Travis County Commissioners Court
August 31, 2004
Item 21.a
[One moment, please, for change in captioners]
...hrmd, then we will hear from the rest of the court.
>> good afternoon, alicia perez, executive manager for administrations
operations. We are here to address 20 -- item 21 and a, we also have some
information that we provided to you during the lunch hour on item b, but that
is primarily p.b.o., On item a for the rank and file employees, we handed
out several pieces of information, packets of information. And I would like
to -- I would like to have you look at the blue colored one that talks about
f.y. '05 compensation. Allocation options. We have briefed you individually
and also had an opportunity to discuss these issues both in work session and
during regular Commissioners court meeting. What we have before you is several
options. And we have broken them up in terms of the particular actions that
the court would take. The first is a cost of living increase, and a -- across
the board and then portion of that, a percent, would -- what percent does
the court want to provide. We have provided several options from 4% to departmental
flexibility. And the remaining of -- of the 5.75 that you wouldn't award in
a cola would go to performance based pay. So that's a first item on your sheet.
We have got yes or no. To make it easy to vote. Second issue was a green leaned,
green circled employees, whether you want to provide flexibility within departmental
budget or do you want to fund the green circle employees. You have backup
on each of these items. If we look at the imreep circle employees -- green
circle employees, there's about 310 of them. 216 are filled. So -- so if you
wanted to fund those, would you want to fund all of them or just the ones
that are filled and we also have the information on what it would cost to
do that. Career ladders, options, to fund career ladders within the 5.75 allocation.
Career ladders funded in addition to the 5.75 allocation and limit the award
to 5.75 for anyone that's in a career ladder or do not limit [indiscernible]
award, in other words leave is status quo. Number 4 has to do with red lines.
The options not added to base or add to base. Yes or no. Livable wage rate
the options remain at $9 per hour or increase that rate. It had been suggested
perhaps $10 per hour. We have 172 employees that fall under $10 an hour. 123
of them are in the general fund. The cost to bring those employees up to $10
an hour with benefits would be about 196,256. For all individuals or employees
that earn less than $10, the total would be $277,434, about $280 with benefits.
And we've got, as I said, estimate for any of the others. That really summarizes
our presentation and the options for rank and file employees of Travis County.
>> alicia related to the information on the $10 an hour new
basement on that, does that -- is that the total amount or the net amount?
Because I wind up doing a little bit of quick arithmetic, if somebody making
$9 an hour gets a 5.75% raise, basically we say all of it has to go toward
those employees because they are so far, that's almost a 51-cent increase.
We are halfway there. Even if we went -- so this -- that is.
>> as of now. Once you implement, if you were for example
to do a 4% across the board cola, you would eliminate the green -- the amount
for the green circles would go down, also for the $10 an hour.
>> does another -- there's another interim position here
Margaret could be if we said that the new minimum is $9.50 an hour, the simple
action of the 5.75% plan would get every single employee where they need to
be. Then it is simply a matter of every brand new employee gets brought on
at no less than 9.50. It wouldn't take any extra money. The money is already
there allocated to every single department.
>> that could work.
>> uh-huh.
>> I would rather be 10, but considering 10 is going to cost
more and we seem to be having problems related to ongoing money, 9.50 an hour
can be done within the departmental amount by simply saying the 5.75% will
go to each and every one of those employees to get them to no less than $9.50
an hour. We don't need any extra money to do that.
>> that would be a refresh my memory, an edict from the court.
>> that's complete departmental [indiscernible]
>> huh?
>> certainly road and bridge has money to cover the fee [indiscernible]
>> I move that we give final approval to 5.75%, that we give
to each department, for compensation.
>> second.
>> and that we require an across the board to each employee
a 4%. Instead of the 3% that's recommended, my motion is 4%.
>> okay. Judge I second that. With the -- if it's -- if there
is any way possible, also, okay, when you said the entire 5.75%, with the
4% across the board, that means that a department is at the discretion to
you to 1.75% flexibility.
>> my motion intentionally did not cover that part because
based on what I have been hearing there will be additional discussion of that.
There are a whole lot of things that can be done. My preference would be to
give it to the managers and basically for the ones that work for the Commissioners
court get directions. For the other I guess we can given couragement. But
-- give encouragement. But the guest of mine really is that we finally approve
5.75 which is already in the preliminary budget. Further that we stipulate
an across the board of 4%, which would be a first time for the Commissioners
court in years. And what I was going to do is just discuss further the 1.75
and I知 flexible on it.
