HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-23-2004 - Agenda PacketMEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
August 23, 2004 7:00 p.m.
501 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA
A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Blazey, Nunn, Odermat, Phelps, Rudolph, Vall-Spinosa)
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS 7:05 p.m.
1. Mayor
2. Council
3. Staff
D. DISCUSSION
1. Jet Noise Mitigation Update
2. Medina Beach Park Project Update
3. City Manager Performance Review
4. Compensation Study
E. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 P.M.
ITEM D - 1
Jet Noise Mitigation Update
PowerPoint Presentation
b. South Flow:
• 2) Turbojet arrivals from the
Northeast and Southeast arrival
fixes will be positioned so as to
be established on the Runway
16 final approach course, no
closer to the airport than State
Route 520 (11.0 nautical miles
north) and no lower than 5,000
feet MSL.
•sm. _ p.►'� - s' wsy..4.e.was. aR�'^e
° rp�s'iR+tal°'•' ,'�..,� 'cLYe 1°40
q*. NEfP ias rrr+� :wa•_."vi
�
„`ate •4T t
a�� �� • `rtS�f��ssR f',, 'sl'�!.C' � � w ..�.��a�` `'"`. •e♦ ag!�, ♦+.y��.' �-a.
ht
it atc,
♦ .+ rig '®".''t � �+N�r. ^r�`+� 'x -yu,, y.•« i�t •' � m `�=e Ft 1 �f�l ,K s:,�°� � .e
.. • + ( -� ` r . •.e•. .a'�a, qq a• a _, 4a1 i y�♦. '� y� { j + �t i e►i [ " f,.
d °»a, z , <{�E a ,.r!#is�,���' E p-v � �i t} '■� k6t$E a�,?r _�„ i° e..
se411`viyf4
IN
: sue_ R � �Agq
-�°t.3' F ) • �y Irk
.k `t: Sl,i• t t��.1;'� "
al''
ll'Waf�a
;, f
gt t
w st-E1'Isis as
nrsaar°
id�i �
t
,j{1 -I a. `III `'� �'�p ►!-' �� 4{ 1 a
$. ( i � � . �. !P(g��wlA�Yd�' � �����'yy2+..���•"i fI� '.fit f 1 l{l( ##6,,..
�1{i� !
i�, ,g t
,al: IrMM
`
.141 ..
�``�*iiy
`s°e(aRts k��♦R: � I'-��€��t� � ,v'- ��i'`OJ� f �1 : � °..�,�i:.e'` r �..ieA�"•
61`gf 1ii+j{q. p Ezi
l� fti ciI ��yya f �P-
a�r,�`�i4(}y,
M\rl '! \, a !F E/ ► k t i! I x Irr I✓ T
L k t ��' ;E:t R • �i'6c 'a/. + ♦om's"I
IWO
\�F ���`',�� j i t i •< �8 a �., t �: }�- t �R. S Z aa s91°i :,J� r✓ ,tPao �`�+�, y�,'��`*
INX
i .� \ eft , .aHt$ i• �� a�...v
a
r
ew "..�'�`.. �ay_r � DIY• �... 4+'��..IM✓ ty.:. veer.rs. °'°�.�."`� �� ' .�"E,a��lr`�-'��`' `�'egi* ,
iml �'���' s bw ♦ :�� �'"� Wet �., xr lIr T \ 47y°_wi1PN/F� ��� �'+e° 'W.
� k .._..,.+as.'kMOr: Mar�R �. •. - '"' ... � . � .r _" e.- 'rN,r�• v7 �A'�.tl{ 1r._ � "°` `�
' :_'"WAuatd.K. n' S �$L1`d'w o..�. ryry 5s :< -.,erg.•.?"• .°'.�, .vm`'�.
EEC' �F �B■"ir'�p y ^�-....-..a��,. .3�' �f � � `k�Ry!•ri E'A s1x�
$ML Vag f
s
/sd►l a�,p ♦ ?.tesioi+ i i�
r ',�.a 'x R"'a�til" - ►>�=fir E.yaaz ♦ q . $!
�.P �:dl�����. � al:eTJek �� , •s9c3'4Z 'Q }� � 1
s '�'"a.ssr `a apse✓
~nc0"set,*, affRy°t f Szs �e�
iR.rF' !1'i'p`r d`IN
ev 6 - x. ♦: �'+•3f.»i .t B� l
Pori of Searle
�->: (� r ` S y ' ,< �! " Sea-Tac;Jet Operations
q
9/2
t South Flow
MG
IJ
:''
am
IM its
71,
j 7
f t
r
l-
E TAC
A i RPORT
Port of Seaftle
� • t s.. �
Fir a' r`"
..:
.. � ...,"..
March 264 2003
south fidtir arrivals
T.
Ci E E , ,.•^
.:� f•wd�QY mac. ram./ i lF` E �,%
�
k
I
�1d
i
r a ",
rl
ki
.x Y
r.
t
3
Flights by Operation
Arrival
Departure
Fly Over
Training
a. 3
Overshoots
ra
General
call
t •f
I
i
"3
:
u pr
t'
aE.? Port of Sttl:
L{-•b'
r ex
"M
2/3/00
a t: NorthFlax Jets
x
�
jAi i.: IN
#3
¢ !/ � /r � l t f i � a �' , s�� a � � (� E � •� hf : � r:. ao � ? � �y4,
rf• �. �f' t £E {4 h ? his. # #q -
if s
lot,
Flights by Operation
iZ i ��� 1 3$i ' Arrival
t
Departure
Ply Over
W 'Training
Ogershoots
i y 1 is •} €a 1} 1!
� � zw.\ s � � h �.:.. � '` x< •_ � 3s i ''s 3 General
Region
0
Mart.�
Early
Turn Incursions Au
-03 to Ma -04
Area
To: AN-03 Sep-03 t-03
Nov-03GaS-03 J_ @ntQ4
Feb Mar 4 AApr-04 `May-04 Grand Tgtai
Early Turn1
KSEA 13 2 28
SEA 94 163 1,478
5 7 5
179 257 172
15 14 19 13 121
393 261% 634 425 4,066
Early Turn Total
107 166 1,606
184 264 177
408 276 653 438 4,177
* stay-04(1-27)
Page 1 of 1
i
I
ITEM D-2
of M`,
CITY OF MEDINA
Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
' (425) 454-9222 www.ci.medina.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, 2004
TO: City Council; City Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
RE: Update & Design Modification - Medina Beach Park Bulkhead
Rehabilitation and General Improvement Project
1. Purpose — To update the City Council on the Medina Beach Park Bulkhead and
General Improvement Project, and to receive approval on a concept design
modification.
2. Background —
a. During the City Council (CC) Study Session (SS) on September 22,
2003, a project concept proposal for the Medina Beach Park Bulkhead
Rehabilitation and General Improvement Project was made to the CC by the
Director of Public Works (DPW). In preparation for the SS, the DPW provided the
CC with a memo which identified and detailed each of the various problems
associated with the Medina Beach Park bulkhead, docks and swimming area. The
memo then proposed solutions to each of the basic problem areas. The overall
intent of the proposal was to gain CC concurrence on the course of action
proposed by the DPW to address each problem area. During the SS, the CC
voted unanimously to approve the complete course of action for the project as
proposed by the DPW.
b.. In December 2003, the CC passed the City's 2004 budget which
included funding to support the Medina Beach Park Bulkhead Rehabilitation and
General Improvement 2004 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project.
c. During the April 12, 2004 City Council meeting, the DPW provided an
update to the Council on the status of the project. Again, a read -ahead memo was
prepared which explained the status of the project, spelled out all of the approvals
and/or reviews required, provided some additional detail on the project, and
included pictures of the wave energy hitting the bulkhead during a recent relatively
small wind storm.
d. During the June 14, 2004 CC meeting, the Council approved the
proposed 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which included the proposal
ITEM D-2
to continue funding for the Medina Beach Park Bulkhead Rehabilitation and
General Improvement Project (Phase II) in 2005 ($270,000). Phase 1 (2004) was
funded at $250,000.
3. Project Update / Status —
a. DNR Property Issue: As noted in the most recent PW Activity Report, we
have learned that the underwater property immediately offshore from the Medina
Beach Park (the old ferry terminal land) actually belongs to the State of
Washington which is controlled by the State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). In other words, the City does not have second class shoreland rights for
this section of shoreline. We do have second class shoreland rights associated
with the fairly recent acquisition of the adjacent Dustin property. Enclosed at
exhibit A is a copy of a map prepared in 1922 when the State issued second class
shoreland rights to properties to the east of the old Medina Ferry Dock, however,
no rights were granted for the dock area itself. What we are now having to do to
continue the project is apply to DNR for authorization of use of state-owned aquatic
lands. As noted in the PW activity report, we have been given fairly reliable
feedback that this will be granted and not become an issue or project showstopper.
b. Sub -Surface Soils Exploration: As part of the dock designs, subsurface
drilling needed to be conducted to determine the bearing capacity of the soil to
design the dock supporting piles. However, just to do two borings, we had to first
apply for a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit (JARPA) with the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, which resulted in a Hydraulic Project Approval
(HPA). We also had to receive an exemption from the State Environmental Policy
Act and Shorelines Management Act (SEPA) from the City. Both approval
documents were obtained and the soil borings were performed on Tuesday,
August 17th. The location of the borings and a couple pictures of the boring
operation may be found at exhibits B & C.
c. Dock (Pier) Design: Exhibit D shows the existing docks which are failing.
Found at Exhibit E is a plan view which shows the preliminary footprint of the
replacement docks. Note that the "T" shaped dock in front of City Hall. The ramp
out to the end of the "T" is limited in width based on near shore fish habitat issues
(what will be approved by the resource agencies issuing the permits). It will also
have to be extended a little further out into the lake than what is shown to
accommodate docking of the Mercer Island Marine Patrol vessel (Exhibit F). This
vessel has a 4-1/2 to 5 foot draft and the dock must extend out far enough to
accommodate the boat at the lowest lake levels.
