senior Maintenance Person
5,340
5,923
6,505
City of Kent
Maintenance Worker III
5,020
5,568
6,116
City of Auburn
Maintenance Worker II
5,173
5,565
5,957
City of Renton
Parks Maint Worker 111
4,881
5,412
5,942
King County
Parks Specialist II
4,765
5,263
5,762
City of Burien
Park & Facility Maint Worker
4,644
5,145
5,645
City of Puyallup
Parks Maint Worker II
4,685
4,988
5,291
Federal Way
Parks Maintenance Worker 1
4,218
4,754
5,290
City of Lakewood
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,881 5,412 5,942
-13.6% -12.2% -11.0%
Parks Maintenance Worker 2
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kirkland
Parks Leadperson
6,003
6,623
7,244
City of Kent
Maint Worker IV - Lead
5,537
6,138
6,739
Pierce County
Parks Specialist
5,392
6,012
6,632
City of Renton
Lead Parks Maint Worker
5,389
5,974
6,559
City of Auburn
Maintenance Specialist
5,545
5,949
6,352
King County
Parks Specialist - Lead
5,117
5,652
6,186
City of Puyallup
Parks Maint Worker III
5,396
5,608
5,820
City of Lakewood
Lead Maintenance Worker
4,926
5,466
6,005
Federal Way
Parks Maintenance Worker
4,659
5,279
5,899
City of Burien
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,394 5,961 6,456
-13.6% -11.4% -8.6%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
31
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Parks
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Recreation Coordinator
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Rec Programs Coordinator
6,064
6,759
7,454
City of Kirkland
Program Coordinator
6,113
6,653
7,193
City of Kent
Program Coordinator
5,822
6,451
7,080
City of Renton
Rec Program Coordinator
5,659
6,275
6,890
City of Burien
Recreation Coordinator
5,386
5,966
6,547
King County
Recreation Coordinator
5,240
5,941
6,642
City of Puyallup
Recreation Coordinator
5,191
5,919
6,646
Federal Way
Recreation Coordinator
5,098
5,778
6,457
Pierce County
Recreation Coordinator
5,042
5,697
6,351
City of Lakewood
Recreation Coordinator
4,926
5,466
6,005
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,386 5,966 6,646
-5.3% -3.2% -2.8%
Recreation Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Rec Programs Manager
9,041
10,251
11,461
City of Kent
Recreation Superintendent
8,837
9,808
10,779
City of Kirkland
Recreation Manager
7,822
8,957
10,093
City of Renton
Rec & Neighborhoods Mgr
7,538
8,366
9,194
City of Burien
Recreation Manager
7,425
8,225
9,025
City of Auburn
Rec Program Manager
7,070
7,881
8,691
Federal Way
Recreation Manager
6,524
7,394
8,263
City of Puyallup
Recreation Manager
5,874
6,696
7,518
City of Lakewood
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,538 8,366 9,194
-13.5% -11.6% -10.1%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
32
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Police
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Administrative Assistant 1
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Office Assistant
4,158
4,623
5,087
King County
Admin Specialist II
3,942
4,469
4,997
Pierce County
Office Assistant 2
3,916
4,404
4,891
City of Renton
Office Assistant II
3,910
4,335
4,760
City of Lakewood
Office Assistant
3,886
4,312
4,737
City of Puyallup
Office Assistant II
3,658
4,205
4,752
City of Kirkland
Recep/Admin Clerk
3,739
4,067
4,396
Federal Way
Admin Assistant 1
3,741
4,237
4,733
Sound Transit
Recep/Admin Asst
2,917
3,750
4,583
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
3,898 4,323 4,756
-4.0% -2.0% -0.5%
Animal Services Officer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Animal Control Officer
5,053
5,528
6,002
City of Kirkland
Animal Control Officer
4,914
5,350
5,786
City of Renton
Animal Control Officer
4,433
5,260
6,086
Pierce County
Animal Control Officer
4,415
4,970
5,526
City of Lakewood
Animal Control Officer
4,459
4,948
5,436
King County
Animal Control Officer
4,612
4,948
5,847
Federal Way
Animal Services Officer
4,358
4,937
5,515
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,536 5,115 5,816
-3.9% -3.5% -5.2%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
33
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Police
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Civilian Operations Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Support Services Manager
8,219
9,111
10,003
City of Renton
Police Manager
7,732
8,577
9,422
Federal Way
Civilian Operations Manager
7,025
7,961
8,896
City of Auburn
Police Records Manager
7,070
7,881
8,691
City of Kirkland
PSA Supervisor
5,962
6,828
7,693
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
King County
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,401 8,229 9,057
-5.1% -3.3% -1.8%
Commander
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Puyallup
Captain
12,055
12,307
12,558
City of Auburn
Commander
12,110
12,110
12,110
City of Kent
Commander
11,217
11,217
11,217
City of Kirkland
Captain
10,580
11,217
13,651
Federal Way
Commander
9,575
10,851
12,126
City of Renton
Commander
9,422
10,449
11,476
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
King County
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
11,217 11,217 12,110
-14.6% -3.3% 0.1%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
34
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Police
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Crime Analyst/Prevention Specialist
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Police Crime Analyst
5,824
6,452
7,080
City of Kirkland
Crime Analyst
5,779
6,292
6,804
City of Renton
Crime Analyst
4,993
5,852
6,710
City of Lakewood
Crime Analyst
5,224
5,796
6,368
Federal Way
Crime Analyst/Prevention Specialist
5,005
5,668
6,331
Pierce County
Crime Research Analyst
4,715
5,294
5,874
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,224 5,852 6,710
-4.2% -3.1% -5.6%
Police Chief
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
Police Chief
15,572
15,572
15,572
Federal Way
Police Chief
14,969
14,969
14,969
City of Renton
Police Chief
12,360
13,710
15,059
City of Kent
Police Chief
10,561
13,468
16,375
City of Kirkland
Chief of Police
11,619
13,306
14,992
City of Puyallup
Police Chief
11,438
13,040
14,642
City of Lakewood
Police Chief
10,560
11,978
13,396
City of Burien
No match
King County
