2018, 12-13 meeting summary SCITYokanepOFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Valle Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk
10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206
Phone: (509)720-5102 •Fax:(509)720-5075 •www.spokanevalley.org
cbainbridge @ spokaneval ley.org
SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION
Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212
December 13, 2018 Meeting Summary
Commission Members Present: Staff Present:
Bill Gothmann, Chair Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell,City Attorney
Tes Sturges,Vice-chair John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager
Steve Robertson Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk
Chuck Simpson
Kathe Williams
Alternate Commissioner: Mike Moore
Others Present:four citizens
Meeting Summary: The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Gothmann said he understands that Ms.
Williams may be late but we can start the meeting now as we have a quorum, and she had asked not to delay
the meeting for her.
Mr. Driskell stated that Mr. Simpson had asked him a question about the authority of the charge of a salary
commission to identify the salary for the council and the mayor;Mr. Driskell said he had advised him of that
answer and was going to provide the answer to everyone here today. Mr. Simpson said he was asking the
question that he didn't know who made that law,was it a state law and if so,who drafted the law about salary
only.Mr.Driskell said that our City code section is in SVMC 2.10.020(2),purpose;and he read: "The purpose
of the independent salary commission shall be to review and establish the salaries of the mayor and the council
members." Mr. Driskell said that code section was passed by the City Council years ago.
Mr. Gothmann said we received new city data last week, and council benefits average costs, and a chart
showing percentage of growth; that this week we have the data on how long each councilmember spent in
their role. Ms. Bainbridge explained the results of the survey questions submitted to councilmembers as
shown; that each question is answered by seven individual councilmembers, and that each #1 is the same
councilmember for each question; and the low end average and the high end average is derived from the range
of figures. For example,if a councilmember's answer to the first question is 11-13,and another's answer is 5-
7, she said she averaged all the bottom figures; and then went back to average the high figures as well. She
explained that this is for informational purposes to give an idea of the average range of time spent for each
answer, and that as stated on the document,the councilmember responses do not correspond to their council
position. Ms. Sturges said that she also added up all the answers to get the total average range of each
councilmember: #1: 36-52;#2: 8-11;#3:43-53;#4: 38-46;#5: 34-37;#6: 17;#7: 24-36.It was noted that Ms.
Williams just arrived. Ms. Sturges said in her estimation, all but two councilmembers appear to be working
the equivalent of a full-time job.
Mr. Gothmann said he feels this commission now has all the data needed to make a decision.Mr. Whitehead
mentioned that at the last meeting,there was some question about how old the data is on the blue spreadsheet,
and said he again revised the data to show when the last increases occurred,as shown on the last column.Mr.
Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-13-2018 Page 1 of 4
Whitehead further explained that the asterisk shown in that last column means there was a jump in their
compensation but there was some data not recorded; so there was data in 2014 and different data in 2017 so it
changed someplace but he is not sure when that occurred, and the year shown is the year where he had the
factual information. He also explained the 'less than' 2008; and said he went back to 2008, and if there was
no change,he didn't record a change; said it was interesting to look at that data as many of those were fairly
low on the scale. Mr. Whitehead said the reports he gathered,which he didn't ask for but which some cities
submitted,looked like salary commissions were setting three-year windows of time, likely in an effort not to
have to convene the commission annually.Ms. Sturges asked if that is permissible per our code.Mr.Driskell
replied that he doesn't believe there is a prohibition in doing that,however,he said he thinks everyone is aware
that Council is very fiscally aware and takes a very responsible approach to the city's funds; and one of the
ways that has played out is staff salaries; that the city has not granted a COLA (cost of living allowance) in
nine or ten years; and feels there is a strong argument that if you just build in increases in how much it cost to
do business,there will be an ever-expanding budget;from a management and council standpoint,we have not
granted COLAs to employees;and whether that means more generally that the council would or would not be
in favor of a graduated approach to their pay,said he does not know but he raised the issue because of the ever
increasing cost to the city.Mr. Simpson said he would not be in favor of that because if the economy declines,
private industry won't be giving their staff raises; and said he thinks this commission should just focus on the
present. Mr. Whitehead added that the city government and community are fiscally conservative; the down
side to future raises is if the economy declines and the future raises are built in,that could prove troublesome
for not only the constituents but for councilmembers as well. Mr. Gothmann agreed and said he would not
agree in treating council more favorably than council would be treating employees, so it would be better not
to build in future salary increases. Further,Mr.Driskell explained that he and Mr.Whitehead also participate
on the negotiating committee for the labor agreement for the city, and it is fair to say that if a COLA-like
structure was built into what the council gets,we would hear that on the next negotiation, as what's good for
one is good for all; and said that would create a difficult position from which to negotiate.Mr.Whitehead said
the city has a performance system, and since about 2011 or 2012, we have moved away from automatic
increases for staff,that we have a contract that goes into effect in January,which includes some adjustments
to the pay structure.
