WGBH researches how the mayor's salary compares to that of the mayor's of similarly sized cities in the rest of the country - and with the teeny second-tier cities of New England.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Cheat Sheet
By BostonDog
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 12:40am
Here is a direct link to the info graphic.
... Placed Inside Of "[img] [/img]" Tags ...
By Elmer
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 1:40am
[img]http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/demowgbh/files/201402/chart3-01.jpg[/img]
( and also linked back to the source article. )
Hey look, I just found SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS
By anon
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 2:03am
I love it, we're the same size as the other cities yet we have nearly 2x the employees of the others...at least 7,000 extra bodies, looks like. Let's be VERY generous and say they're only making $50k a year; figure another $50k in benefits (healthcare, retirement, vacation time, administrative overhead...)
That's $700,000,000!
Assume each city resident pays an equal tax share and all 636,000 Boston residents pay city taxes (which they don't)....that's a GRAND EACH.
WHAT?!?
By BostonDog
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 11:08am
Did you see the graphic? Seattle's budget is 1.5 BILLION dollars more! In comparison Boston is lean and mean.
Chances are that Seattle has far more employees if you consider "private contractors" whereas Boston prefers to do more tasks in house. Seems like that's the smart move if it's saving the city a billion dollars a year.
not quite
By bosguy22
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 11:36am
As others have stated, Seattle is 1.5 times the size of boston, thus more infrastructure to take care of. They also had a massive earthquake that they're still paying for.
But the same population
By BostonDog
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 11:48am
They have the same number of citizens so if you look at it that way their per capita spending is much higher. Regardless, the suggestion that Boston employs too many people based upon the city employment of Seattle is a pretty meaningless. Both cities have different problems and different ways of dealing with them.
And...
By bosguy22
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 12:28pm
More they have a much larger city, thus more infrastructure to maintain, and as as been stated, they're still rebuilding from an earthquake. two problems boston doesn't have.
Not a great comparison
By rsybuchanan
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 11:52am
The El Paso Independent School District (as with all ISDs in Texas) is a completely independent governmental agency outside the control of the mayor or the city commission, and their employee headcount doesn't show up under him. They also have their own independent taxation authority.
Absolutely amazing
By bosguy22
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 9:09am
50% more city employees than Seattle, the same population, and Seattle is 58% larger. If that's not a wake-up call that this is a bloated administration, I don't know what is.
It's comparing apples and
By anon
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 2:20pm
It's comparing apples and oranges. The Seattle number doesn't include the employees of the school system. It doesn't count the services provided through Kings County - whereas in Boston, almost nothing comes from Suffolk County. And Seattle has a number of other independent authorities that don't show up in the headcount.
Boston may be bloated. But the way to figure that out is to see whether it has more employees than it needs to perform particular functions, not to line it up side by side with a very different city.
Compare the 100 or so Boston City Council staffs...
By theszak
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 7:39am
Compare the 100 or so Boston City Council staff, contractors, consultants with other City Councils' staffs, contractors, consultants
http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/14%20...
http://anopenbostoncitycouncil.blogspot.com/
Cambridge City Council
Page IV-21
http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/budgetdep...
More detailed FY14 Budget [b]"Backup"[/b] available by email via
http://www.cambridgema.gov/budget/contactus.aspx
what?!?!
By bosguy22
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 9:11am
Are you saying each City Councilor, each of whom make $80k a year and have to attend 3 meetings a month, has a staff of 4-8 people? That's insane.
Hey, it's honest graft!
By davery
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 5:54pm
Hey, it's honest graft!
True
By bosguy22
Fri, 02/21/2014 - 8:49am
At least it's in the public record.
Well now I want to know what
By tk
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 7:21am
Well now I want to know what Seattle is spending all it's money on...
A very expensive tunnel, a
By Anon
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 2:02pm
A very expensive tunnel, a new floating bridge, an expansion of light rail, and 50% more geographic area in terms of roads, water, sewage, etc. The cost of the infrastructure projects is split between the city and the state, but definitely do show up as line items in the city budget. In Boston, I think these types of infrastructure improvements are shifted to the state or the MBTA. It would be hard to judge which city is doing better or worse without comparing their budgets side by side.