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
11,529 13,387 15,026
29.8% 11.8% -0.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
35
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Police
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Property/Evidence Custodian
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
Property Room Manager
6,791
7,744
8,697
City of Kent
Evidence Tech Supervisor
5,542
6,140
6,737
City of Lakewood
Evidence Supervisor
5,334
6,049
6,763
Federal Way
Property/Evidence Custodian
4,973
5,636
6,298
City of Kirkland
Evidence Tech II
4,631
5,042
5,453
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
City of Renton
No match
King County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,438 6,094 6,750
-8.6% -7.5% -6.7%
Property/Evidence Technician
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Renton
Evidence Technician
4,700
5,579
6,458
City of Kent
Evidence Custodian
4,660
5,166
5,672
City of Puyallup
Evidence/ID Tech
4,524
5,156
5,788
City of Auburn
Evidence/ID Tech
4,559
5,092
5,624
King County
Evidence Specialist
4,439
5,033
5,626
Pierce County
Property Room Officer
4,451
4,919
5,387
City of Kirkland
Evidence Tech 1
4,497
4,896
5,294
Federal Way
Property/Evidence Technician
3,926
4,447
4,967
City of Lakewood
Evidence Custodian
3,886
4,312
4,737
City of Burien
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,511 5,062 5,625
-13.0% -12.2% -11.7%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
36
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Police
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Public Records Coordinator
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kirkland
Police Public Disclosure Analyst
5,150
5,607
6,063
King County
Records Management Specialist
4,879
5,533
6,186
City of Puyallup
Public Records Specialist
4,821
5,496
6,170
Federal Way
Public Records Coordinator
4,696
5,315
5,934
Pierce County
Records Specialist
4,715
5,294
5,874
City of Lakewood
Public Records & Legal Specialist
4,732
5,251
5,769
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Renton
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,821 5,496 6,063
-2.6% -3.3% -2.1%
Records Specialist 1
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Records Specialist
4,553
5,048
5,542
City of Renton
Police Services Specialist
4,088
4,850
5,612
King County
Records Specialist
4,233
4,799
5,365
City of Auburn
Police Services Specialist
4,100
4,633
5,166
City of Kirkland
Police Support Associate
4,224
4,598
4,971
City of Puyallup
Records Specialist
4,034
4,597
5,160
Pierce County
Office Assistant 2
3,836
4,314
4,793
Federal Way
Records Specialist 1
3,741
4,237
4, 733
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
I No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,100 4,633 5,166
-8.8% -8.5% -8.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
37
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Police
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Records Supervisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kirkland
PSA Supervisor
5,962
6,828
7,693
City of Renton
Police Sery Spec Supervisor
6,454
6,615
6,776
City of Kent
Police Specialist Supervisor
5,542
6,140
6,737
King County
Sheriff's Data/Records Supervisor
5,366
6,084
6,802
Pierce County
Legal Assistant 4
5,353
6,061
6,769
City of Auburn
Police Services Supervisor
5,003
5,588
6,173
Federal Way
Records Supervisor
4,619
5,234
5,849
City of Puyallup
Records Clerk Supervisor
4,284
5,111
5,937
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
INo match
MEDIAN 5,366 6,084 6,769
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN -13.9% -14.0% -13.6%
Cabot Dow Associates
38
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Capital Engineer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Engineer 2
7,453
8,262
9,070
City of Kirkland
Project Engineer
7,589
8,258
8,927
City of Auburn
Asst Project Engineer
7,353
8,196
9,039
Pierce County
Civil Engineer 2
7,074
8,014
8,954
City of Puyallup
Civil Engineer -Journey
6,981
7,958
8,935
Sound Transit
Civil Engineer
6,250
7,917
9,583
City of Renton
Civil Engineer II
6,890
7,643
8,396
Federal Way
Capital Engineer
6,687
7,578
8,468
King County
Engineer II
6,642
7,530
8,419
City of Burien
Civil Engineer - Journey
6,727
7,451
8,176
City of Lakewood
Associate Civil Engineer
6,372
7,070
7,767
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,936 7,937 8,931
-3.6% -4.5% -5.2%
Capital Engineering Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Engineering Manager
10,835
12,529
14,224
City of Kent
Design Engineering Mgr
10,252
11,367
12,482
Sound Transit
Manager - Corridor Design
8,750
11,250
13,750
King County
Managing Engineer
9,480
10,748
12,017
City of Kirkland
Capital Projects Manager
9,293
10,641
11,990
City of Auburn
Cap & Const Engineering Mgr
9,435
10,517
11,598
Pierce County
Engineering Manager
9,166
10,429
11,693
Federal Way
Capital Engineering Manager
81559
9,700
10,840
City of Renton
Transportation Design Mgr
8,325
9,235
10,145
City of Lakewood
Cap Projects Division Mgr
7,693
8,725
9,756
City of Burien
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
9,293 10,641 11,990
-7.9% -8.8% -9.6%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
39
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
City Traffic Engineer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Traffic Engineering Manager
10,180
11,541
12,903
City of Kent
Transp Engineering Mgr
10,252
11,367
12,482
Sound Transit
Manager -Civil Engineering
8,750
11,250
13,750
Pierce County
Traffic Engineer
9,166
10,429
11,693
City of Kirkland
Transp Engineering Mgr
8,603
9,853
11,102
Federal Way
City Traffic Engineer
8,559
9,700
10,840
City of Renton
Transportation Ops Mgr
8,325
9,235
10,145
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
8,958 10,840 12,087
-4.5% -10.5% -10.3%
Construction Inspector
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
General Inspector II
6,642
7,530
8,419
City of Kirkland
Construction Inspector
6,753
7,349
7,946
City of Auburn
Construction Inspector
6,064
6,759
7,454
City of Renton
Construction Inspector
6,091
6,757
7,423
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Field Tech II/Inspections