>> right. Does that also include being added to base pay?
>> we are not talking about red lines yet.
>> no.
>> well, but this motion has to entertain it because otherwise
we will have to go back and in a separate motion as far as red lines.
>> then I知 going to ask for a division of the vote that
we talk about red line separately.
>> talk about those two and I think on -- on career ladders,
green circle, red line, even a livable wage rate, we can discuss those separately.
>> okay.
>> I知 trying to get off the table 5.75, 4%.
>> I understand. But just wanted to make sure if it's going
to be separated then of course we will look at it separate. Right now the
motion is to across the board of 4%, 1.75 of the -- of the 5.75% will be used
for -- for the department flexibility. At this point.
>> right.
>> just across the board. Does not include the added to base
salary. Which would come up under the red line scenario, I wanted to make
sure that that's --
>> well, there's a general 4% across the board. Now, when
we talk about the more specific sort of subareas here, we would land on that,
but I think that it's appropriate for us to take separate votes on it.
>> that would be fine, that will be fine, judge.
>> but my motion really is intended to cover the big items
generally, 5.75% for rank and file, of which 4% should be basically across
the board cost of living, market adjustment, however you call it.
>> just for my further clarification, the folks who make
-- who make $9 now, are they concentrated in facilities and t.n.r.?
>> those are the largest, yes. The largest number of employees
are in those departments. T.n.r., Facilities, you have some in the -- in the
district clerk -- yes. Facilities and t.n.r. Have the largest amount.
>> does this motion address Commissioner Gomez's concern
which is to ensure that there is no Travis County employee, [indiscernible]
this motion passes, is under, at the, above the $10 an hour wage.
>> it's a separate -- separate vote.
>> I just wanted to make sure. We can call it up next, though.
I was trying to get out there generally those two divisions.
>> my understanding is that the way we have it allocated
it will go far to addressing at least half, halfway there, and we can come
back at another time, getting a little closer at least. Inching a little closer,
at least we are off of the $9.
>> okay.
>> can we get -- do we have a motion and a second here, judge.
>> okay.
>> can we get a little bit of discussion. I知 just interesting
in hearing everybody's viewpoints. Because I知 sensitive to a large number
of folks who came to talk to us to say, I get it, but I need more flexibility
to be able to reward those who exceed and -- and 1.75% is not going to give
our departments much flexibility related to rewarding performance, as opposed
to -- to not. And I知 just trying to get some discussion here about where
everyone wants to land with this. My only deal about that is that people haven't
had a raise for a couple of years. With that action the economy hasn't really
improved so much that -- that they can keep addressing the expenditures that
go on. The rent -- the rent utilities, groceries, those kinds of things continue
costing people money. Whether they get a raise or not, whether they perform
or not, of course I want to see everybody performing. I知 not saying that
it's acceptable to me that people not perform. And so -- so that they not
give 100% to the job to make sure that -- that they are doing it the right
way. Because we are here to serve people. And -- and so that's where I知 coming
from on this. That's why I feel committed to the 4% across the board. And
-- and so -- so I encourage everybody to -- to perform. But I also recognize
that -- that if they are here and meeting expectations, they may not get the
-- the performance based pay.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> I think employees kind of need to -- I wish I could do
more, I really do, get a jump start, first initiation, alicia, if you can
help me on this, when will the first premium be due for the health insurance
premiums?
>> the employees will see the new deduction for the new rates
on September 15th.
>> on September the 15th. And the paycheck that it will hit
will be which one?
>> September 15th. That's whether they will see the new rates.
On the health care.
>> that's even coming before the action because the action
we're taking today doesn't go into effect until October 1. So the employees
will have to take a hit right off the top as far as health insurance is concerned.
Number 2 is it's kind of disturbing to me when you see folks here, a lot of
folks work real hard around here and you see a person go into a store and
want a gallon of milk and the gallon of milk costs almost $4 a gallon, maybe
more, and the person in there skraoeping and hollering because the milk is
so high, doesn't have the money to pay for it. Those kind of things are real,
I think what we're doing is real, I think we need to give the employees some
kind of jump start, at least a fighting chance to ensure that they have an
opportunity to do something about some of the missing out on pay increases
across the board that we have not been able to give them in the past. And
of course it doesn't bother me at all to go 5% right across the board, I mean
or 4% across the board, then 1.75% for flexibility as far as the department
is concerned. I wish really we could do more, I really do. But since we're
there, I guess that's my reasoning for going with this. And again, I would
like to go ahead and move forward on this.