Making comparisons can be deceptive
By anon
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 7:29am
El Paso mayor has aconsidetably higher salary,even though El Paso's budget is smaller than Boston, and cost of living in El Paso has a consiserably lower cost of living.
Seattle's budget ismuch higher than the other cities, almost twice as high as Bostons.
Boston has A LOT of city workers.
It's somewhat disingenuous to compare these cities solely by their population. Example, the City of El Paso is around 250 square miles in land area vs the City of Boston which is only around 48 square miles in land area. Metro El Paso is actually smaller population wise than metro Providence,an far smaller than metro Boston. El Paso's combined statistical area [CSA] is a little over 1 million vs Boston which at close to 8million make it one of the largest in the U.S. Those 'teeny' 2nd tier New England cities like Providence, Hartford/Springfield, Worcester,all have metro areas as large as, if not larger, than El Paso. El Paso is like a bunch of small towns and suburbs 'consolidated' into a single municipality, Boston a real urban big city that has simply never had suburban and surrounding cities consolidation to the extent common in other regions of the country like the west. The City of Denver is around 150 square miles in land area. Seattle is around 85 square miles in land area, geographically almost twice the size of all of the City of Boston [downtown, Charlestown, Back Bay, South End, South Boston, Dorchester, Mattapan, Roxbury, Hyde Park, Roslindale, West Roxbury, Allston/Brighton, Jamaica Plain]. But these cities all have the same population, except Boston has a bigger metro area population and much bigger CSA.
apples and oranges
By bosguy22
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 10:35am
El Paso has a mayor, he makes $45,000. They also have a City Manager who makes the $238k displayed in the graph.
6000 more employees?
By anon
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 7:40am
That seems.... inefficient, although I'd like to think that is partially due to Boston offering more services than say Denver or Seattle. Can any of you policy wonks confirm if Boston offers significantly more in terms of services to its residents than Denver or Seattle?
I think Seattle is a fairly progressive city, so this is surprising.
Wow, almost exactly 50% more
By merlinmurph
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 7:58am
I wonder if it's a matter of what is included under "city employee". You would think it would be simple, but maybe Boston's includes some quasi-government agencies that Seattle's doesn't? No idea, but something has to explain the 50%.
How is it that Seattle is
By jdrinboston
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 8:11am
How is it that Seattle is spending $4.4 billion a year with roughly 11,500 employees and Boston is spending $2.7 billion with 17,000? The only thing that I can think of is Seattle might have a massive amount of debt service. They've been doing a lot of light rail construction there the past 10 years or so, so perhaps the city is taking on a lot of that debt burden.
In terms of number of employees, its possible that the city of Boston is taking on more services responsibilities that would ordinarily be undertaken by county government in other states. I belive county government is still a significant player in Washington state government.
Hold your horses
By Stevil
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 9:17am
As someone who has been looking at these numbers for over 10 years first thing you need to realize is that it's almost impossible to compare across state boundaries. Inside Mass the cities have some pretty standard reporting forms - but head north, south or east and you are in for some problems if you try to make this apples to apples - and it's way more than mayor v. city manager system.
Of Boston's 17,000 employees I think about half are teachers cops and firemen - and we are not significantly over or understaffed in any of those departments in classroom/uniformed personnel. Another quarter to a third of our city staff are civilian support for those departments. Add in fixed costs including health care and pensions and everything else in the city only takes up about 20-25% of our budget - parks, snow removal, tax collection, mayor, city council, city clerk, EVERYTHING. Public safety, schools and fixed costs are growing faster than revenue meaning everything else will need to get even smaller.
Is there excess capacity? Across the board maybe 500-1000 positions (and I'd put zero teachers, zero cops and MAYBE only a small number of firefighters in that category). Somewhere between 80% and 100% of that excess capacity is probably in some type of staff positions.
As for money spent - Boston is definitely high for Mass - second only to Cambridge among the larger communities. But again - maybe in the range of 10% if you cut to the bone.
These numbers from other cities might be applicable to give a sense of how the mayor is paid (probably reasonable) - but they shouldn't be used to compare budgets/staffing etc. - too many different ways of counting across the country.
I feel the earth move under my feet
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 10:25am
Seattle has some hefty municipal spending/debt mostly because they had a 6.8 earthquake 13 years ago. Enough infrastructure suffered considerable damage that it needed to be repaired and replaced to a higher standard.