5,229
6,612
7,994
Federal Way
Construction Inspector
5,624
6,373
7,122
City of Kent
Construction Inspector
5,670
6,290
6,909
City of Puyallup
Engineering Contract Spec
5,376
6,182
6,987
City of Burien
Eng Inspector I/II
5,255
6,152
7,050
City of Lakewood
Construction Inspector
5,224
5,796
6,368
Pierce County
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,670 6,612 7,423
-0.8% -3.6% -4.1%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
40
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Development Services Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Construction Eng Mgr
10,252
11,367
12,482
King County
Managing Engineer
9,480
10,748
12,017
City of Kirkland
Dev Engineering Mgr
9,323
10,676
12,029
Pierce County
Engineering Manager
9,166
10,429
11,693
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Dev Engineering Sprvsr
8,089
9,354
10,618
City of Renton
Dev Engineering Mgr
8,325
9,235
10,145
Federal Way
Development Services Mgr
8,148
9,233
10,318
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
9,244 10,553 11,855
-11.9% -12.5% -13.0%
Director
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Renton
Public Works Administrator
12,360
13,710
15,059
City of Kent
Director of Public Works
10,561
13,468
16,375
City of Auburn
Director of Public Works
12,054
13,436
14,817
Federal Way
Director
13,164
13,164
13,164
City of Kirkland
Director of Public Works
11,270
12,906
14,542
City of Burien
Public Works Director
11,580
12,828
14,076
City of Puyallup
Public Works Director
10,362
11,814
13,265
City of Lakewood
No match
King County
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
11,425 13,171 14,680
15.2% -0.1% -10.3%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
41
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Engineering Technician
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Engineering Technician 3
6,736
7,478
8,219
City of Auburn
Engineering Design Tech
6,586
7,341
8,096
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Engineering Technician III
6,146
7,070
7,994
Pierce County
Engineering Technician 3
5,909
6,711
7,514
City of Renton
Engineering Specialist II
5,795
6,430
7,064
Sound Transit
Sr Project Coord - DECM
5,000
6,250
7,500
City of Puyallup
Engineering Technician III
5,376
6,182
6,987
City of Kirkland
Engineering Technician
5,498
5,983
6,469
King County
Engineering Technician II
4,997
5,665
6,334
Federal Way
Engineering Technician
4,973
5,636
6,298
City of Lakewood
Engineering Technician
5,024
5,574
6,124
City of Burien
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,647 6,340 7,282
-11.9% -11.1% -13.5%
Senior Capital Engineer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Project Engineer
8,921
10,313
11,705
Sound Transit
Senior Civil Engineer
7,500
9,583
11,667
City of Auburn
Project Engineer
8,387
9,348
10,309
City of Kirkland
Senior Project Engineer
8,491
9,240
9,989
City of Kent
Engineer 3
8,219
9,111
10,003
Pierce County
Civil Engineer 3
7,968
9,054
10,140
City of Puyallup
Senior Civil Engineer
7,899
9,005
10,110
Federal Way
Senior Capital Engineer
7,567
8,576
9,585
King County
Engineer III
7,479
8,479
9,480
City of Burien
Civil Engineer II
7,610
8,430
9,251
City of Renton
I Civil Engineer III
1 7,423
8,235
9,047
City of Lakewood
I Civil Engineer
1 7,174
7,959
8,744
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,899 9,054 10,003
-4.2% -5.3% -4.2%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
42
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Senior Engineering Plans Examiner
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Eng 111- Dev Permit Review
8,219
9,111
10,003
King County
Engineer III
7,479
8,479
9,480
City of Burien
Civil Eng II - Dev Review
7,610
8,430
9,251
City of Renton
Civil Engineer III
7,423
8,235
9,047
City of Auburn
Dev Review Engineer
7,353
8,196
9,039
Pierce County
Engineer II
7,074
8,014
8,954
City of Kirkland
Development Engineer
7,269
7,910
8,552
Federal Way
Sr Eng Plans Examiner
6,524
7,394
8,263
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,423 8,235 9,047
-12.1% -10.2% -8.7%
Senior Traffic Engineer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Engineer 4
9,297
10,308
11,319
City of Auburn
Senior Traffic Engineer
8,984
10,014
11,044
Sound Transit
Senior Traffic Engineer
7,500
9,583
11,667
Pierce County
Associate Traffic Engineer
8,135
9,242
10,349
Federal Way
Senior Traffic Engineer
7,567
8,576
9,585
King County
Engineer III
7,479
8,479
9,480
City of Renton
Civil Engineer III
7,423
8,235
9,047
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
I No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
I No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,817 9,412 10,696
-3.2% -8.9% -10.4%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
43
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Senior Transportation Planning Engineer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Renton
Transp Planning Mgr
8,325
9,235
10,145
Federal Way
Sr Transp Planning Eng
7,567
8,576
9,585
City of Auburn
Sr Transportation Planner
7,640
8,516
9,391
City of Kent
Sr. Transportation Planner
7,633
8,465
9,297
King County
Transportation Planner III
7,304
8,281
9,258
City of Kirkland
Transportation Planner
7,141
8,281
8,401
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,633 8,465 9,297
-0.9% 1.3% 3.1%
Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Renton
Solid Waste Coordinator
6,834
7,580
8,325
King County
Project/Program Mgr II
6,486
7,355
8,223
City of Auburn
SW & Utility Billing Spvsr
6,586
7,341
8,096
City of Kent
Conservation Coordinator
6,580
7,297
8,013
City of Kirkland
Solid Waste Coordinator
6,649
7,236
7,823
Pierce County
Solid Waste Project Coord
6,032
6,851
7,670
Federal Way
SW & Recycling Coord
5,909
6,696
7,483
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,583 7,319 8,055
-10.2% -8.5% -7.1%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
44
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Street Maintenance Supervisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Burien
Street/SWM Mgr
8,610
9,538
10,466
City of Kirkland
Trans Cps Supervisor
7,186
8,230
9,274
Sound Transit
Supervisor -Facilities Maint.