4. Design Modification Proposal -
a. Original Bulkhead Design: The original concept presented to the CC to
fix the bulkhead undermining (Exhibit G) and rock collapsing problems was to
place a layered rock filter behind the bulkhead and build up the bulkhead as shown
in Exhibit H. This is the way the bulkhead should have been built back when it was
first placed in 1961.
f 0.
ITEM D-2
b. New Design: After discussing the proposal with all of the regulatory and
resource agencies, the DPW has been convinced that this design is not
necessarily the best option. The new proposal is to simply place fill in front of the
existing bulkhead on an 8:1 slope as shown in Exhibit 1. The concept is that the
wave energy will be dissipated by the gradual sloping shoreline. Additionally, the
fill would have a top layer of "spawning gravel" which essentially would become
additional salmon habitat restoration area, a major positive as we build this model
restoration project. Additionally, based on significant feedback from Beach Park
patrons, the sloping gravel would also provide a better swimming beach for the
Beach Park patrons. The old rock bulkhead would remain to delineate the upland
area from the new beach, but will only be exposed at the surface (it is illegal to add
upland area or advance the upland area, and the old rock bulkhead delineation will
help establish the line between the existing and the new). Further, no layered rock
filter will be required behind the old rock bulkhead to eliminate the undermining
problems and no additional bulkhead rock will have to be brought in to reinforce
the old bulkhead.
e. Will it Work: The DPW was skeptical at first believing that the spawning
gravel fill would only wash away with the wave energy from the Lake. The
resource agencies have convinced the DPW that the concern is unwarranted.
They provided the DPW with pictures of what was done in 1994 at Lincoln Park in
West Seattle (heavy tidal action and wave energy from Puget Sound) where an old
concrete and rock bulkhead used to exist (Exhibit J). The design at Lincoln Park
(Exhibit K) is identical to what is being proposed for the Medina Beach Park.
Exhibits L & M show Lincoln Park during the beach restoration project and as it
looks today. (They have had to replenish the gravel fill only once since 1994 and
only in one small area of the entire beach frontage.) The DPW also realized that
we already have a gradual sloping gravel beach at Medina Beach Park — right next
to the old Dustin Dock (Exhibit N), and it has survived for years storm after storm.
Again, what this modification will do will increase the habitat restoration area from
what was originally planned (Exhibit 0) to almost the entire beach frontage (Exhibit
P).
f. Cost: Initial cost estimates have been made to make this design change.
As previously noted, the estimated cost of the original proposal was $520,000
($250K in 2004 and $270K in 2005). A conservative estimate is that the new
proposal will increase the overall cost of the project by approximately $20,000 or
raise the total project to approximately $540,000 (a 4% increase).
5. Recommendation - The CC approve the proposed concept design change for
the Medina Beach Park Bulkhead and General Improvement Project. [The Park
Board has been briefed on this proposal and supports the proposed changes.]
t
�j•• r w.
A•J
���,
10,0
��`
� •` � r F
,�►�
iV s, a
"h
0
Ib
AV
44
h
,V
w
rZ<
a
J L
D d a
LDW E
z
LL P. Y
.
55 Q
V�
oa
Cf)
a
1
00
Y
w
m
g
J O
w
m
O
� o
!9 N on
i
J
a -1
Z :�
o
w�
� v Q
Y
a
0
O
H
z_
O
a
u
w
c�
w
w
w
w
LL
Z
w
a
U
U)
.
o
w
O
z
P
a
w
0
z
O
Y
O
}
[D
-
o
w
0
>
O
Ir
_
a'
v
°-
w
no
w
U)
4
m
z
O
Q
U
0O
w0
U)
OZ
ixm
a
J
w¢
i- _U
z
_2
IX H
U'
0
z
w 0
U
w
J
t7
Z
W �
LL m
Z
�O
m
DC
y0
a
x
W
R
k
rc N 04aN e
LL 198.72
Dat oot as z W
0
out 001 09
low& *T Rog! AV Hl 1
T
44
►9vos1eozl 'oawO
WGW89 Id
MirC4ososo"K _ ___
129.00
1'N OS► « � R f' ~ --
B L00'09 4--------...MBL'01OD8..
-------------- . .W............
lot ! OLn
bona
LL
4 3'
gr
�r r
40 p
quom"v 1.
Q
x
W
9r t
O
z
W
Z
3w
Q
o
�i �
_
U)
O
(� Z
o�
LJ
o 0
W Q
oO
W
V)
�
cn 0
LJ
d
a-O
d �
frW
CL
m
v
CL W
W {�
z � /
57< WO
/ w
w
a_
0
w
N
O
CL
a.
W
W
LLJ
0
O
�
w
J
U
J
¢-
J U
F�
O N
~ Q
O .-
1<
� / J 0
W X
/ : Q w
xf' �
11),! - z/ /
x / Io
/ W
x
CN
,
I /
i
u
W
n
W
a _7
PI0-Do,iB E
�
�
�
18B T2
�'• �
84"Li
U.
p4
h
n
61
�
oft
cot
as
z
�
WCL
ool 4
001
oY
:°
19 MMOU'a3WO A
9
l00'09 --------------------.------ ---- 00 -----------
_.._.......W............
L
'�,�
,'1 olp
/ / ••
O
CCOV
N
o o
W
Ydd
J
O
Z p
z
5Ro
i
V)
Wm
W3
Y
d
J
W
0
�Q
J
da
o cr``-
F- L)
0
crop
♦
ZME
Y.
Y
0
z
amp
f-
N
z
P
3
W
V)
W
Z
I
z
za
0 CO)
W
a. o � a
o inX �
w W >-
cz
La
_j <
Li d
O
i
W
x
W
o
o
o
N 04
r
''
W
Y
Q
J
o Zo
w
x
0
w
a
a
a
zW
cr
o
Z
U)
W
X
Z
W
J
to
W
0
O
-1
J
Q
H
X
�
fY
►W-
�
w
�-
p
J
w
�
Q
O
uj
Now
z
W
�n o
rn
c
N 04
�--
•
�p �• L �. � ►L+.. y� ?T Nit( n i![� Sad!" t*,^F'f`
J}ie'hl'r
•.{ ra •A: �.� ,�}fi ."1 1 4t. 4"ci#Ji:at.�y �y� �-.fY WJ. ;}�g�t }i` r.at.`raF � t �y{""��`
' ,�.t{r,,}'4 �vi if }a', �S[1!L!ls,f+.t'It;'�izi•;a.,•; } `: x .msr
�iQ � �`+4'' �. ±, � "'f L'+i a' "�� `4 Y � 'T i $ `�,'' fit . ��`# •'tr � {t xs:
i - ' � i•f a �Ii° i Sty i >*k * �� � rli. D � � ,� VIZ.
�4 7
•
Y y� ✓1 t
# ` �ir,� a ��� :�����{��.*{"19• � ~„ ,s'. , e t t : t P � . ,y,•, +i" +' as �d' `T..t
?.. •ra,rai °Yt.. e.f r."i !� },?P ��. i` 1 •i a i'r si 4 Y. T; ,j,1 '� �' # 3 Ni
oi
441
� ;~. a. aiww, r } ti • i �,,.' F et�` � � �a } , . r f �. s'�'lf r r � „� '�'}�' `� 1 � ,x . � t► v4�1"� ;+�a.y ,:,, � . +
vV
� � { �! };.. � r�R !!t � ��i.�'.jr � :: "b •r �7 ~a �}5.�� t � t > em ••+c'r Y '�!%'t �,� *y r)i1 f�, t„� `t v�+
R . a•t � � i.e .�r d �T. i*�ZK7�� e.
` � ••+f•!a' (. . }� a �' P '4r}a���� a�tJ r M{� a �. :1 �����'r "�p���1
t
! a t7'�,yt ! ,•., � j:T �� t t? �R'� t� �'>�'; t k�'.:. 1ST
` }.::h . 1 ,Pt'a4tr t P,��tl,, .,��{ ar 4 .�,. ':'e .tl�n, cl.}• 4° ,at''�.
Y +�1�.' y.�' e , H a 'a + "►lt � S�p� �' - h t ��:.t .i, � . 4#�ti'.} r"!! $ , { �iy W i� 4a€i1*Ca� `,�}'� x� ,. itttf`
144
',r '! d Sii" S j..., t .fit ><• a {. - .''�.7 : .yci' .Y: 9 '�':.. t`�PF ,�� •: �q'p +`�
:f • 7
.a ��.• �'$�{� �. � �r � �+i � lYt � ti�� 4� � '�i�r + s�„ �t f;:}h' ,+��- '�'l '� •'�,}� rt.
C?l: t. 'r`c�'U4�a,t Yr,-. :il. .,�` {411` PF ,r • - �.?. • , �d 1 ,}, '' * ;: '` -S +'i^as":,y%. ` .y' k.