The question came up about the frequency of convening a salary commission, and Mr. Driskell said it the
suggestion can come from the public or the council;and that this time it was as a result of comment from the
public. Mr. Driskell mentioned that the alternate way to increase council salaries, is that council could adopt
an ordinance but if they did so,any change would not be effective until the next election for their position; so
they would not,in theory,benefit from any such change. Ms. Sturges asked if this committee can recommend
that council salaries be reviewed every three years, and Mr. Driskell replied yes; that this commission can
recommend that the Council should consider reconvening the salary commission every three, four, or five
years; and that part becomes a recommendation for council discretion. It was again discussed among the
commission members that councilmembers are not doing this job for the money,but for the community.Ms.
Williams said she conducted an informal poll and as she was walking around, approached some people and
told them of the task of this commission, and asked them their feelings of what council should be paid, and
several said at the very least it should be minimum wage; adding that she doesn't know that these people
answering knew councilmembers were working out of the goodness of their heart.Mr.Robertson said that the
2004 commission recommended$1200 for the mayor and$1,000 for councilmembers and that the referendum
was defeated; and he asked if Mr. Driskell feels the atmosphere is different now. Mr. Driskell said the city
had just incorporated in 2003 after a fifth attempt to do so;there was also a strong disincorporation effort and
they had a ready group of people to contact; so it went to referendum and was over-turned in 2004;he said in
2006 he was the staff liaison and thinks the report in 2006 was more complete then 2004, in explaining the
basis for the recommended change; and there was a very minor attempt to overturn that on referendum, and
the petition didn't get even close to having enough signatures within the required time period,to put the issue
on a ballot.
Mr.Robertson asked if this commission should be concerned about a possible referendum.Mr.Driskell replied
that is always a possibility;and a higher figure salary recommendation grossly disproportional to all else,that
will always get people's attention, adding that there were always be some people who disagree with any
Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-13-2018 Page 2 of 4
increase; but said there is a greater acceptance of what this city does now. In response to a question about
advertising this,Mr.Driskell said this won't be advertised,and that procedurally,this commission will analyze
the data we provided, and he thinks we can likely wrap this up in another meeting or two; that he will draft
the report summarizing the information and show the comparisons,and explain how this commission arrived
at its decision; that once the report is finalized, that he will present the information to Council in an open
session which will also help to disseminate the information; and there will be a better understanding of this
process and this issue now as opposed to 2004, as it will be similar to what was done in 2006. It was also
noted that it takes a lot of signatures on a referendum petition to place an issue on a ballot. Ms. Bainbridge
mentioned the report needs to be published twice, at least one week apart,and the file deadline is February 4;
so we will work backwards and shoot for publication January 18 and 25. Mr. Driskell said the survey will be
put on our website,and Mr. Simpson suggested including what their salary is now. Mr. Driskell agreed. Mr.
Driskell said he will get the draft for this commission as soon as possible, and once approved,we can get the
report published,and Ms.Bainbridge added that once the report is filed,there is a window of 30 days in which
to file a referendum petition. Mr. Driskell said if time permits, he will send the report out to commission
members prior to a meeting, so any edits can be made and discussed at the meeting.