6,250
7,917
9,583
City of Puyallup
Public Works Supervisor 1/11
6,646
7,682
8,718
King County
Supervisor 1
6,486
7,355
8,223
City of Auburn
Field Supervisor
6,586
7,341
8,096
City of Renton
Maintenance Supervisor
6,402
7,098
7,794
City of Kent
Field Supervisor
6,257
6,945
7,633
Federal Way
Street Maint Supervisor
5,767
6,535
7,303
Pierce County
Ping/PW Field Maint Spr
5,687
6,447
7,207
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,486 7,355 8,223
-11.1% -11.1% -11.2%
Street Maintenance Worker 1
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kirkland
Senior Maintenance Person
5,340
5,923
6,505
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Field Ops Maint Person II
4,519
5,711
6,904
City of Kent
Maintenance Worker III
5,020
5,568
6,116
City of Auburn
Maintenance Worker II
5,173
5,565
5,957
Pierce County
Maintenance Technician
5,373
5,373
5,373
City of Burien
PW Maintenance Worker II
4,644
5,145
5,645
City of Puyallup
PW Maint Worker II
4,685
4,988
5,291
City of Renton
Maint Svcs Worker II
4,420
4,905
5,389
Federal Way
Street MW 1/Landscape
4,218
4,754
5,290
King County
Utility Worker II
4,160
4,613
5,067
City of Lakewood
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
4,685 5,373 5,645
-10.0% -11.5% -6.3%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
45
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
Street Maintenance Worker 2
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
FO Maint Person III-Ld
5,489
6,942
8,395
City of Kirkland
Leadperson
6,003
6,623
7,244
City of Kent
Maint Worker IV - Lead
5,537
6,138
6,739
City of Renton
Lead Maint Services Worker
5,389
5,974
6,559
City of Burien
Maintenance Worker III
5,386
5,966
6,547
City of Auburn
Maintenance Specialist
5,545
5,949
6,352
Pierce County
Maintenance Tech - Lead
5,659
5,659
5,659
City of Puyallup
Street Maint Worker III
5,396
5,608
5,820
City of Lakewood
Lead Maintenance Worker
4,926
5,466
6,005
Federal Way
Street MW 2/Landscape
4,659
5,279
5,899
King County
Utility Worker II - Lead
4,481
4,967
5,453
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,443 5,957 6,449
-14.4% -11.4% -8.5%
Surface Water Manager
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
King County
Engineering Svcs Mgr
10,180
11,541
12,903
City of Kent
Environmental Eng Mgr
10,252
11,367
12,482
Pierce County
Engineering Manager
9,166
10,429
11,693
Sound Transit
Manager - Environmental
7,500
10,000
12,500
Federal Way
Surface Water Manager
8,559
9,700
10,840
City of Kirkland
SW Engineering Supervisor
8,144
9,326
10,508
City of Renton
Utility Eng Mgr - SW
8,325
9,235
10,145
City of Lakewood
Engineering Svcs Div Mgr
7,693
8,725
9,756
City of Auburn
Sewer/Storm Manager
7,640
8,516
9,391
City of Burien
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
8,235 9,663 11,101
3.9% 0.4% -2.3%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
46
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
SWM Engineering Technician
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Engineering Technician III
6,146
7,070
7,994
City of Auburn
Storm Drainage Technician
6,064
6,759
7,454
City of Kent
Engineering Technician 2
5,822
6,451
7,080
City of Renton
Engineering Specialist II
5,795
6,430
7,064
City of Puyallup
Engineering Technician III
5,376
6,182
6,987
King County
Engineering Technician II
4,997
5,665
6,334
Federal Way
SWM Engineering Technician
4,973
5,636
6,298
Pierce County
Engineering Technician 2
4,940
5,581
6,223
City of Lakewood
Engineering Technician 2
5,024
5,574
6,124
City of Burien
No match
City of Kirkland
I No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,586 6,306 7,026
-11.0% -10.6% -10.4%
SWM Inspector
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Auburn
SWM Inspector
6,064
6,759
7,454
City of Kent
Storm/Drain Facilities Insp
5,822
6,451
7,080
Federal Way
SWM Inspector
5,624
6,373
7,122
City of Burien
Engineering Inspector 1-II
5,255
6,152
7,050
City of Lakewood
Compliance Inspector
5,224
5,796
6,368
City of Puyallup
Local Source Control Spec.
4,821
5,496
6,170
City of Kirkland
No match
City of Renton
No match
King County
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
5,255 6,152 7,050
7.0% 3.6% 1.0%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
47
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
SWM Maintenance Supervisor
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kirkland
Storm Water Supervisor
7,052
8,076
9,099
City of Puyallup
Public Works Supervisor 1/11
6,646
7,682
8,718
King County
Supervisor 1
6,486
7,355
8,223
City of Auburn
Storm Field Supervisor
6,586
7,341
8,096
City of Renton
WW Maint Svcs Supervisor
6,417
7,115
7,813
City of Kent
Field Supervisor
6,257
6,945
7,633
Federal Way
SWM Maintenance Supervisor
5,767
6,535
7,303
Pierce County
Plning/PW Field Maint Spr
5,687
6,447
7,207
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
Sound Transit
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,486 7,341 8,096
-11.1% -11.0% -9.8%
SWM Public Education & Outreach Coordinat
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kent
Conservation Coordinator
6,580
7,297
8,013
City of Renton
Neighborhood Prog Coord
6,262
6,944
7,626
City of Kirkland
Comm Educ Info Spec.
6,276
6,831
7,386
King County
Water Quality Planner/PM 1
5,762
6,532
7,303
Sound Transit
Community Outreach Spec.