:.,.,-owe
i1, e �tii ! ;r.• t}"' yt rF` a +� 'i� r! Y R �ry`a :v'. r �.d'�, w '1i. ��'
q
iili � 4 :ff���'• r � 4 �''� rr � L� � t '� i ' + { `ifr v#.*� `1 t y KR �r r ;,�� � i,�i #r'
° .. r, 1� :��+ :� �� f!s_S .:Ri ;r,'F►, �}
..�Ihl i/(' ,' . +:. ^' .. '5 y.. .,M,�•• 13� .�r.''.,y,'�. ...\ T�t`,1 ,'}���('k"•F 4 ��i .-.F` "�l�. ti'.. �-. a i'. �. f! I[#fib}�t•�s•�.':. C�`
�" f`�JFy),j �•T4p7�{: da��(s^3 i �F1 �..P' }_N' ,�,� �l 1'i Y � t1.A � _
V•'! •'tt 4• ^ F`i;3-''•n�" • �a Y
f, *� 4' � � � •� f r ��5�•iF� 1 i! a � YF'" W't'" �r 1'� i ai,� + { . i"Y
+�i
M i# i iS). .ta,f r4 �aC;i1�, lnai} " le' � � { w}r� i .i t �$1 • ,r. .. to ,
�AMfixyi
r1i i4+ •� },�. , a* ! s.i r."r L Ft� a r {;}iT. �; r1i-
.!
Ell
+ ��}i. T � t r t� � ,!� 1xY ,� A !4� t�.�F' � ; #!�" i r � • f �, .R
fc� s
i 1 }' � ►i ��+ lr;�'t. ! "4S �,x t r r e 3ti , ; e x Pr 1 -x �4
#i4 . �{Rt �! #.� 1 ��� a �,�' :• a��i €�'46 � {ai }i � z ��i�.! r �,�} Icy
fit i� ,#• :i i i �y jak } � � � 4$" t { ! E v. �i
� a ` 3 X 4 t.^�• ^•M4, _ i 14i �tfj i to '�i ,R l
1 � `�, '} b e }�� s ! r ;i �s !4E w +,�ra� � �ieF.• (P l�X�4 +il �rie T. �� �N .. � "� 4
�!I t 1 +"' � ' •r � 31! t t s'�'� d � k r a' ri al�r,"!!+ � ' � W `- ^+�,}i�
� s�. '}'i i [ �� i a ,? •. r rf '•d i 6 . i} .alE•# r•
3# 4ir 1� _ a si� �s t r a} 4T,. '} a P t b ter. y
a , , d (_tr r t�s' . ` $ t aE i} i ' l� ,� 4
tL��}6yF'�xr-
CL
:`+ '}�,}a3 "t !!F .�}1 �'t t. r , .t]l�ta r�aa� •x .1 '�� �� t {c. � ,4 � i � +C:, }�� i� � a •'� r a �
`�� 3 t.4 �a "tl1�`! .+���'� ; Z� t c `� 3 � .a�` ; { }i=ptS. "` k �4 a�.: � i!`• �`* R
�?%- �! ? t{� S t r e � � • : � Y. �t � .. � �t-:i>i'f .. � z r3 ' r �F �i:. �• ,:. � r� � '
+r , P{s •$ x,? ,. .i _.�" €. ,fit .+...t ai4 Ea'�°.}. _ � !. ... ,
Q
Z
0 (Y'y
ELEVATION ELEVATION as8
(FT MLLW ) (FT MLLW) PC
,I: a �s
>� . e p
o Isi o o , Q W g a�
jj�•11'�� 1�� : 3i iS � it i3 � �8 � ~ - c �
1 N
1 � I 1 1 1 1 ! � >�r �C I 1 Y. • � ii .�
rn
I 1 1 I I
I 1 1 1 yy7F I «Lj
1 I 1 1 1 Q ^ e y
O O it r►� i
N N i_ 't�1' f Y
r, i •-i � w t 1�1 O
"so LOT
--T -Tt .7- M Q Q
L 3ai
tV i ..cn
iN i 1 1O to R i i O N gx
C)
� T i � i Q N i � i Q ~ �8►
i O VI � i O N „ jssl z
►�-+--� -4- to O r--+-- -r In L4.
CL
IL
co co
1 1 1 1 � �••� 1 r I 1 � t•. fy
yr 1� r
�(
NOIIVA313 NOI iVA3'13
pNQyy �p<,1
Co
j0 W
/
-E---Z ,r;�•::
.9 '1.
gg 8
t • y
N O • NL'^ o
oLD _
� c <m 0-3
pie
-8a$gpo
��
M � O O • . O
O
N �N NNr
3
4
•i
�,.
AI
} ,t7MM
WE X4
��. •+`j,� X 1 f " F ;} ;'�,w,� .' ,.: + 'i 1 t t tt� t"R''f Srlt s,.
la X a x�
�'} � ¢� � ,;yr� �:^y�ae as * �•il" -fit MP"� f {��
Pw
`ip
AW
Xs,
Y;
✓F
i dar 1
'' Ir+,�, ate:. '•; r. ��:�
x + . .
i
ice• t.i` , ,'��I III '���Jtet i�ax f
t
I I �
r
gl�to
y 5� µ"{,Kt• :.
a}__ .u+P �K _;�a Y ;` 3F y: La ,rp -T !< r .'st •�
a�41-
�R��
a .,i�
al
LL
4c
CL >
J
n C-
a a
A
LMN
;ZTO� I
get
Its— il
'W4
f-
as
r
as
�ui
ao� �
as
=Z
=0
U) P
J �
Z 0
_ca
W
C�
1
ITEM D - 3
of mAi
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 28, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: City Manager Performance Evaluation Form
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Reach agreement on the purpose(s) of the evaluation.
2) Agree on what the Council expects of the City Manager.
3) Agree on the frequency and timing of the evaluation.
4) Agree on who will be involved.
5) Agree on an evaluation form to be used.
BACKGROUND: The City Council recently directed the City Manager to provide three
examples of performance evaluations, which could be used by the City
Council for the annual city manager performance evaluation. During the
process of researching performance evaluation forms, I found an article
titled, "How Are We Doing?" Evaluating the Performance of the Chief
Administrator, which was published in Public Management magazine in
March 1997. The article was written by Margaret S. Carlson, a faculty
member of the Institute of Government, The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. The information provided in the article is very useful and could
serve as a "lessons learned" review of the 2003 process, which was
recently completed. A copy of the article is attached. A summary of the
article is provided below:
The article is designed to show a governing board how to evaluate a chief
administrative officer who reports to the board. Ms. Carlson points out that
it is vital for managers to get regular, accurate feedback about whether
they are meeting the expectations of the board. She believes this can be
accomplished with planning and a commitment to open lines of
communication, which increase the chances for a new level of cooperation
and understanding between the manager and board. Ultimately leading to
a more effective working relationship.
1
Common Pitfalls
The performance evaluation is often approached with reluctance because
board members will be required to talk openly and honestly about the
positive and negative aspects of a person's performance, which is difficult
for many people. The manager must also be able to receive feedback in a
non -defensive manner. Common problems encountered by boards and
managers include:
• Board evaluates the manager only when there are serious
problems, or when all or some of the board members already have
decided they want to fire the manager.
• It is time to review the manager's annual salary so a performance
evaluation is scheduled without discussing the format or process.
• Discussion during the evaluation is unfocused, with board
members disagreeing about what expectations were to be met as
well as whether the manager met them.
• The manager is excluded from the evaluation discussion by the
board.
• The manager's interactions with and behavior toward the board are
the only focus of the evaluation; not other responsibilities and
interactions.
• An evaluation form from another jurisdiction is used and may not
appropriately address the needs of the board and manager.
Planning the Evaluation
1. Agree on the purpose(s) of the evaluation.
■ To give manager feedback and identify areas needing
improvement
■ Clarify and strengthen the relationship between the manager
and the board
■ Make a decision about the manager's salary/employment
agreement for the upcoming year
2. Agree on what the board expects of the manager.
■ Evaluation can only be useful if an earlier discussion has
taken place in which the board and manager outlined
expectations for the manager's performance
■ Expectations and organizational goals should be aligned
■ One or two specific performance objectives for the manager
related to each organizational goal
• Page 2
■ Frequently represent a mix of general areas of knowledge
and skills that every manager should possess - also take into
account specific expectations based on board's composition,
organization's history, or special circumstances of the city.
3. Agree on the frequency and timing of the evaluation.
■ Board and manager should agree on frequency of
evaluations and adhere to that schedule.
■ May want evaluation cycle and budget cycle to coincide or,
may choose to conduct evaluation before budget process so
full attention to the evaluation isnt impacted by time required
for budget process
■ Avoid scheduling evaluation just before or after an election.
Too soon after election doesn t give new members sufficient
time to gather information and form a judgment, just after an
election results in evaluation by a board whose composition
will change
4. Agree on who will be involved.
■ All members of the board and the manager should
participate.
■ Full board's participation is necessary because all members
have relevant information about the manager's performance.
■ Consider whether there are other parties who have an
important perspective on manager's performance.
■ Not a good idea for board members to go directly to staff and
poll employees on their views of the managers'strengths and
weaknesses because it puts the board in an inappropriate
administrative role and may put staff members in an
uncomfortable position. Instead, manager might conduct an
"upward review session(s)" with staff and include feedback in
self -assessment.
5. Agree on an evaluation form to be used.
■ Once the board has discussed and agreed on expectations
of the manager, agreeing on an evaluation form becomes
much easier.
■ Should simply be a matter of translating expectations into
performance criteria in a clear and measurable format.
■ Numerical systems are less useful in an evaluation of the
manager than it is for an organization -wide evaluation of all
employees. In fact, a potential problem with using a
numerical rating system is that it is easy to focus on the
• Page 3
i
number as the end in itself, rather than simply a shorthand
way to express the evaluation. Thus, a board may discuss at
length whether a manager's performance on a given
dimension is a 3 or a 4, and perhaps conclude that it is a 3.5,
without fully exploring what these numbers represent.
Conducting the Evaluation
1. Have individual board members complete the evaluation form prior
to the evaluation session.
■ Individual assessment before the group discussion increases
the likelihood that each member will foram his or her own
opinion without influence from the judgments or experiences
of other members — although, this does not suggest
members cannot change their minds as a result of the group
discussion.