That quake wasn't just a replay of one in the 1940s, either - it was a strong reminder (along with the quake in the Indian Ocean) that Seattle is quite near the Cascadia Subduction, a region prone to 9.0+ earthquakes that happen every several hundred years.
In other words, their infrastructure investment beyond public transit has been considerable and ongoing, because the next one might be really, really bad.
Maybe its all those snowplows
By Gattaca
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 8:10am
Maybe its all those snowplows.
Yea but Seattle is weird
By joelgjr
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 8:15am
Yea but Seattle is weird
Keep Seattle weird!
Maybe something to do with the county system?
By yacht_boy
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 8:19am
In the western states, county governments actually DO something. So maybe a lot of the services that we provide at the city level are shifted over to the county? I couldn't find any evidence for or against this hypothesis in 5 minutes of googling, though.
How counties work in the Northwest
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 10:15am
There are large, yet highly populous "unincorporated" areas near cities - places that are not in a city or town. Residents receive services such as water, sewer, law enforcement, and road maintenance from the county infrastructure.
In one of the first elections that I voted in, there was a "Supercity" proprosal to incorporate a large area of unincorporated area around Portland with a growing population. It failed, as people didn't want another layer of taxes (those proposing it wanted to get out from under the Urban Growth Boundary of Portland).
My aunt is a county employee who deals with property and deeds.
"I think Seattle is a fairly
By davery
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 5:56pm
"I think Seattle is a fairly progressive city, so this is surprising."
Just because someone is progressive doesn't necessarily mean they have to waste a ton of money to reward corrupt hacks. That's more of a Boston thing than a progressive thing.
With this important data we know Howie
By bulgingbuick
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 8:23am
Carr is going to regurgitate a rehash of the rehash of the retread he retreaded while getting in 7 Whitey's, hack, Globe, hacks....zzzzzzzz
Different states, different systems of government
By Neal
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 9:38am
Keep in mind that, with the exception a couple of vestigial organizations elsewhere in Massachusetts, we don't have counties here, so the cities and towns fill in gaps that would be covered by counties in other places (libraries, emergency services, schools, etc). Also, the airport/port and transportation authorities are not part of city government either, whereas these are functions are handled by city governments in some other places. Just because other cities are of similar size doesn't necessarily make it an apt comparison.
Exactly
By Stevil
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 9:47am
For example (and this is only a guess) Seattle seems to have A LOT fewer employees than Boston but a MUCH bigger budget - I'm guessing schools are run by the county probably, not the city - so they are not counted as city employees. BUT, Seattle still has to pay for the schools so they collect local school taxes and submit those to the county (similar to Boston which does not directly control the MBTA or charter schools, so we send the state a big chunk of change to administer these every year - literally hundreds of millions of dollars). This is the kind of thing that makes these comparisons almost impossible. Even in the state you have to be careful For example, the typical town has like 12-15% of its population in the schools. Cambridge, however, has only about 5%. This results in a relatively small school budget per capita in a city of 100,000 - but a HUGE budget per student (I think highest in the state - definitely highest among large communities by a longshot).
Boston Doesn't Shake Like Seattle
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 10:17am
Boston didn't have to repair and replace stuff like this in recent years:
[img]http://www.foxylowrider.com/images/mvc-013f.jpg[/img]
[img]http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/data_sets/20010228_1/image...
I would bet that the debt and costs are partially related to both the damage from the 2001 Nisqually quake and the resulting seismic upgrades of all critical infrastructure given historic quakes over 9.0 in magnitude.
Bear in mind that Seattle is geographically much larger than Boston, and has a lot of bridges and a lot of stuff that clings to hills.
And Boston will never have to deal with something like this: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/30/video-seattle-e...
I doubt it....
By Pete Nice
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 10:33am
That City taxpayers are paying for earthquake damage.
A quick google search shows that Seattle does pay for about 2.3 billion in transportation and utilities. The police budget is twice as much as well for some reason (about 575 million to 275 million).
Having worked on the West Coast in law enforcement, I know those places go nuts for all sorts of equipment and other emergency type stuff that Boston seems to skimp on or at least gets federal funding for.
Nope Pete - seismic debt service
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 10:40am
The debt on those upgrades is considerable. The State and County shared some of it, but the ongoing upgrade programs cost $$$.