5,000
6,250
7,500
City of Burien
Comm Env Educ Specialist
5,521
6,116
6,711
Federal Way
SWM Pub Ed & Outrch Coord
5,224
5,920
6,616
City of Auburn
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
Pierce County
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,012 6,682 7,443
-13.1% -11.4% -11.1%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
48
Appendix E - Position Comparisons - Public Works
Sorted by 50% Salary Range - Highest to Lowest
SWM WQ/NPDES Prog Coord
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
City of Kirkland
Water Quality Prog Coord
7,264
7,905
8,546
City of Auburn
Water Quality Prog Coord
7,070
7,881
8,691
King County
Wtr Qlty Planner/Prof Mgr II
6,486
7,355
8,223
City of Kent
Conservation Coordinator
6,580
7,297
8,013
Federal Way
SWM/NPDES Program Coord
6,056
6,864
7,671
Pierce County
Water Quality Specialist 3
5,909
6,711
7,514
Sound Transit
Environ. Project Analyst
5,000
6,250
7,500
City of Burien
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
City of Puyallup
No match
City of Renton
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
6,533 7,326 8,118
-7.3% -6.3% -5.5%
Traffic Operations Engineer
Matching Position
2020 Formal Salary Range
Comparable
Title
Low
50%
High
Pierce County
Civil Engineer 3
7,968
9,054
10,140
City of Puyallup
Traffic Engineer
7,705
8,785
9,864
City of Kirkland
Transportation Engineer
7,814
8,503
9,193
Sound Transit
Sr Transportation Planner
6,250
7,917
9,583
City of Renton
Civil Engineer II
6,890
7,643
8,396
Federal Way
Traffic Operations Engineer
6,687
7,578
8,468
King County
Engineer II
6,642
7,530
8,419
City of Auburn
No match
City of Burien
No match
City of Kent
No match
City of Lakewood
No match
Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
No match
MEDIAN
Federal Way % ABOVE/(BELOW) MEDIAN
7,298 8,210 9,388
-8.4% -7.7% -9.8%
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
49
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Appendix F
Positions Not Benchmarked
Cabot Dow Associates
December 2020
Appendix F — Positions Not Benchmarked
Out of the approximately 120 classifications surveyed, 18 positions (15%) were not analyzed due to an
insufficient number of matching positions within the selected market. Additionally, we chose to
benchmark 5 classifications universally, rather than based on specific position or departmental duties.
These included Maintenance Workers and Administrative Assistants. Our analysis showed that the
market tends to classify specific positions into broader classifications that are used agency -wide.
CDA has recommended that these positions be "slotted in" to the proposed salary schedule in relation to
positions that were successfully benchmarked. Recommended benchmarks are based on current
relationships between City of Federal Way positions, similarity in job duties and characteristics, and
observed market relationships between different types of positions.
Department
Community Development
Human Resources
Law
Mayor
Parks
Position
Electrical Inspector/Plans
Examiner
Graffiti/Sign Abatement
Technician
Permit Technician
Administrative Assistant 1
Paralegal — Criminal
Executive Assistant to the
Mayor
Chef/Kitchen Coordinator
Community Center Services
Coordinator
Community Relations
Liaison/Contract Administrator
Dumas Bay Centre Manager
Lead Lifeguard
Police Accreditation/Volunteer
Coordinator
Crime Analyst/Prevention
Program Coordinator
Quartermaster
Public Works Deputy Director
Fleet Coordinator
Street Maintenance Worker
1/Streets
Street Maintenance Worker
2/Streets
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Notes/Benchmark
Benchmark at 5% above Building
Inspector/Plans Examiner, per
industry standards
Benchmark at 90% of Custodian
Benchmark at 93% of Dev Specialist
Benchmark with all Admin Asst
Benchmark with Civil Paralegal
Benchmark with Executive Assistant to
the City Council
Benchmark with other comparables,
including private sector/industry, or
other Coordinator classification
Benchmark with Recreation
Coordinator classification
Benchmark with Recreation Manager
Benchmark with other comparables,
including private sector/industry
Set minimum step at 33% above
current minimum wage
Benchmark with Crime
Analyst/Prevention Specialist
Benchmark at 5% above Crime
Analyst/Prevention Specialist
Benchmark with Crime
Analyst/Prevention Specialist
Benchmark with other department
Deputy Directors
Benchmark with Engineering
Technician
Classify all PW Maintenance Workers
together
Classify all PW Maintenance Workers
together
1
Appendix F — Positions Not Benchmarked
Department Position
Solid Waste & Recycling Project
Manager
Public Works SWM Maintenance Worker 1
SWM Maintenance Worker 2
SWM Water Quality Specialist
2020 City of Federal Way Classification & Compensation Study
Cabot Dow Associates — December 2020
Notes/Benchmark
Benchmark 10% below Solid Waste &
Recycling Program Coordinator
Classify all PW Maintenance Workers
together
Classify all PW Maintenance Workers
together
Benchmark at 5% below SWM Water
Quality Inspector