2. Have the manager do a self -assessment.
■ Comparison of the self -assessment with the assessment of
others provides an opportunity for insight into the manager's
own overestimation or underestimation of performance level
as compared with the expectations of the board.
■ For the board, hearing how the manager rates his or her own
performance (and, more important, how he or she arrived at
that rating) can help members gain insight into whether the
board and manager are communicating effectively.
3. Agree on a setting for the evaluation discussion.
■ Setting should be private and comfortable, free from
interruptions, and considered neutral by all parties.
■ Set aside a time and place to address a single topic, away
from the pressure of a loaded agenda.
4. Have the manager present during the evaluation.
■ A manager present during the discussion can respond to
questions from the board, ask questions, and provide
relevant information.
■ Board's first impulse is to exclude the manager because
some members may be reluctant to share negative feedback
in the manager's presence, members may fear the evaluation
will turn into an analysis of the manager's handling of a single
incident, with the manager defending his or her actions. Still
others may want to shield the manager from what they
perceive to be unduly harsh criticism from a few board
members.
0 Page 4
■ Many of the problems anticipated by the board stem from a
lack of planning rather than from the manager's presence at
the evaluation. A good evaluation form will help ensure that
the discussion focuses on job -related behaviors rather than
personal traits and will look at the previous year's
performance rather than that of the previous week.
■ After discussion of the
er mansg's performance, the board
may wish to excuse the manager while it makes a decision
about the manager's compensation.
5. Consider using a facilitator
■ Performance evaluation is a complex task, particularly when
an entire group is participating in the evaluation. Members
may have different views of the manager's past performance
or different expectations for the future. Board members may
also be reluctant to share negative feedback, or they may be
concerned that their feedback will be misinterpreted.
■ A facilitator can help the group by monitoring the group's
process, while leaving all members free to focus on the task
of the evaluation.
■ With or without a facilitator, the group should consider using a
set of ground rules to help accomplish the work more
effectively.
6. Allow sufficient time.
■ A "round robin" technique is a useful format for the actual
evaluation discussion, but even with a small group that is in
general agreement, this is a time-consuming process.
Therefore, setting aside adequate time important.
■ It may be necessary to divide the evaluation into two
sessions for scheduling and energy levels.
7. Include a portion in which the board evaluates its own
performance.
■ In theory, it is possible for a board to specify expectations for
the manager and then to evaluate the degree to which a
manager has met these expectations. In practice, however,
meeting expectations is usually a two-way street, and it is
helpful for a board to examine its own functioning and how it
contributes to — or hinders — the manager's effectiveness.
8. Decide on the next steps, and critique the process.
■ While the actual evaluation may seem like the last step in the
evaluation process, there are still a number of decisions to be
made for the next evaluation cycle.
• Page 5
■ Separate sessions to make a decision about the manager's
compensation may be desired.
■ Expectations and goals for the coming year as well as a date
in the near future to set expectations and performance
measures for the next evaluation might should be set as a
next step.
■ Before the process is concluded, all members should assess
the process itself. This will help the group look at its own
process and team from its experiences in working together.
■ Identification of components of the process that worked well
and aspects that could have been more effective should also
be discussed while members are still familiar with the
process.
The attached examples are from the International City/County
Management Association website. The rating system for all three formats
uses a "meets," "exceeds," or "fails to meet" scale rather than a numerical
value. The actual evaluation criteria in the attached evaluation forms
should be used as a starting point. Additional criteria can be added and
criteria determined to be unnecessary can be deleted. The ICMA Practices
for Effective Local Government Management are attached. The list may be
helpful in determining the expected level of knowledge and skills.
Attachment A — This performance evaluation form is very simple and only
includes eight evaluation elements. This format would require very little
time to complete and compiling the individual evaluations into a single
"council" evaluation would be quite easy. This format may not be an
effective tool because the performance areas evaluated are extremely
general.
Attachment B — This form is more detailed than Attachment A, but
performance is evaluated in seven general categories. Each of the seven
categories includes specific performance duties/responsibilities that are
rated. A total of twenty-four duties/responsibilities are identified within the
seven categories. This form also provides an opportunity for each member
of the Council to express concurrence or non -concurrence with the
performance evaluation. I am not convinced that the individual expression
of concurrence with the council majority evaluation would necessarily serve
any useful purpose. In fact, it seems counter productive toward
communicating a council position on the work performance. If this form is
used the concurrence section should be removed.
Attachment C — This form is similar to Attachment B, but uses nine
general categories and forty-one specific performance
duties/responsibilities. The Council may wish to use a combination of the
specific duties/responsibilities from Attachment B and Attachment C to
create an evaluation more specific to the city manager position in Medina.
• Page 6
Attachment A
Management Performance and Development Evaluation
For The City Manager
PURPOSE
In order to establish and maintain effective City Council and City Manager relations, it is essential that the
Council establish an ongoing evaluation process that offers an opportunity for each party to review the
performance of the Manager. This evaluation should focus on how effectively the Manager is
accomplishing the goals established by the Council and how she/he is carrying out her/his responsibilities
in key performance areas.
Specifically, the evaluation should serve the following needs:
1. Allow the City Manager and the Council to test, identify and refine their respective roles,
relationships and expectations of responsibilities to each other.
2. Allow discussion of the City Manager's strengths and weaknesses as demonstrated by past
performance with the objective of increasing the Manager's effectiveness; that is, give the Council
the opportunity to provide positive feedback in areas that have been handled well and to clarify
areas where the Manager could become more effective through improved performance.
PROCESS
1. One month before the evaluation is scheduled, the City Manager completes the City Manager's
Self -Evaluation Form.
2. Two weeks before the evaluation is scheduled, the Mayor will provide each Council Member with
a copy of the evaluation form and the completed City Manager Self -Evaluation Form.
3. Each Council Member and the Mayor completes an evaluation form, signs it, and returns one
copy to the Mayor.
4. The Mayor tabulates the results of the evaluation forms.
5. The composite evaluation of the Mayor and City Council, along with the City Manager's Self -
Evaluation Form, are distributed by the Mayor to the Council prior to the executive session
evaluation meeting.
6. The Mayor and Council meet with the City Manager in executive session to jointly review the
evaluation.
7. The operating ground rules shall be established by the Mayor and Council for the executive
session including, but not limited to, such considerations as location, time or time considerations
for any particular subject matter.
8. The evaluation process shall occur in September of each year, except that the Council may
require an additional evaluation at any time during the year.
9. Following the evaluation, the City Manager shall present to the Mayor any request regarding
changes to the Employment Agreement including salary adjustments.
10. In executive session, the Mayor shall present to the City Council the City Manager's Employment
Agreement adjustment requests. At the executive session, the Mayor shall also solicit additional
adjustment suggestions from the Council. At any point during the executive session, the Council
may choose to excuse the City Manager from deliberations regarding these items. Following
consensus of a majority on any adjustments, the Council shall inform the Manager of its pending
decision in executive session and then reconvene in open session to ratify the changes.
Attachment A
INSTRUCTIONS
Attached is the evaluation form for the City Manager. It encompasses three primary areas: (1) evaluation
of key performance areas; (2) goal accomplishments as well as establishing future goals; and (3) general
strengths and areas for improvement.
The rating system for key performance areas has been established for an "exceeds standards," "meets
standards," or "fails to meet standards" determination by the evaluator.
A space has been provided for each performance area to include your comments. Each person preparing
the form is encouraged to select specific examples of why a particular rating has been chosen. The
comments included should give the City Manager enough information to correct problem areas and allow
her/him to place specific items on her/his work plan for the following year.
Upon completion of the form, please return it to the Mayor for tabulation.
CITY MANAGER SELF -EVALUATION FORM
The response to the questions on this form should be completed and provided to the City Council two
weeks before their evaluations of the Manager are due. Additional pages may be added as needed. Your
comments on these self -evaluation questions will be attached to the performance evaluation.
1. What progress have you made in accomplishing your goals and/or work assignments since your
last evaluation?
2. What other job -related accomplishments have you had that were not part of the goals set at your
last evaluation?
3. What obstacles or setbacks did you encounter during the year?
4. What do you see as your major goals for this next evaluation period?
5. What can the Council do to help you accomplish these goals?
6. What suggestions do you have for improving the effectiveness between you and the Council?
7. Do you have specific training needs, which the Council can facilitate, and how will these needs
help you in meeting your goals?
8. Are there any other issues or comments you wish to share?
City Manager's Signature DATE:
Attachment A
CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM
(If additional pages are needed for comments, please attach them.)
1. Communication with Council, including effective written and oral presentation and openness to
Mayor and Council feedback or direction.
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Fails to Meet Standards
2. Implementation of Council policy and assists Council in the development of annual and long-
range goals.
Pvr•ccric Cfnnr nrric
Meets Standards
Fails to Meet Standards
3. Staff support for Council; anticipates and provides reports and recommendations as required by
the Council.
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Fails to Meet Standards
4. Staff relations; demonstrates leadership and promotes professional staff performance.
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Fails to Meet Standards
5. Financial planning and administration; prepares and administers annual budget, which maintains
a multiyear vision.
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Fails to Meet Standards
6. Personal and professional development; strives to maintain current knowledge and skill levels.
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Fails to Meet Standards
7. Effective delivery of City services and community relations.
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Fails to Meet Standards
8. Intergovernmental relationships at the state and local levels.
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Fails to Meet Standards
9. Overall evaluation of City Manager's performance.
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Attachment A
10. Accomplishments: Has the City Manager accomplished or worked toward accomplishing the
11. Strengths: Based upon your overall evaluation of the City Manager, what areas would you list as
her/his strong points as a manager?
12. Improvements suggested: Based upon your evaluation, what areas would you suggest the City
Manager work on to improve her/his skills and to be more effective in specific areas or situations?