If you look through the list of bond issues, many were bridge repair/replacement projects related to the 2001 quake or resulting from the serious deficiencies that quake exposed.
http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/14propose...
Thats about 25 million bucks though...
By Pete Nice
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 11:40am
Most of it does not seem to be quake related. Chump change compared to the overall issue being discussed don't you think?
Boston gets federal aid from tiny ice storms, I can imagine Seattle knows how to fill out some paperwork for earthquakes.
Either way it doesn't really seem to explain the difference in budgets. maybe a small factor, but not a major one.
But neither of those pics are in Seattle
By Jeff F
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 11:10am
They were in Olympia. And one is a county road at the edge of a lake's edge, and the other is an ancient state-owned bridge. Neither impacts Seatlle budget. How are these images different from those of houses on the cape sliding into the ocean or the deteriorating Forest Hills flyover?
Same Earthquake - Very Relevant
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 12:50pm
You do realize that that particular quake caused damage along a 300 mile stretch, from Portland, Oregon to the Canadian Border, right? That Seattle was close enough to the epicenter to have serious damage to the Alaskan Viaduct as well as bridges, roadways, and buildings?
Also, that simulation? Seattle - had the same quake been just a few miles closer.
I take it that you haven't ever been in an earthquake that extreme. Pictures of Olympia are very relevant here. If there were to be a 6.8 earthquake on Cape Ann, there would be serious damage in Boston. In fact, people would likely die when unreinforced masonry buildings collapsed. Actually, an earthquake half an order of magnitude as strong as that has already happened, and it did cause a lot of damage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Cape_Ann_Earthquake
The fact is, the major spending WAS NOT for repairing the Nisqually quake damage itself. Much of these bond issues WERE to replace infrastructure as there was increased awareness of FUTURE quake events that WILL happen.
Funny how some folk can't grasp that you don't just patch stuff up until the next time.
You knave!
By CraigInDaVille
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 3:48pm
How DARE you suggest that Swirly isn't an expert on everything! Of COURSE it is relevant even though it isn't!
----------------------------------------------------------
;-) Sorry, Swirl, you were making it too easy this time, but please know I post this sarcasm with all the internet love in the world.
Seattle schools are run by
By Anon
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 10:09am
Seattle schools are run by the city not the county. The county tends to provide services for those who live outside of incorporated cities. For example, it would run the sheriff's office to provide police services for all of the small towns not large enough to run their own police force.
The main difference between Boston and Seattle is Seattle is much larger geographically. If you were to overlay Seattle over Boston, it would probably encompass not only Boston but Brookline Cambridge, and a few other cities. So, more streets to take care of and probably more schools to run because of the lower density.
Then it's something else - and not earthquakes
By Stevil
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 11:09am
Think about it - we have (from memory so ballparking) about 4500 teachers, 2000 patrol officers and 1500 firefighters and that doesn't include staff, civilians etc. Have to imagine Seattle's numbers are in the same range for a similar sized city - here's the city's website and I didn't see anything resembling a school or education department
http://www.seattle.gov/html/citizen/departments.asp.
Add in something about the same as Boston's school personnel and there's about a 10% difference - so I'm guessing their system doesn't count school staff for whatever reason.
As for budget - don't know. But that level of infrastructure wouldn't be in an operating budget and debt service to the tune of $1.7 billion in this day and age would break most states - let alone a medium sized city - assuming an average 3% interest rate that's $57 billion in debt - I think that's about what our entire state has and we are one of the most indebted states in the country.
Per Pete's comment above - sounds like the city eats a good chunk of the transportation bill - we pay some to the state for this - but guessing Seattle due to larger geography etc. pays more - they may even run the system which would really skew the numbers.
Bottom line - these are the reasons it's almost impossible to get to apples and apples across state lines.
I see they budget 500,000 for 3 police officers.....
By Pete Nice
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 11:56am
I do know many areas pension all parts of salaries (overtime, training, court) Boston does not do this.
A close look shows that a base salary for a police officer in Seattle after 3 years is 94K ($43 an hour). Last year (before the raise) Boston was about $28 an hour with the base being about 54K, but Boston does not factor in the overtime, court, or training that Seattle might in their figures?
Real estate taxes....
By Pete Nice
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 12:11pm
From one sample doesn't seem too out of whack for Seattle:
http://www.trulia.com/property/3145881843-2115-3rd...
