By Jim Cline and Kate Kremer
In the last issue we discussed whether – and to what extent — population influenced a jurisdiction’s relative wage ranking. In this article we discussed to what extent assessed valuation influences that ranking.
In this article we discuss wage as it relates to assessed valuation but for the detailed data, you’ll want to explore our Premium Website. If you’re not currently a Premium Website subscriber you can review our services Cline and Casillas Premium Information Services and contact Donna Steinmetz at Cline and Casillas and she’ll explain how you can become one.
As we indicated previously, we have posted on our premium website detailed wage charts for the various public safety classifications (commissioned law enforcement, firefighter, corrections officer, dispatcher, and records clerks) which show state wage rankings and also the correlation of those wages to the factors we are discussing in this portion of our wage series — population, assessed valuation, and geographic location. In this article we identify and discuss how assessed valuation correlates with the wage rankings for commissioned law enforcement personnel. (A more detailed chart of this commission data, along with the data for the other bargaining units is posted on the premium website 2015 Demographic Rankings. A review of assessed valuation data does indicate a strong correlation between assessed valuation and wage rank. As we move down the list the wage rankings also increase.
But despite the strong apparent correlation between assessed valuation and wage rank, that data does not explain all wage rankings. For example, Redmond has the 7th highest AV yet its wage rank is 25. And Issaquah has the 8th highest AV and its wage rank is 30th. On the other end of the AV spectrum, 23rd Ranked for AV, Marysville has the 4th highest wage in the survey. Black Diamond has a wage rank that far out performs its assessed valuation — 93rd in assessed valuation and 8th in wages. So, as we identified in the previous article on the series, there may be a lot of other variables at play affecting wage ranking and one should bear in mind that this wage ranking is based only on one piece of the total compensation covered by the CBA. With that caveat, here is the top 10 list of city AV and wage rankings:
| Assessed Valuation Rank | 2014 Assessed Valuation | Cities | 25 Year BA Police 2015 Wage Rank |
| 1 | $128,205,753,920 | Seattle | 1 |
| 2 | $36,030,989,827 | Bellevue | 10 |
| 3 | $16,593,506,428 | Tacoma | 12 |
| 4 | $15,774,360,007 | Kirkland | 15 |
| 5 | $14,954,871,525 | Spokane | 22 |
| 6 | $14,326,177,779 | Vancouver | 43 |
| 7 | $14,099,573,276 | Redmond | 25 |
| 8 | $12,580,912,497 | Kent | 30 |
| 9 | $11,511,536,706 | Everett | 21 |
| 10 | $11,271,964,301 | Renton | 5 |
Putting the population and assessed valuation data together in the form of assessed valuation per capita is a strong indication of wage rank and it can help in answering some of the anomalies in the other lists. For example, small Mercer Island ranks second in the State in wages. Its population rank is 36 and assessed violation is the 12th highest, but its assessed valuation per capita is 3rd. Black Diamond is 109th in population and 93rd in assessed valuation. However, its AV per capita is 29th. This is at least a start in understanding its high wage rank. Below is the list of the top 10 Washington Cities AV Per Capita List.
| AV Per Capita Rank | 2014 AV Per Capita | Cities | 25 Year BA Police 2015 Wage Rank |
| 1 | 892,003 | Medina | 27 |
| 2 | 548,482 | Clyde Hill | 85 |
| 3 | 377,642 | Mercer Island | 2 |
| 4 | 268,088 | Bellevue | 10 |
| 5 | 246,470 | Tukwila | 19 |
| 6 | 244,360 | Redmond | 25 |
| 7 | 223,989 | Bainbridge Island | 28 |
| 8 | 213,766 | Gig Harbor | 49 |
| 9 | 201,635 | Fife | 24 |
| 10 | 200,165 | Seattle | 1 |
According to this data, Bellevue underperforms and Redmond especially underperforms. This data would seem to reflect very diminished opportunities for those officers to purchase homes anywhere proximate to their work.
A review of County Deputy sheriff wages indicates a similar strong correlation between County assessed valuation and County Deputy sheriff wages. While they do not match up exactly, as with most of these lists the higher wages tend to be at the top of this AV list and almost all of the AV ranks over 30 are ranked at the bottom of the wage list. It also reveals that a number of counties also “underperform” or “overperform” on wages relative to their assessed valuation. Clark County is ranked 21st for its wage ranking which is low given its 4th AV ranking but it is operating on an old wage. San Juan County is 19th ranked for AV but shows that strong 4th rank for wages. Here’s the Top 10 County Deputy sheriff assessed valuation and wage rankings:
| Assessed Valuation Rank | 2014 Assessed Valuation | Counties | 25 Year BA Deputy 2015 Wage Rank |
| 1 | 339014424760 | King County | 1 |
| 2 | 79448742407 | Snohomish County | 5 |
| 3 | 71547746398 | Pierce County | 2 |
| 4 | 39016841558 | Clark County | 21 |
| 5 | 37239994940 | Spokane County | 11 |
| 6 | 25910905304 | Kitsap County | 12 |
| 7 | 25260667503 | Thurston County | 3 |
| 8 | 23679456188 | Whatcom County | 8 |
| 9 | 15931933330 | Benton County | 7 |
| 10 | 15024702587 | Yakima County | 6 |
As with the Police Officers wages, the Assessed Valuation per capita ranking list can offer some insight into the anomalies in the deputy sheriff wage/demographic numbers. Jefferson County is ranked 24th for assessed valuation but comes in at 7th for AV per capita. This helps explain its 14th wage rank. And most clearly we make sense of San Juan County with its 4th rank for wages in spite of much lower ranking for population and assessed valuation because it is ranked first for AV per capita. Below is the AV per capita table for county deputy sheriffs.
| AV Per Capita Rank | 2014 AV Per Capita | Counties | 25 Year BA Deputy 2015 Wage Rank |
| 1 | 387606 | San Juan County | 4 |
| 2 | 237178 | Garfield County | 39 |
| 3 | 168058 | King County | 1 |
| 4 | 166820 | Klickitat County | 34 |
| 5 | 160500 | Columbia County | 37 |
| 6 | 150678 | Island County | 16 |
| 7 | 143916 | Jefferson County | 14 |
| 8 | 133707 | Kittitas County | 27 |
| 9 | 121977 | Lincoln County | 26 |
| 10 | 121899 | Skamania County | 35 |
Another qualifier with this data, as mentioned before, is that there exists some significant lag in some contract settlements. Those delayed settlements explain some portion of the anomalies we identified but certainly not most of them. Also, viewing wages in isolation also can provide misleading results. Contracts are settled as a total compensation package and these wage charts on focus on certain pieces, albeit the most typically significant ones.