13. Goals for next year: What are the major goals on which the City Manager needs to focus in the
coming year?
Evaluator's Signature Date
Attachment B
Performance Evaluation
City Manager
PURPOSE
The purpose of the employee performance evaluation and development report is to increase
communication between the city council and the city manager concerning the performance of the
city manager in the accomplishment of his/her assigned duties and responsibilities, and the
establishment of specific work -related goals and objectives.
PROCESS
The city council shall conduct an annual review and evaluation of the city manager's work
performance. The results of such evaluation shall commend areas of good performance and point
out areas for improvement. It shall also be the basis for contract extension and compensation
decisions.
1. One month before the evaluation is scheduled, the City Manager prepares a
memorandum to the council including his/her self -evaluation in a narrative format.
2. Two weeks before the evaluation is scheduled, the Mayor will provide each Council
Member with a copy of the evaluation form and the completed City Manager Self -
Evaluation memorandum.
3. Each Council Member and the Mayor completes an evaluation form, signs it, and returns
one copy to the Mayor.
4. The Mayor tabulates the results of the evaluation forms.
5. The composite evaluation of the Mayor and City Council, along with the City Manager's
Self- Evaluation memorandum, are distributed by the Mayor to the Council prior to the
executive session evaluation meeting.
6. The Mayor and Council meet with the City Manager in executive session to jointly review
the evaluation.
7. The operating ground rules shall be established by the Mayor and Council for the
executive session including, but not limited to, such considerations as location, time or
time considerations for any particular subject matter.
8. The evaluation process shall occur in September of each year, except that the Council
may require an additional evaluation at any time during the year.
9. Following the evaluation, the City Manager shall present to the Mayor any request
regarding changes to the Employment Agreement including salary adjustments.
10. In executive session, the Mayor shall present to the City Council the City Manager's
Employment Agreement adjustment requests. At the executive session, the Mayor shall
also solicit additional adjustment suggestions from the Council. At any point during the
executive session, the Council may choose to excuse the City Manager from
deliberations regarding these items. Following consensus of a majority on any
adjustments, the Council shall inform the Manager of its pending decision in executive
session and then reconvene in open session to ratify the changes.
INSTRUCTIONS
Review the city manager's work performance for the entire period; try to refrain from basing
judgment on recent events or isolated incidents only. Disregard your general impression of the
city manager and concentrate on one factor at a time.
Evaluate the city manager on the basis of standards you expect to be met for the job to which
assigned considering the length of time in the job. Check the rating which most accurately reflects
the level of performance for the factor appraised.
Attachment B
City Manager
Performance Evaluation
I o=QC:nannelur•_I= FVAI IIATIC)N ONn Ar.HIFVFMFNT-R
Date:
1. City Council Relationships
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Effectively implements policies and programs
approved by the city council.
Reporting to the city council is timely, clear,
concise and thorough.
Accepts direction/instructions in a positive manner.
Effectively aids the city council in establishing long
range goals.
Keeps the city council informed of current plans
and activities of administration and new
developments in technology, legislation,
governmental practices and regulations, etc.
Provides the city council with clear reports of
anticipated issues that could come before the city
council
Comments:
2. Public Relations
Fails to Meet
Standard
Meets
Standard
Exceeds
Standard
Projects a positive public image.
Is courteous to the public at all times.
Maintains effective relations with media
representatives.
Comments:
3. Effective Leadership of Staff
Fails to Meet
Standard
Meets
Standard
Exceeds
Standard
Delegates appropriate responsibilities.
Comments:
4. Fiscal Management
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Prepares realistic annual budget.
Controls expenditures in accordance with approved
budget.
Keeps city council informed about revenues and
expenditures, actual and projected.
Ensures that the budget addresses the city
council's goals and objectives, including read-
ability.
Comments:
Attachment B
5. Communication
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Oral communication is clear, concise and
articulate.
Written communications are clear, concise and
accurate.
Comments:
6. Personal Traits
Fails to Meet
Standard
Meets
Standard
Exceeds
Standard
Initiative.
Judgment.
Fairness and Impartiality.
Creativity.
Comments:
7. Intergovernmental Affairs
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Maintains effective communication with local,
regional, state and federal government agencies.
Financial resources (grants) from other agencies
are usued.
Contributions to good government through regular
participation in local, regional and state committees
and organizations.
Lobbies effectively with legislators and state
agencies regarding Cit programs and ro'ects.
Comments:
11. ACHIEVEMENTS RELATIVE TO OBJECTIVES FOR THIS EVALUATION PERIOD:
111. SUMMARY RATING
Overall Performance Rating — Considering the results obtained against established performance
standards as well as overall job performance, the following rating is provided:
Unsatisfactory Improvement Meets Job Exceeds Job Outstanding
Needed Standards Standards
Comments:
Attachment B
IV. FUTURE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Specific goals and objectives to be achieved in the next evaluation period:
This evaluation has been reviewed and discussed between the city council and city manager on
City Council Concurrence
YES/NO
Mary Odermat, Mayor
YES/NO
Miles Adam
YES/NO
Drew Blazey
YES/NO
Todd Nunn
YES/NO
Katie Phelps
YES/NO
Robert Rudolph
YES/NO
Pete Vall-Spinosa
City Manager
Signature
Next Evaluation Date
Attachment C
City Manager Evaluation
I. Personal
Fails to Meet
Standard
Meets
Standard
Exceeds
Standard
Invests sufficient efforts toward being diligent and
thorough in the discharge of duties.
Composure, appearance, and attitude fitting for an
individual in his/her executive position.
II. Professional Skills and Status
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Knowledgeable of current developments affecting
the management field.
Respected in management profession.
Has a capacity for innovation.
Anticipates problems and develops effective
approaches for solving them.
Willing to try new ideas proposed by council
members or staff.
III. Relations with Council
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Carries out directives of the council as a whole
rather than those of any one council member.
Assists the council in resolving problems at the
administrative level to avoid unnecessary council
action. .
Assists the council in establishing policy while
acknowledging the ultimate authority of the council.
Responds to requests for information or assistance
by the council
Informs the council of administrative developments.
Receptive to constructive criticism and advice.
IV. Policy Execution
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Implements council action in accordance with the.
intent of the council.
Supports the actions of the city council after a
decision has been reached.
Enforces city policies.
Understands city's laws and ordinances.
Reviews enforcement procedures periodically to
improve effectiveness.
Offers workable alternatives to the council for
changes in the law when an ordinance or policy
roves impractical in actual administration.
Attachment C
V. Reporting
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Provides the council with reports concerning
matters of importance to the city.
Reports are accurate and comprehensive.
Reports are generally produced through own
initiative rather than when requested by the council.
Prepares a sound agenda which prevents trivial,
administrative matters from being reviewed by the
council.
VI. Citizen Relations
Fails to Meet
Standard
Meets
Standard
Exceeds
Standard
Accommodates complaints from citizens.
Dedicated to the community and to its citizens.
Skillful with the news media — avoiding political
positions and partisanship.
Has the capacity to listen to others and to
recognize their interest — works well with others.
Willing to meet with members of the community to
discuss their real concerns.
Cooperates with neighboring communities.
Cooperates with the county, state and federal
governments.
VII. Staffing
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Recruits and retains competent personnel for city
positions.
Aware of weak or inefficient administrative
personnel and works to improve their performance.
Accurately informed and concerned about
employee insurance, fringe benefits, promotions
and pensions.
Impartially administers the merit system.
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
VIII. Supervision
Standard
Standard
Standard
Encourages department heads to make decisions
within their own jurisdictions without city manager
approval, yet maintains general control of
administrative operations.
Instills confidence and initiative in subordinates and
emphasizes support rather than restrictive controls
for their programs.
Has developed a friendly and informal relationship
with the work force as a whole, yet maintains the
prestige and dignity of the manager office.
Evaluates personnel periodically and points out
staff weaknesses and strengths.
Attachment C
IX. Fiscal Management
Fails to Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Standard
Standard
Standard
Prepares a balanced budget to provide services at
a level intended by the council.
Makes the best possible use of available funds,
conscious of the need to operate the city efficiently
and effectively.
Prepared budget is in an intelligible format.
X. What have been the finest accomplishments of the city manager this past
year?
XI. What areas need the most improvement? Why? What constructive, positive
ideas can you offer the city manager to improve these areas?
XII. What major goals/objectives should the city manager focus on during the
next year?
Signature
Date
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 17, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Compensation Study Discussion
RECOMMENDATION: Develop City Council consensus related to policy for compensation of City
employees. Provide City Manager with direction for implementation of
compensation plan.
POLICY IMPLICATION: Compensation, recruitment, retention and expectations for
workforce/service quality.
BACKGROUND: Prior to April 2004, the City of Medina had no record of a classification and
salary study for City employees. In 2003, the City Council authorized the
City Manager to enter into an agreement with a consultant to conduct a
classification and salary study. Based on input from city managers in other
King County cities, Meith Human Resource Consulting was selected to
conduct the study for the City of Medina. Jim Meith has over thirty years of
human resources experience in the public sector.
Typically, many management systems look the same in both public and
private organizations, when it comes to compensation the underlying
philosophies and values are in fact different. The traditional salary structure
may include as many as twenty or thirty overlapping salary ranges. Recent
trends have attempted to limit the number of salary bands. Traditional
salary ranges are based on a difference from the range minimum to the
maximum of thirty to fifty percent. Recent trends have created much wider
bands, which are believed to be more compatible with the flattening of
organizations and with a de -emphasis on the traditional hierarchy. In
addition, wider salary bands nullify the established logic of automatic pay
step increases and fit better with a team environment in which differences
in salary grades are detrimental to working relationships.