2020 City of Federal Way Classification and Compensation Study
Appendix G
Suggested Market -Based Salary Schedule
Cabot Dow Associates
December 2020
Appendix G - Suggested Market -Based Salary Schedule
Position
Current
Range
Current
Minimum
Current
Midpoint
Current High
Market
Minimum
Market
Midpoint
Market High
Proposed
Step A
Proposed
Step B
Proposed
Step C
Proposed
Step D
Proposed
Step E
Proposed
Step F
Community Development
Graffiti Technician
12
3,032
3,436
3,840
no
no
no
3,095
3,234
3,380
3,532
3,691
3,920
Permit Technician
23
3,983
4,514
5,045
no
no
no
4,375
4,572
4,778
4,993
5,218
5,543
Development Specialist
26
4,286
4,858
5,429
4,887
5,469
5,960
4,705
4,916
5,138
5,369
5,611
5,960
Lead Development Specialist
29
4,619
5,234
5,849
5,032
5,598
6,216
5,081
5,310
5,549
5,798
6,059
6,437
Administration & Permit Center Supervisor
32
4,973
5,636
6,298
5,495
6,230
6,965
5,498
5,745
6,004
6,274
6,556
6,965
Code Compliance Officer
36
5,487
6,219
6,950
5,909
6,610
7,253
5,725
5,983
6,252
6,534
6,828
7,253
Inspector/Plans Examiner
39
5,909
6,696
7,483
6,064
6,757
7,455
5,885
6,150
6,426
6,716
7,018
7,455
Associate Planner
35
5,355
6,069
6,782
6,062
6,804
7,567
5,973
6,242
6,523
6,816
7,123
7,567
CDBG/Human Services Coordinator
33
5,098
5,778
6,457
6,064
6,851
7,633
6,025
6,297
6,580
6,876
7,185
7,633
Plans Examiner
42
6,365
7,213
8,061
6,408
7,110
7,768
6,132
6,408
6,697
6,998
7,313
7,768
Electrical Inspector/Plans Examiner
39
5,909
6,696
7,483
no
no
no
6,179
6,457
6,748
7,051
7,369
7,828
Senior Planner
41
6,210
7,037
7,864
6,849
7,812
8,685
6,856
7,164
7,486
7,823
8,175
8,685
Principal Planner
44
6,687
7,578
8,468
7,370
8,515
9,586
7,567
7,907
8,263
8,635
9,024
9,586
Community Services Manager
47
7,201
8,161
9,120
7,538
8,539
9,807
7,741
8,090
8,454
8,834
9,232
9,807
Planning Manager
49
7,567
8,576
9,585
8,222
9,279
10,284
8,118
8,483
8,865
9,264
9,681
10,284
Building Official
52
8,148
9,233
10,318
8,363
9,270
10,340
8,162
8,530
8,913
9,315
9,734
10,340
Director
58c
13,266
13,266
13,266
11,253
13,132
14,457
11,412
11,926
12,463
13,023
13,610
14,457
Finance
Accounting Technician 2
24
4,080
4,625
5,169
4,321
4,797
5,717
4,513
4,716
4,928
5,150
5,381
5,717
Payroll Analyst
31
4,852
5,498
6,144
4,837
5,400
5,995
4,732
4,945
5,168
5,400
5,643
5,995
Financial Analyst
37
5,624
6,373
7,122
6,190
6,899
7,652
6,040
6,312
6,596
6,893
7,203
7,652
Accounting Manager
52
8,148
9,233
10,318
8,286
9,387
10,570
8,344
8,719
9,112
9,522
9,950
10,570
Director
58b
13,344
13,344
13,344
11,378
13,435
14,938
11,412
11,926
12,463
13,023
13,610
14,457
General
Office Technician 2
14
3,186
3,611
4,036
3,722
4,067
4,530
3,576
3,737
3,905
4,081
4,264
4,530
Administrative Assistant 1
18
3,517
3,986
4,454
3,913
4,369
4,826
3,809
3,981
4,160
4,347
4,543
4,826
Administrative Assistant 2
25
4,182
4,740
5,297
4,715
5,273
5,874
4,637
4,846
5,064
5,292
5,530
5,874
Human Resources
HR Analyst
37
5,624
6,373
7,122
6,147
6,899
7,651
6,039
6,311
6,595
6,892
7,202
7,651
HR Manager
54a
10,833
10,833
10,833
10,561
12,577
14,335
11,316
11,825
12,357
12,913
13,495
r 14,335
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix G - Suggested Market -Based Salary Schedule
Position
Current
Range
Current
Minimum
Current
Midpoint
Current High
Market
Minimum
Market
Midpoint
Market High
Proposed
Step A
Proposed
Step B
Proposed
Step C
Proposed
Step D
Proposed
Step E
Proposed
Step F
Information Technology
IT Technician II - Customer Support
32
4,973
5,636
6,298
5,255
5,821
6,723
5,307
5,546
5,795
6,056
6,329
6,723
GIS Analyst
39
5,909
6,696
7,483
6,078
6,805
7,455
5,885
6,149
6,426
6,715
7,017
7,455
IT Architect
46
7,025
7,961
8,896
7,014
7,866
9,038
7,135
7,456
7,791
8,142
8,508
9,038
IT/Telecom Supervisor
44
6,687
7,578
8,468
8,972
10,251
11,576
9,138
9,549
9,979
10,428
10,897
11,576
Information Technology Director
58
12,956
12,956
12,956
10,388
12,052
13,447
10,615
11,093
11,592
12,114
12,659
13,447
Law
Legal Assistant - Criminal
25
4,182
4,740
5,297
4,604
5,162
5,720
4,624
4,832
5,049
5,277
5,514
5,858
Legal Assistant - Civil
25
4,182
4,740
5,297
4,794
5,400
5,995
4,624
4,832
5,049
5,277
5,514
5,858
Paralegal - Civil
29
4,619
5,234
5,849
5,000
5,841
6,413
5,062
5,290
5,528
5,777
6,037
6,413
Paralegal - Criminal
29
4,619
5,234
5,849
no
no
no
5,062
5,290
5,528
5,777
6,037
6,413
Domestic Violence Legal Advocate
29
4,619
5,234
5,849
4,703
5,587
6,486
5,120
5,350
5,591
5,843
6,106
6,486
Lead Paralegal
33
5,098
5,778
6,457
5,369
6,004
6,644
5,245
5,481
5,727
5,985
6,254
6,644
City Prosecutor
45
6,852
7,765
8,678
6,750
8,037
9,696
7,654
7,999
8,359
8,735
9,128
9,696
Assistant City Attorney
53
8,353
9,466
10,579
7,870
9,467
10,656
8,412
8,790
9,186
9,599
10,031
10,656
Chief City Prosecutor
48
7,382
8,366
9,349
8,935
10,350
11,760
9,283
9,701
10,138
10,594
11,070
11,760
Deputy City Attorney
56
8,992
10,191
11,389
9,406
11,064
12,610
9,954
10,402
10,870
11,359
11,870
12,610
Director/City Attorney
58e
13,345
13,345
13,345
11,509
13,298
14,905
11,766
12,295
12,848
13,426
14,031
14,905
Mayor
Executive Assistant to the City Council