Mr. Gothmann said he thinks the only data we don't have are public comments; and hopefully commission
members will be ready to come to an agreement; and it was agreed to have that discussion next week. The
survey questions to be placed on the website were discussed, and Mr. Simpson suggested adding something
to the effect that these figures are only salary and not benefits, said most people don't know they get benefits,
and said he is still a strong advocate that benefits are part of the salary.Mr. Gothmann said the only numbers
important are what salary are we recommending for Council,and what for Mayor.Ms.Williams said she feels
people also need to know how many hours councilmembers generally work. It was agreed to include in the
survey,the average number of weekly hours worked,about 35 hours a week,or an estimated range of 29.8 to
37.6. Mr. Simpson continued stating his view of benefits being a real bonus, or give them a salary with no
benefits,or a smaller salary with benefits.There was continued discussion about what to include on the survey,
what not to include,and discussion about the state minimum wage.Mr.Driskell said the purpose of the survey
is to get public input on salary ranges; and that he hopes to get 100 responses, although the holidays might
adversely impact the number of responses.It was agreed to include in the survey,the average 35 hours worked
per week,include salary ranges from which to choose,to reflect the current numbers with 750 to 1,000 as the
bottom range, then follow with consistent ranges, and to have a third item to include the survey taker's zip
code in order to identify if the responder is actually a city resident. Mr. Driskell said he and Ms. Bainbridge
will work to get a survey out on the website tomorrow. Mr. Gothmann said for next week he would like this
commission to have specific dollar suggestions for council and percentages for the mayor,to see if by the end
of that meeting, we could have something agreed upon if possible, by the end of the meeting. Mr. Driskell
said after a week of having the survey out,if this commission feels we have enough data we'll go with what
we have,or run it again if we need more responses; and that he suggests not having a deadline at this point for
the survey. Mr. Driskell said we will do a press release, send out e-mail distribution to a list of about 1,000,
and will send out a tweet; and unfortunately,there isn't time to place an ad in the newspapers.
It was determined the next meeting will be Thursday, December 20 at 4 p.m. and based on what is
accomplished at that meeting,we may or may not meet January 10, at 4 p.m., or perhaps to come in January
10 to vote on the report,then get it published. If the report is finalized January 10,Mr.Driskell said he would
likely bring it to Council January 22,and then publish January 25 and February 1.
Public comments were solicited. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said doesn't minimum wage go up
January 1, to $12.00; and she asked if these figures are before or after taxes. Ms. Bainbridge said they are
before taxes. Mr.Dan Allison, Spokane Valley:wonders about putting this out on Facebook and twitter. Ms.
Bainbridge mentioned we don't use Facebook, and twitter is merely an additional way to publicize, but we
will put it on our website and push the notice out about the survey,via our e-mail distribution.Mr.Dan Allison
asked what Councilmember only spends 11 to 15 hours a week on their duties? Ms. Bainbridge said these
figures were handed in anonymously, and Mr. Driskell noted that these figures change as councilmembers
change and it is not uncommon to have one person who spends a great deal of time,and another who spends
less, and he suggested not focusing on that,but to look at these as generally good numbers. Mr.Allison said
Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-13-2018 Page 3 of 4
what councilmembers make now, is way too low. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: said there are some
real outliers in the cities to use as comparisons, and said he wouldn't include any of the cities in the lower
populations; and in the upper group, there are some cities giving their mayor three to four times more than
what our councilmembers make;that he doesn't think we can look at this as an average. Mr. Driskell said this
body has not decided how to use the data, they are simply different data points that could be used for some
members of the commission;and we are trying to give more data for better rather than just a few comparisons,
in order to give a better feel based on type of government, size and budget and what might be relevant to any
salary. Mr. Harding said the job councilmembers do on our behalf if remarkable, and that no one brought up
salary issues for about 12 years is astounding, and said that it was Mr. Allison who did so this time. He also
noted he wouldn't spend any time on politics, that whatever this commission comes up with, will be it, and
that politics shouldn't be a concern, as that changes as the economy does; that he feels the concept should be
kept narrow and not go for any long term planning.
The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-13-2018 Page 4 of 4