1
Within the bands, new compensation models place much more emphasis
on "market pricing." This is accomplished through salary surveys, which
are used to determine the prevailing wage or salary. Starting salaries are
then set to enable the employer to recruit adequately qualified candidates.
The market focus translates into less emphasis on internal salary
relationships.
Merit pay and other pay -for -performance systems are more important
today than they were ten years ago because of the demands for tightened
budgets. It is difficult to justify automatic increases during the current era of
tightening budgets. A merit pay policy is much more appropriate in an
environment in which improved performance is important. This trend is
changing the focus from "paying for the value of the job" to "paying for the
value of the person." The new work management paradigm is that there is
work to be done, and anyone who is qualified is expected to pitch in as
needed. In a small organization, such as the City of Medina, this isn't
necessarily a "new" paradigm shift, but a matter of fact. Traditional
compensation systems do not provide the flexibility for management to use
people as needed.
The Classification and Salary Study was presented to the City Council
during the April 26, 2004 Study Session. At that time, the City Council
requested additional information, including calculation of a midpoint using
50% of the median maximum and 75% of the median maximum salaries in
the comparable cities group. The results are attached.
In addition, the City Council questioned missing data for some positions,
which Mr. Meith agreed to check. For example, the City Clerk survey did
not include pay data from the City of Clyde Hill. The City of Clyde Hill does
not have a position classified as City Clerk, but assigns the primary
responsibilities to the City Administrator.
The 50% median calculations would place City of Medina compensation at
the lowest in the entire state for a majority of the classifications. The 75%
median calculations would place City of Medina compensation for two
classifications at the lowest in the entire state and most in the bottom 10%.
For informational purposes, Medina has the 133rd largest population of the
281 cities in Washington. Among King County cities, Medina is ranked 32"d
out of 39 in population. However, Medina ranks 37th out of the 281 cities in
Washington and 16th out of the 39 cities in King County in assessed
valuation.
As Mr. Meith explained, Medina is very unique as a result of its very high
assessed valuation, relatively small population and location within a
suburban area. King County cities that are good comparisons based on
population include, Snoqualmie, North Bend, Black Diamond, Clyde Hill,
Algona and Carnation. Within this group, Clyde Hill has the closest
assessed valuation at $989,047,400 compared to Medina's
$1,974,615,489. Good comparisons based on assessed valuation among
King County cities include, Des Moines, Kenmore, Seatac, Bothell,
Woodinville, and Lake Forest Park. Woodinville's population of 9,905 is the
closest to Medina's population among these cities. This is important
0 Page 2
information to consider due to the fact that arbitrators typically view
assessed valuation as a cities "ability to pay" and population as a less
desirable measure for small cities within suburban areas.
Issues For Consideration
■ What is the City's compensation goal?
o Competitive package of salary and benefits
o Minimal short-term costs for wages and benefits
o Based on pay -for -performance
o Based on longevity
■ What geographical area should be used for comparables?
o State-wide
o Tri-County area
o National comparisons (similar small cities with high
assessed valuation)
Attachments
a. April 2004 Classification & Salary Study
b. Medina Market Salary Survey [50% Median]
c. Medina Market Salary Survey [75% Median]
d. King County Cities Population Comparison
e. King County Cities Assessed Valuation Comparison
0 Page 3
Providing practical and affordable solutions
CLASSIFICATION & SALARY STUDY
APRIL 2004
8475 LORSTEN LANE SE • PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON 98367
PHONE: 360.874.8275 • FAX: 360.874.8509
f? A.I€,: el` 1 1 it(,:t;PRODIC. .NI'I`
CLASSIFICATION STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. Purpose of Study
Position classification can be defined as: the organization of positions or jobs into classes on the
basis of assigned duties, responsibilities, and other requirements made of employees serving in these
positions. Position classification focuses attention on jobs - the work that must be done to accomplish
the mission of the City - not on individual capabilities or performance of the employees doing the
work. While performance factors are certainly important to management, and in some cases have a
temporary effect upon the work being performed by employees, they are not the proper focus of a
classification study.
Developing the classification plan included:
➢ Analyzing and documenting the scope, duties, responsibilities, and job -related qualifications of "
positions to be classified;
➢ Grouping those positions into job classes based on the similarities of work performed and
qualifications required;
➢ Writing classification descriptions for each class of positions in order to define those positions
and to serve as a guide in allocating and selecting individual positions to job classes.
In order to classify positions, the organizational context, the duties and responsibilities required in
those positions, along with the knowledge, skills and other requirements necessary to perform
successfully were documented and defined.
Position classification is not the same as establishing a pay rate. When a job is classified, it is
described on the basis of several established criteria --assigned duties and responsibilities,
supervision received and exercised, and required knowledge and skills -- and then allocated to a
class. Within this class, the same title is appropriate for all positions, the duties and responsibilities
are similar (but not identical), the same requirements and tests of fitness apply, and the same salary
range is appropriate. Only after the classification process is completed can the class be assigned to
an appropriate salary range.
Medina Class -Ex Sum 2004-04-13 1
II. Methodology
The study involved all 21 existing city classifications, both filled and vacant positions. All employees
completed a Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ). In the case of vacant positions, either a
supervisor completed a PDQ or the necessary information was verbally given to the consultant.
There is a definite distinction between a PDQ and a class description. A PDQ is prepared at a work
site as a response to a request for a study. It lists all the duties that one individual employee may
perform, and may be best viewed as a departmental training tool or job analysis starting point. A class
description can reflect several different positions and thus represents a summary document. A class
description does not list every duty that an individual performs, nor does it imply that every employee
within that class title will perform all of the duties listed. It is best viewed as a summary or
informational document.
Classification descriptions were also written for the currently vacant classifications of Engineering
Technician, Building Official, Building Inspector, Associate Planner and Administrative Assistant. In
each of these cases the classification descriptions were written based on a general understating of
what their duties, and required knowledge and skills.
111. Definitions of elements of a Classification Description
The elements of a class description are as follows:
General Function In essence, a "micro description. It provides a summary of the primary purpose
and responsibilities of the classification. It sets the general boundaries of the class and indicates the
type of supervision received. Refer to the paper entitled "Levels of Supervision"
Representative Essential Duties and Responsibilities — Lists typical duties that are regularly
performed by most positions in the class. These are major and critical duties intended to demonstrate
the level and complexity of the work. This list is illustrative and is not intended to be exhaustive or
restrictive.
The "Other Duties" portion lists duties that may often be performed by employees in the class and
are not considered essential. All descriptions contain the duty:
"Because of the City's commitment to community service and the well being of its members,
each employee may be expected to perform a wide range of office and field duties from time to
time. Such duties may or may not be related to their regular responsibilities."
This is meant to cover other types of work that arise in the normal setting of the job, and is not meant
to expand the basic scope of the class.
Working Conditions — These are representative of what an employee can expect to encounter. They
are helpful in recruitment and assessing any potential effect that persons with disabilities working in
the class may encounter. Refer to the document entitled "Working Conditions Section Overview".
Knowledge and Skills (Entry Requirements) — These are critical broad areas necessary for entry
into the classification. It is not intended to list every possible knowledge or skill. It is also cumulative,
Medina Class -Ex Sum 2004-04-13 2
that is it assumes that the incumbent possesses the knowledge and skills of lower level
classifications.
Minimum Qualifications — These are the necessary prerequisites that an applicant can be
reasonably expected to have in order to be successful on the job. They are stated in equivalencies in
recognition of the fact that there are different ways to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills and
to allow flexibility in the selection process. The "Special Requirements" portion lists any licenses,
certificates, etc. that will or may be required. In some cases when they are required may be at the
discretion of the City.
Legal and Regulatory Employment Conditions — This section states that the classification
description is not binding on the City and may be changed at its discretion. Also includes the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) designation of employees in the class, appointing authority and
approvals.
IV. Recommendations and Conclusion
The study recommendations are detailed on the attached table. In summary, five classifications were
recommended for new titles — Patrol Officer to Police Officer, Records Manager to Police Records &
Information Specialist, Administrative Specialist to Administrative Assistant, Maintenance Worker to
Maintenance Worker I & II and Planning Director To Community Development Director.
An organization is a dynamic, changing entity. Therefore, a classification plan must not be adopted
and then forgotten. Individual job duties and class responsibilities may be altered by the
reorganization, addition or deletion of staff, programs or facilities or by changing technologies.
Administrative procedures must be in place to recognize and efficiently adapt to changes in the City's
workforce. A sound classification plan is a vital component in the City's strategic planning for the
future.
Medina Class -Ex Sum 2004-04-13
U)
z
O
Q
0
z
W
O
0
w
0
M
F-
z
O
H
Q
C�
C0
Q
J
C�
Q
z
B
W
2
a N
Milli�
C
Ua
(n N
Y
cn
Q� L
'^
`err
O)CU
(n L to
>> Q
_
.O
CL
}+
L•
4-0
Nag
Oil-
V
cn
O
a
a
x
s
4-+06
06
C�
OCR
O
cu
cu co
EL
U 0 C.3 CU 0
O
O
N
O
U
N
rram^^
V/
U
m
70c
a�
SALARY STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The first step in the salary study was to select the comparable cities to be used.
Medina has historically included the following seventeen cities:
Arlington Gig Harbor Lake Stevens North Bend
Carnation Issaquah Mercer Island Redmond
Clyde Hill Kenmore Mill Creek Snoqualmie
Duvall Kirkland Newcastle Woodinville
Fife Lake Forest Park Normandy Park
Medina is unique in that it has a relatively small population in proportion to its
assessed valuation. It also has the issue of collective bargaining. All are common
factors that affect the comparables used. For example, in interest arbitration
arbitrators often select comparables within the labor market based on a range of
50% below to 50% or 100% above a city's population. Management often will
take the position that a similar type formula be used for assessed valuation.