31a
4,998
5,665
6,331
5,616
6,173
6,729
5,312
5,551
5,801
6,062
6,334
6,729
Executive Assistant to the Mayor
31a
4,998
5,665
6,331
no
no
no
5,312
5,551
5,801
6,062
6,334
6,729
Deputy City Clerk
36a
5,433
6,157
6,880
5,566
6,214
6,862
5,417
5,661
5,915
6,181
6,460
6,862
Policy Advisor
33
5,098
5,778
6,457
6,102
6,778
7,500
5,920
6,187
6,465
6,756
7,060
7,500
Communications Coordinator
37
5,624
6,373
7,122
7,038
7,824
8,721
6,884
7,194
7,517
7,856
8,209
8,721
City Clerk
50
7,754
8,787
9,820
7,610
8,516
9,440
7,452
7,787
8,137
8,504
8,886
9,440
Emergency Manager
50
7,754
8,787
9,820
7,500
9,547
10,674
8,426
8,805
9,201
9,615
10,048
10,674
Economic Development Director
58i
12,756
12,756
12,756
9,422
10,528
11,553
9,120
9,530
9,959
10,407
10,875
11,553
Municipal Court
Probation Clerk
3,186
3,611
4,036
4,449
4,842
5,358
4,229
4,420
4,619
4,826
5,044
5,358
Judicial Specialist
c21
3,943
4,468
4,992
4,054
4,742
5,358
4,229
4,420
4,619
4,826
5,044
5,358
Probation Officer
34
5,224
5,920
6,616
5,659
6,275
6,890
5,439
5,684
5,939
6,207
6,486
6,890
Court Services Supervisor
39
5,909
6,696
7,483
6,348
7,040
8,072
6,372
6,659
6,958
7,272
7,599
8,072
Probation Supervisor
41
6,210
7,037
7,864
6,653
7,476
8,298
6,550
6,845
7,153
7,475
7,811
8,298
Court Administrator
50a
9,727
9,727
9,727
9,292
10,449
11,476
9,059
9,467
9,893
10,338
1 10,803
11,476
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix G - Suggested Market -Based Salary Schedule
Position
Current
Range
Current
Minimum
Current
Midpoint
Current High
Market
Minimum
Market
Midpoint
Market High
Proposed
Step A
Proposed
Step B
Proposed
Step C
Proposed
Step D
Proposed
Step E
Proposed
Step F
Parks & Recreation
Lead Lifeguard
13
3,109
3,524
3,938
no
no
no
3,112
3,252
3,399
3,552
3,711
3,941
Recreation Coordinator
33
5,098
5,778
6,457
5,386
5,966
6,646
5,246
5,482
5,729
5,987
6,256
6,646
Chef/Kitchen Coordinator
33
5,098
5,778
6,457
no
no
no
5,246
5,482
5,729
5,987
6,256
6,646
Community Center Services Coordinator
33
5,098
5,778
6,457
no
no
no
5,246
5,482
5,729
5,987
6,256
6,646
Graphics/Marketing Coordinator
33
5,098
5,778
6,457
5,511
6,167
6,832
5,393
5,636
5,889
6,154
6,431
6,832
Parks & Facilities Supervisor
38
5,767
6,535
7,303
6,250
7,092
7,782
6,143
6,420
6,708
7,010
7,326
7,782
Parks & Facilities Manager
43
6,524
7,394
8,263
7,693
8,750
10,093
7,613
7,955
8,313
8,687
9,078
9,644
Recreation Manager
43
6,524
7,394
8,263
7,538
8,366
9,194
7,613
7,955
8,313
8,687
9,078
9,644
Community Relations Liaison/Contract Admin
43
6,524
7,394
8,263
no
no
no
7,613
7,955
8,313
8,687
9,078
9,644
Dumas Bay Centre Manager
43
6,524
7,394
8,263
no
no
no
7,613
7,955
8,313
8,687
9,078
9,644
Deputy Director
58
9,450
10,709
11,967
9,971
11,211
12,451
9,829
10,271
10,734
11,217
11,721
12,451
Director
58a
12,392
12,392
12,392
11,253
13,132
14,457
11,412
11,926
12,463
13,023
13,610
14,457
Teamsters
Custodian - Community Center
m14
3,335
3,780
4,224
3,498
3,996
4,356
3,439
3,593
3,755
3,924
4,101
4,356
Facility Maintenance Worker 1
m22
4,218
4,754
5,290
4,601
5,049
5,713
4,552
4,757
4,971
5,195
5,429
5,767
Parks Maintenance Worker 1
m22
4,218
4,754
5,290
4,881
5,412
5,942
4,552
4,757
4,971
5,195
5,429
5,767
Parks Maintenance Worker 2
m26
4,659
5,279
5,899
5,394
5,961
6,456
5,091
5,320
5,560
5,810
6,071
6,449
Facility/Aquatic Operator
m26
4,659
5,279
5,899
5,058
5,857
6,615
5,222
5,457
5,702
5,959
6,227
6,615
Police
Records Supervisor
29
4,619
5,234
5,849
5,366
6,084
6,769
5,343
5,584
5,835
6,097
6,372
6,769
Property/Evidence Custodian
32
4,973
5,636
6,298
5,438
6,094
6,750
5,328
5,568
5,819
6,081
6,354
6,750
Civilian Operations Manager
46
7,025
7,961
8,896
7,401
8,229
9,057
7,149
7,471
7,807
8,158
8,525
9,057
Commander
51c
9,575
10,851
12,126
11,217
11,217
12,110
9,560
9,990
10,439
10,909
11,400
12,110
Police Chief
58d
14,969
14,969
14,969
11,529
13,387
15,026
11,861
12,395
12,953
13,535
14,145
15,026
Police Services Association
Administrative Assistant I
a18
3,741
4,237
4,733
3,898
4,323
4,756
3,754
3,923
4,100
4,284
4,477
4,756
Records Specialist 1
a18
3,741
4,237
4,733
4,100
4,633
5,166
4,078
4,262
4,453
4,654
4,863
5,166
Property/Evidence Technician
a20
3,926
4,447
4,967
4,511
5,062
5,625
4,440
4,640
4,849
5,067
5,295
5,625
Animal Services Officer
a24
4,358
4,937
5,515
4,536
5,115
5,816
4,591
4,798
5,014
5,239
5,475
5,816
Public Records Coordinator
a27
4,696
5,315
5,934
4,821
5,496
6,063
4,786
5,001
5,227
5,462
5,707
6,063
Crime Analyst/Prevention Specialist
a30
5,005
5,668
6,331
5,224
5,852
6,710
5,297
5,535
5,784
6,045
6,317
6,710
Accreditation/Volunteer Coordinator
a30
5,005
5,668
6,331
no
no
no
5,297
5,535
5,784
6,045
6,317
6,710
Quartermaster
a30
5,005
5,668
6,331
no
no
no
5,297
5,535
5,784
6,045
6,317
6,710
Crime Analyst/Prevention Coordinator
a32
5,259
5,953
6,646
no
no
no
5,562
5,812
6,073
6,347
6,632
7,046
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix G - Suggested Market -Based Salary Schedule
Position
Current
Range
Current
Minimum
Current
Midpoint
Current High
Market
Minimum
Market
Midpoint
Market High