650K house paying 5,500 in taxes.
http://www.newenglandmoves.com/property/details/80...
This Brighton single family at 650K pays pretty much the same ($5,466).
The Seattle home looks nicer, and I have no idea if the schools in Seattle are as screwed up as Bostons are either.
Mayoral comparisons are all well and good, but
By Lunchbox
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 10:02am
Does Seattle or El Paso have any city workers pulling down over $200k?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/02/14/out-ci...
In 2009.......
By Pete Nice
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 12:52pm
Seattle had 12 employees make over 200K, and 2,531 employees who made over 100K. (out of 10,254 workers)
http://lbloom.net/xsea09.html
No way I'd do that job for $175K
By merlinmurph
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 2:50pm
When you look at it compared to other employees, it's not worth the headaches.
There are a number of city employees - patrolmen, firemen - with relatively little responsibility that make $175K or more. By "little responsibility", I mean people that are individual contributors and don't manage people, have a budget, make strategic decisions. They show up, do their job, go home. (FWIW, that describes my job). The mayor's job is at the other end of the spectrum responsibility-wise. For $175K, you better really want that job, and for the right person, I'm sure it's a dream job. Not for me, though. But that would mean that I would have to be elected, and that would never happen. ;-)
I wouldn't do it either but.....
By Pete Nice
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 3:06pm
He has a car and all his travel paid for and many vacations paid for as well. Plus free services at all public facilities (golf, rec, etc).
But you are right, I still wouldn't want to do it.
I've always wondered
By bosguy22
Fri, 02/21/2014 - 8:51am
Is there a reason our Mayor can't find his way to City Hall everyday on his own? Does he really need a car and driver? Bloomberg takes the subway to work, yet Boston's mayor has a car and driver? Can't we just pay for his parking spot at a local garage?
Bloomberg's subway commuting
By Michael Kerpan
Fri, 02/21/2014 - 9:40am
Not exactly the wya you (or at least I) commute....
http://gothamist.com/2007/08/01/mayor_bloomberg_29...
Ha
By bosguy22
Fri, 02/21/2014 - 11:22am
Not a bad commute. Beats taking the bus to the subway, but still, does Marty Walsh really need a driver and security force? Has their ever been a threat to the Mayor of Boston?
"The real head-honcho is the City Manager"
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 3:33pm
Funny, I didn't hear that "the real head-honcho is the City Manager" when WGBH and the rest of the local far-left media were touting now disgraced "Mayor" of Worcester Tim Murray for Lieutenant Governor. Perhaps if the voters knew Worcester Mayor is a ceremonial post and not the "head-honcho," things might have been different.
Interesting...
By bosguy22
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 4:52pm
Didn't know that Worcester had a city manager. So Murray is even more useless than I thought.
Too many fruits at work here
By Waquiot
Thu, 02/20/2014 - 6:44pm
I think the one people are gravitating to is Boston and Seattle. Either Boston has too many employees or they are grossly underpaid compared to Seattle's public servants.
In looking at the Mayor of Seattle's proposed 2014 budget, I see several things. First, the schools are not listed. That means that they either don't pay their teachers, or, the real reason, that the schools are independent of the city. In Washington State, the school districts are independent of the municipalities or counties. In the case of Seattle or Tacoma, that means yes, there are "Seattle Public Schools", but they are funded independently of the city, which also makes their employees independent of the city. For a smaller city like Lakewood (as seen on Cops) it means that their children go both to the Lakewood and Tacoma Public School districts. It is all independent of the city.
Public Safety is Seattle's problem, so police and fire are in the budget. 58% of the budget is for transportation and utilities, which, as Swirrly said, probably comes from earthquake issues. The transit system is a county system, but my guess is that, as Pete Nice noted, the feds front some money for disaster relief, but it is administered by the city.
Comparing cities nation wide is tough. San Francisco runs a mass transit system. Portland Oregon's libraries are funded independently. Some cities are counties (Indianapolis, Jacksonville) while others have counties handling some of their core services. Costs of living vary (Seattle employees should probably be paid more than Boston employees due to the cost of living differences, which El Paso employees don't need that much at all.) This is not a comparison of Gala apples to Cortlands, it is truly apples to oranges.
Add comment