In arriving at comparables, it is also necessary to be cognizant of the fact that the
City will be competing for quality employees in a labor market that includes very
large cities.
After review, the following thirteen cities were used in the study:
Arlington [14,330] Kenmore [19,200] Mill Creek [12,260]
Clyde Hill [2,830] Lake Forest Park [12,750] Newcastle [8320]
Gig Harbor [6,655] Lake Stevens [6,910] Normandy Park [6,345]
Issaquah [15,110] Mercer Island [21,840] Snoqualmie [4,785]
Woodinville [9,905]
The number next to the city is their 2003 population. These cities represent a
realistic cross section of jurisdictions in the greater Puget Sound labor market
that Medina will draw from in attracting and retaining quality employees.
Medina Salary Overview 4/19/2004
As with any survey, it is often not possible to make exact comparisons. Each
jurisdiction has a particular way it structures its classifications. Further,
organizational structure and staffing patterns may vary as well as the philosophy
in delivering services.
Differences in rates of pay can vary considerably between cities. This can be
caused by several factors including pay philosophy, ability to pay, level of service
expected, or collective bargaining.
A common consideration and problem for smaller jurisdictions in a labor market
with larger ones is the retention of quality employees. If the City chooses not to
pay a competitive salary within the larger labor market it risks becoming a
training ground for other cities. This in turn affects the City's ability to deliver
services to its citizens.
In addition to using the external comparisons in some cases it was necessary to
factor in internal considerations to arrive at the salary range recommendation.
This is generally because the Medina classification is sufficiently unique so that
no or too few comparables are available.
Currently, the City's salary ranges vary from approximately 8 — 18% depending
on the classification. The recommend salary range is based on a consistent 20%
range from minimum to maximum for all classifications.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The attached table reflects the study's salary recommendations.
Salary data was compiled using the median maximum for the comparable cities.
The median is preferred as it represents the midpoint of the data. The median is
the number in the middle of a set of numbers; that is, half the numbers have
values that are greater than the median, and half have values that are less. It is a
better indicator of the central tendency, as it tends to "neutralize" extreme highs
or lows.
The recommended salary range was computed using the survey data to
establish the midpoint of the salary range. The maximum was then established
10% above and the minimum 10% below the midpoint. Using the midpoint as the
City's benchmark point with its comparables would lend itself to the
implementation of a merit pay plan.
For example, under such a plan an employee would move to the midpoint of the
range with standard ("Satisfactory") performance. Increases for "Satisfactory"
performance would not be permitted beyond the midpoint; employees must
achieve "Above Standard" or "Outstanding" in order to move beyond the
midpoint. Movement within the range could be by set steps or based on a pay
for performance formula.
Medina Salary Overview 4/19/2004
2
Employees who reach the maximum of their pay range could merit an increase
above the maximum of their range if rated "Exemplary". This increase must then
be re -earned every 12 months with continued "Exemplary" performance,
otherwise the employee's salary reverts to the maximum of the pay range.
In all except four cases, the existing salary falls within the recommended range.
The four (4) exceptions are: Administrative Assistant, City Manager, Community
Development Director and Information Systems Coordinator. In the first instance
the incumbent's current salary is above the proposed maximum. In the latter
three, the incumbents' salaries are below the minimum proposed salary.
The degree and/or timing of the study's implementation will be determined by a
number of factors including costs, collective bargaining considerations and the
City's policy on "freezing" salaries.
Medina Salary Overview 4/19/2004
It
0
0
N
.......... .. . :...:.:...:.:..: :• :• :• :.:..: ::• :w: ::w:::::::::::.:::.••.::. :::•:.:: w::::::: ::w::::: ::::::::w; :•::::::::.: •::::. :•.: •.:.:::::::::::::. :::::1.::::::.:::: ::•:::::. �:::::::: w::::::::::::: ::::::::v:
�Fpy1 y( h
Y r : : :i:: :i i ::::�:::� :i �:: i :: i•:':':•i '::•i ::� :' :� ::�:� "J:� :� :' �:} : : �i l �: is :: ::•:•: ::•i 'i ::� :i ti l :::.:� :•i :r:' ::J:::::::::: �::i :: :::(::::::: •:':•:•::•::'::::•.i I:: r :i :� :1:
•: ::::'•':':':•:•••::'::•:"::•:'•i::':':•:'�:':'::':•:':::::•:':':':':':':': :":•::::X':r:'!::•::•J:
•:':'14..•:'i i :T.ff• , •, •'l:r:::': '� :':•:•::::::': t:V:::•:'••:':':::•::•:•� :'::•:':•:':•::: :::,::•i ! �:�'til:':i:i f� : ii:•:::•:':': •'••:•. •'... •.•,• .• •:•r • .•.. r •:':•:
yapI.�R�N .........:...'�... "�t�..+�•.�.:•:•::•:•:':•::'� : � ::'::':::::':'i J:•i i:'i::•::i :'fi::•� :�:::•::•i
Arlington Building Inspector/Plans Examiner $4,461 greater
U.
::..:..:.......:.........................................; ...........
.........................................................:•.annin /Buildin � Ins � ecto�:.............................................................. .:.42.1::.:::...
Gig Harbor PI g g Inspector 4 greater
......
#.....::.:.::<: ::...::...::::.............'.1..............................::::::::.
Kenmore Building Inspector/Plans Examiner $4,624 greater
1., r .... ......... ! ........................... ......... .......%:
4
Lake Stevens Same $3,992
:...:...:::
MillCreek:.............................:':Same:.....................................................................................::$4,297:..............................................
Snoqualmie Same $4,110 $4061-2003 rate
....................................................................... .
Average $4,343
Median $4,314
1 ¢:<` ..::: `i:: , -
114. A�,a
:. t.
Gig Harbor City Administrator $8,733
Kenmore same $9,397
�f!.. f.
.::::::.:.:::::::............:......::.:::.:....:::..... ::::::::......... .:.:.............. ::............... .......................................................
Mercer Island same $10,012
:..•:
Newcastle same $8,895
•.•rrro�.•.•rrr vrrrrt :v rrr rrr
y•r �v'r:4:•iY.:fi}:4i;4i}:::•::4:4;{{{{fi:•; :•:v::v:•:•:•:•::•:•:•::•:•:: r}}i'r}:{4}}i:•'ri:•: � :•: }:::: � ::%:r,: {:::::::::: w::::::::::::::.v:.
.v. . ..•.vrl.•hvrrr:
X.
:i•:R•1:iHi •'F..�Ff7:31::::%%<y}:{:%::::::;:<y:;:y%%::::•:<:%:%%:{:%:!:%:%::%::%•%•:%::!:::'r:;::{{{:%}:{:%%%{:%{:; :;:;%:•,:;:•,: Snoqualmie City Administrator $6,585 $6507-2003-under review
Average $8,830
Median $8,895
%4f.3•P:i'F:GFP:F�%F•• 57GY.3Y�i:{��j%:�::�:y;:y::$$:{%;{%$SyY:<%:%:%y:%i:%:i:%s:%%•'•••:{;}:;:;y;$:{:;t:;:%:y::y::}:%'rs:?y:%:•'':;:t%5:$:%:?%:%:%i:%.`•'i:%5:%�,,y::%;%Y::::::::,}%::$::�:%:%..:;:%:y:%$i:•:;;�Y'r%%{{:%:�5$'ri.'•i$:ti«%i{,%:%:;::::;:$;:}:%i:%:;:$�{{:t::%};$Y,?�::i:%:{{:•::,:%:;::;:::;:;::
%• ..Xl'.�F •• %5:1J:'FF.�:f:%:{%::?::::}i:%S::%i•%i:%i::%$:%y::%:%:%i:%:%:%:%}:ti%'.%Y :•}'t;>::%}:%::j::
Arlington
Development Services Mgr
$8 549 greater - utilities & engineering
Gig Harbor same $7,110 greater-PW operations
Kenmore same $8,055
<... `I
. i~...i`......................� ... P................................................. .
Lake Stevens Planning Director $5,033
.. .. ........... ....I . �, 0:.�..,.......... . >.
Mill Creek same $7,327
....:...........
..
:.........................::.Plannin•.:::&:.CommunitDev:•...................................... ................................................................................
NormandPark
y g y . Dir. $5,511
Woodinville same $8,663
Average $7,068
Median $7,211
•:*;•::; : •:;::.•¢:�F���'Ai::�'.d�s'dr�F.':�'�. �:. r:�►�?'•.'�r�'`�:•�.�3���f %���i <; ���; ��� ;';`<��;<��55 5�`�� •.`!���y;y;}� y 5':��r�''�
•':
.........................................
Gig Harbor Community Development Asst. $3,613
Mercer Island Permit Coordinator $3,764
({({ (�•y/w,y��!(.. }}1��/yfn� �R}•,�' ���r!..i(�I:ll: •�!: ' :•::•y):.�::::' •}:� •:•::':::::.':':'�':::':'::::!f:!:!:•:•:•:•:!.•:•:•::!'::::.! � �. � 'M:.'.'•':':':�':!:':!:':':':•':•:' �t 11::!:: � l:'I: l:•SE:':S•..fi.1!•':i'i:•:i:•'::•:•:l,i:};:•::::•:'::'•':i!•':Tt:.'f�•i::Tl.?lS1: i:::•:':!:!: :!::::; ::':•:•:%::•:ii:: 1::::::;:•:!:•:::!: ::!::!.F;�/y�}
............•...........r••.............................•r..r..r....................•............................... •..........•........ •.. .: +:•..r••.........
•....... •.............. r.
Newcastle Permit Coordinator $4,046
xi
Woodinville Permit Technician $3,512
Average $31692
Median $3,689
'': :.