Proposed
Step A
Proposed
Step B
Proposed
Step C
Proposed
Step D
Proposed
Step E
Proposed
Step F
Public Works
SWIM Engineering Technician
32
4,973
5,636
6,298
5,586
6,306
7,026
5,546
5,795
6,056
6,329
6,614
7,026
Engineering Technician
32
4,973
5,636
6,298
5,647
6,340
7,282
5,748
6,007
6,277
6,560
6,855
7,282
Fleet Coordinator
32
4,973
5,636
6,298
no
no
no
5,748
6,007
6,277
6,560
6,855
7,282
SWIM Public Education & Outreach Coordinator
34
5,224
5,920
6,616
6,012
6,682
7,443
5,875
6,140
6,416
6,705
7,006
7,443
SWIM Water Quality Specialist
35
5,355
6,069
6,782
no
no
no
5,287
5,525
5,773
6,033
6,305
6,698
Construction Inspector
37
5,624
6,373
7,122
5,670
6,612
7,423
5,860
6,123
6,399
6,687
6,988
7,423
SWIM Inspector
37
5,624
6,373
7,122
5,255
6,152
7,050
5,565
5,816
6,077
6,351
6,637
7,050
Street Maintenance Supervisor
38
5,767
6,535
7,303
6,486
7,355
8,223
6,491
6,783
7,088
7,407
7,741
8,223
SWIM Maintenance Supervisor
38
5,767
6,535
7,303
6,486
7,341
8,096
6,391
6,678
6,979
7,293
7,621
8,096
Solid Waste & Recycling Project Manager
35
5,355
6,069
6,782
no
no
no
5,288
5,526
5,774
6,034
6,306
6,699
Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator
39
5,909
6,696
7,483
6,583
8,465
9,297
6,358
6,644
6,943
7,256
7,582
8,055
SWIM WQ/NPDES Permit Prog Coord
40
6,056
6,864
7,671
6,533
7,326
8,118
6,408
6,697
6,998
7,313
7,642
8,118
Senior Engineering Plans Examiner
43
6,524
7,394
8,263
7,423
8,235
9,047
7,142
7,463
7,799
8,150
8,517
9,047
Capital Engineer
44
6,687
7,578
8,468
6,936
7,937
8,931
7,050
7,367
7,699
8,045
8,407
8,931
Traffic Operations Engineer
44
6,687
7,578
8,468
7,298
8,210
9,388
7,411
7,744
8,093
8,457
8,837
9,388
Senior Capital Engineer
49
7,567
8,576
9,585
7,899
9,054
10,003
7,896
8,252
8,623
9,011
9,416
10,003
Senior Traffic Engineer
49
7,567
8,576
9,585
7,817
8,235
9,047
8,444
8,823
9,221
9,635
10,069
10,696
Senior Transportation Planning Engineer
49
7,567
8,576
9,585
7,633
9,412
10,696
7,339
7,669
8,014
8,375
8,752
9,297
Development Services Manager
52
8,148
9,233
10,318
9,244
10,553
11,855
9,358
9,779
10,219
10,679
11,160
11,855
Capital Engineering Manager
54
8,559
9,700
10,840
9,293
10,641
11,990
9,465
9,891
10,336
10,801
11,287
11,990
City Traffic Engineer
54
8,559
9,700
10,840
8,958
10,840
12,087
9,542
9,971
10,420
10,889
11,379
12,087
Surface Water Manager
54
8,559
9,700
10,840
8,235
9,663
11,101
8,763
9,157
9,569
10,000
10,450
11,101
Deputy Director
58
9,450
10,709
11,967
no
no
no
9,829
10,271
10,734
11,217
11,721
12,451
Director
58h
13,164
13,164
13,164
11,425
13,171
14,680
11,412
11,926
12,463
13,023
13,610
14,457
Teamsters
Street/SWM Maintenance Worker 1
m22
4,218
4,754
5,290
4,685
7,319
8,055
4,552
4,757
4,971
5,195
5,429
5,767
Street Maintenance Worker 1/Streets
m22
4,218
4,754
5,290
no
no
no
4,552
4,757
4,971
5,195
5,429
5,767
SWIM Maintenance Worker 1
m22
4,218
4,754
5,290
no
no
no
4,552
4,757
4,971
5,195
5,429
5,767
Street/SWM Maintenance Worker 2
m26
4,659
5,279
5,899
5,443
5,957
6,449
5,091
5,320
5,560
5,810
6,071
6,449
Street Maintenance Worker 2/Streets
m26
4,659
5,279
5,899
no
no
no
5,091
5,320
5,560
5,810
6,071
6,449
SWIM Maintenance Worker 2
m26
4,659
5,279
5,899
no
no
no
5,091
5,320
5,560
5,810
6,071
6,449
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020
Appendix G - Suggested Market -Based Salary Schedule
Position
Current I Current I Current Current High Market Market Market High Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
Range Minimum Midpoint Minimum Midpoint Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F
Notes
Current salary range title numbers shown for comparative purposes only. Proposed market --based salary ranges do not follow same salary range numbering convention.
Community Development
Graffiti Technician set at 90% of Custodian salary range.
Lead Development Specialist salary range maximum set at 8% above Development Specialist market salary range maximum to prevent salary compression.
Permit Tech salary range maximum set at 93% of Development Specialist salary range maximum.
Electrical Inspector salary range maximum set at 5% above Inspector salary range maximum.
Law
Legal Assistant classification salary range maximum set at average of market salary maximum for both Civil and Criminal Legal Assistant.
Mayor
Executive Assistant to the Mayor benchmarked with Executive Assistant to the City Council.
Parks & Recreation
Maintenance Worker 1 classification salary range based on average of Street, Facility and Parks market salaries.
Park Maintenance Worker 2 benchmarked with Public Works MW 2 classifications.
Parks Manager classification salary ranges based on average of Parks/Facility Manager and Recreation Manager market salaries.
Parks Coordinator classifications set at Recreation Coordinator market salary range.
Lead Lifeguard salary range minimum set at 33%above 2020 State minimum wage of $13.50 per hour.
Public Works
Recycling Project Manager set at 90% of SWM Public Outreach Coordinator.
Cabot Dow Associates
2020 Federal Way Classification Compensation Study - December 2020