54
ex
'• ...... �;.;:'•%::{:i:::•ii:::::..: :;::::<{::'ti :•::ti{<{::{{{:'.:::{: {:};?:Y:ti:S:::: ;i::i::: i:::•ii:<;:;.;{:: ;;:;};::::i:::; ••::isvi::'}:•::i::i:::i:i::i::::i::i:::
Clyde Hill Finance Manager $4,609
im
Issaquah Deputy Finance Director $6,488
1::�: .''.3P: :: ti:S:: .;•.Y.?F. tiy' � jY�
Lake Forest Park Accountant $3,922
Ef
f.
ccountin.::::Su.::.ervisor�::.�:.�:.�::::.........3:.::3.:::::':.:su.:.:ervises two::::::::':::::.�:.::':::.::'::.:..�:::.::::::::.I:.X::::
Mercer Island Accounting p $4, 1 p
• V.`Jf:. �j. :•!.•. •Jf: J.•. Nh4•.• •JJ.• • f J.•. :Y!lNffff.•Jfh• :•f.•.
f (4y, �fy, y/�.{+.�/1•(+. /��.• •:•':���5•.•: f:•1::� i ::'...'!.': :':':'• �': :': •:':': :'.•.:::'::::�:: •:':::::•::::"J: ' :::. •,!}�:'• � ••�T. •,•.�':•�': �i:•��i'ii:•:'ilii ::•:"::•:::::•: :::••:� ::: ::':':•: i:•
' (('* .. T �Y.•.T•�':'i:'i::ail:}J'if:• �•:�:�:i :�::::1:':':' •: li:':�T1'� •�•••'1TfR
Newcastle Fiscal Analyst $47830
:•:: :.:
Snoqualmie City Treasurer $5,065
1-0 t.
Average $51569
Median $5,254
r....•.'.•.'.•Jl
•, •.L . ,,: i.•
Ag
.. � � . ,v��y;. ..'r �`'� :. �� . Fyn;.
....................
:<
::: ...
I..
A
f'I'�.'���.'::•. �T.S•l.Y.•:•/J.1'1'1'.Y.�T�:':•::::!: t:•Ii: :'i.':':':
..... ..... ..... .. .............
Issaquah PC Technician II $4,529 reports to IS mgr
Mercer Island Computer Tech. $3,433 reports to IS mgr
]]�� /��ryy•:;:,{j��/.!�y�:y!(•:•:' '::•:::':•:..'::'::' {::'::':.:'•'r.:�•.:!•: ::•::•:•: �y�[��..y�'�{y�yj �y`}�y }yj}y'j1 .•:•4:•: ..;.•!:•.::•:• �.•: •ti:•l:.!l.:l.j :.•::::::.�.�•::J:.;::.:{'.•:•:•.•::•:•:•:•:•.•:•: %:•:•:.•::: �.•l:•. .•.•. J::•.•l: l:'J.:•J:•I:•.•l:•.•
'.'R.' • •• •••,• • ';e .A f.T.ST.T.'::':':•::i :• !:;:.!..::•:"'.':'::':':':' •: i : : • . .T.T.S•IT'i : • .•• .•• •••: ' •,':•:: Jdi' .
.t .
Average $4,231
Median $4,342
Gig Harbor Director of Operations $6,186
:•::•::::::::::::.:.............:..:.: I...:::: ...... tO
Lake Forest Park PW Supervisor $4,713
'<
Mercer Island Operations Manager $5,105
...•.....:::.............................................. : t•...............:.:..................................
Newcastle PW Operations Manager $4,975
r.vrrr : rr.•rv.•rvrrx: rrsv. � ::::::•. � ::: •: • •::. � ....:::: w: •:: w:: •::: • •. � :: • • v. � . � ::•: r .o•.eo .•r:: :w::........... r.•rvr.•r.•::v: r:::::. � ::::::::::. . ....: .:...........}� Vic:
Woodinville same $5,593
Average $5,191
Median $5,040
.P.-:
.$:
..
}}��•: [?jam{ :��.•
f::i'� '.S'�•i:1 �titi{< ` r •.,.. • ;:;:. •}:}:::::i:•:< {•Y .' ti : % •. •..,:...::.; •..:.: Y sti'�' r;. ., ...:. •`s? }r } �'C%7)`•'?
Clyde Hill Public Works Crew $3,545
Issaquah PW Maintenance Worker $4,306 separate parks class
Lake Stevens PW Crew Worker $3,794
M" :. %.4'.•:-tY1'?IS :•:':•::•::••::::.:•::�::� ::%:•:�::::;]rn]�/�]�••'AT[ ��'.!( .y�r�� ]/1+yw ,�j!�[ ,��jYr Y(/.Vi�� (Cr.
Mill Creek :...................................::Maintenance Worker
:.................................
$3,71.2•:.........................................................
.vrr.•x.•r:N� r : rr:.•:.•r.:v:: :•::. � ::v:: • ::::•: ::::•: ::::::v :::v ::::w:: • • • • • v.•r.• .::s:•r •r ::}:}}}iii}}}:.}•: :::•:::::'� :r'............. ... ..: •.................. ..... .....:::.v:......:..•rv:rav:.•:::::::.�...�:rvr.•::.:v.:•r::::.::::•:
% ' . • :%i:%' ;{{{:;{{%'{{{:ti;:;:;:;:}C%:%:<%:%i:{:;i:;{%Y�:S7'fii•V:�'r::y:: y: %... % .... %i:%:%:ti%$:ti%jjl' j::
.. i..
...........:.:...:...........:.:..::.::::::::..:::::......:....:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.::::::::::.:::::.::::::::::::
Normandy Park Street Worker II $3,621
��M.��[��y]] ]j/!y�.E •%.':'::'f:•::•::•:::•:•.•:•:•:'..'.:'.:•l:.•:'t.•::•!i :':: !"::.}::'%..y:x:%•.'%/yr( -RA'M•y[•yj�%.�[.:• I.(((( '%ax•%%:Y •::•::•: .:: ;.• -:•.:'.':�j:•{!{:'::•::'.:':.:•:•.:.}:r::ff:.::::.•..••:'...•.'.•.'.•.'.'..:: ••
:1'f.'!5'. • T'IY7'::•'.:':':':'::� %:%::::�::: f:•': 'l:':':•: !:' :�" :•1'l..Y.,•l.•}T.T':':%:.\� :-::'•".: '.'1Y ' :• •:•:•:!•i:•i:•i:•i
:':..::..:::'..:............................::.:•:.:•:
Woodinville Maintenance Worker II $4,095
Average $3,874
Median $3,861
,,,iyut:; r-1111 115dlilu
............................
...........
Issaquah same
4
King County Cities
(in Order of Population)
City
Population
AV
• 1
Seattle
571,900
$
79, 724, 600, 947
2
Bellevue
116,400
$
19,987,370,786
3
Kent
84,210
$
7,481,591,559
4
Federal Way
83,890
$
5,997,423,259
5
Renton
54,900
$
5,656,318,709
6
Shoreline
52,730
$
5,268,342,680
7
Redmond
46,480
$
7,762,955,643
8
Kirkland
45,630
$
7,151,120,913
9
Auburn
45,355
$
3,552,650,605
10
Sammamish
35,930
$
5,858,506,326
11
Burien
31,480
$
2,708,408,020
12
Bothell
30,910
$
1,848,368,004
13
Des Moines
29,120
$
2,044,561,572
14
Seatac
25,100
$
1,912,260,287
15
Mercer Island
21,840
$
6,300,634,968
16
Kenmore
19,200
$
1,959,172,018
17
Tukwila
17,230
$
2,837,480,160
18
Maple Valley
15,730
$
1,380,305,547
19
Issaquah
15,110
$
2,868,831,537
20
Covington
14,850
$
1,155,173,185 Median
21
Lake Forest Park
12,750
$
1,610,291,344
22
Enumclaw
11,140
$
713,930,366
23
Woodinville
9,905
$
1,663,429,431
24
Milton
6,025
$
51,923,805
25
26
Newcastle
Normandy Park
8,320
6,345
$
$
1,269,497,898
903,250,890
27
Pacific
5,665
$
291,690,586
28
Duvall
f
5,460
$
563,976,279
37
£
Hunts Point
3
445
s
Ef
592,413,800
$
38
Beaux Arts
302
$
70,851,300
39
Skykomish
210
$
17,409,756
King County Cities
(In Order of Assessed Value)
City Population
AV
• 1
Seattle
571,900
$
79, 724, 600, 947
2
Bellevue
116,400
$
19,987,370,786
3
Redmond
46,480
$
7,762,955,643
4
Kent
84,210
$
7,481,591,559
5
Kirkland
45,630
$
7,151,120,913
6
Mercer Island
21,840
$
6,300,634,968
7
Federal Way
83,890
$
5,997,423,259
8
Sammamish
35,930
$
5,858,506,326
9
Renton
54,900
$
5,656,318,709
10
Shoreline
52,730
$
5,268,342,680
11
Auburn
AS RSS
I
'i SS7 RSn r%nS
Median
26
Normandy Park
6,345
$
903,250,890
27
Snoqualmie
4,785
$
762,404,598
28
Enumclaw
11,140
$
713,930,366
29
Hunts Point
445
$
592,413,800
30
Duvall
5,460
$
563,976,279
31
Yarrow Point
1,000
$
521,809,400
32
North Bend
4,680
$
502,758,763
33
Black Diamond
3,995
$
394,041,874
34
Pacific
5,665
$
291,690,586
35
Carnation
1,905
$
142,461,382
36
Beaux Arts
302
$
70, 851, 300
37
Milton
6,025
$
51,923,805
38
Algona
2,590
$
26,723,315
39
Skykomish
210
$
17,409,756
i