>> the one perspective I just want to just get out there
is that this also means those who are at the highest end of our pay scale
are guaranteed a 4% raise. And that actually could take away a lot of flexibility
by managers that they couldn't use some of that 4% of somebody making 60,
70, 80, 90, 100 thousand dollars in annual salary and they could use more
of that to do more for those at the lowest end. Commissioner, I知 right there
with knew terms of, you know, those at the lower end who are really struggle,
but by locking them in at 4%, we also lock in those who are at the absolute
highest end of the pay scale to 4% as well and that will take away flexibility
of some of these managers who have those at both extremes in their department
that because they have to also give that 4% to those making 60, 70, 80, 90,
100 thousand dollars a year, there will not be as much left over in that 1.75
to really do some meaningful good stuff at the lower end, and that's my concern
here. It's not about those that are at the lower end because they deserve
this and more. But we're lacking in that those at the highest end of the pay
scale will get the exact same amount as somebody making 22,000 a year, they
will get the same percentage increase. And I think the needs of somebody in
t.n.r. Road and bridge at 22,000 a year are not quite the same as employee
x making 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 thousand dollars a year.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? That
passes by unanimous vote. I move that the Travis County minimum wage be set
at $10.
>> second.
>> that managers be asked to use their 1.75 flexibility money
to bring each and every employee up to at least that amount. That was seconded
by two members of the court. Any more discussion?
>> could I make a comment on that?
>> that's the number 5 on -- number 5.
>> uh-huh.
>> mr. Geiselman, then Commissioner Daugherty.
>> thank you. I have about 60 employees who are affected
by this policy, and if t.n.r. Has to take the amount of money paid for the
difference from 9 to $10 out of the total 9.75, it will basically cut the
performance pay in half. So that's the impact I have probably more than any
other department. I知 sure that facilities has some, I don't know how many,
but this is -- the policy does not have a uniform impact on all departments.
It has a major impact on t.n.r. Because of the number of employees in that
category.
>> your rank and file employees came to our public hearing
on the budget and made a very dramatic statement to us that they thought they
were being underpaid.
>> I understand that.
>> and I did not remind them of the performance pay that
Commissioners court had just approved for them, but they did thank us for
it. So in my view, $10 is not a whole lot of money, and if you look at a workforce
of 4,000, and less than 200 make that, then at some point it seems to me we
ought to try to get everybody at least up to that level. If we have the money
available, i'd have no problem with giving the departments where these 172
are employed additional revenue to take care of the need. But I do think we
ought to address it. I don't see revenue [indiscernible] get it done, and
in this case in order to get it done, I just think we have to impose it on
the departments use part of that 1.75 to get this out.
>> what I brought up before is that in terms of what it is,
the road and bridge it's $70,000 including the benefits, but this does not
net out the 5.75% being allocated to that department. You are already halfway
there simply by the 5.75. That gets you 50 cents of it. So this number actually,
the real net increase that we need to fully fund this is $35,000. It is not
$70,000. And that is not half of the left overperformance pay on the 1.75.
It just isn't. It's less than that. These are not netted out of any kind of
departmental allocations. And again, the 5.75 is 50 cents of the one dollar
we're talking about. So it was already going to your department anyway.
>> yeah, but people are only getting guaranteed 4% which
is 64 cents.
>> this is saying the 5.75 for all those at the lowest end,
they will get every penny of that and a little bit more.
>> but the 1.75 is discretionary. 4% goes to everybody. 1.75
goes to the department that you then take that 1.75 and get people where you
are going and that's what you are saying, joe. If you take the 1.75 to try
to get your folks up to that, then it cuts into what you are able to get --
>> by $35,000.
>> no, it's more like $100,000.
>> then we have been given incorrect information from h.r.
>> are you talking about just general fund or road and bridge
both is this.
>> I知 talking about the road and bridge numbers much it's
supposed to be 39.6 personnel to go to $10 an hour. It's 58,417. Adding the
20% benefits, it's 70,000. And again, half of that is already funded through
the 5.75.
>> we have the same calculation and it's costing -- of the
96,000 we have and the 1.75, 36,000 goes to the $10 an hour. Of the 117,000
out of road and bridge, 62,000 goes to the $10 amount.
>> this will not be easy.
>> yes, I am counting the 4%.
>> this will not be easy for some departments. But in Austin,
in central Texas, you cannot live off 10 bucks an hour.
>> I don't disagree.
>> so I think the principal pel here is what should the county's
minimum wage be? And all of us have been saying for months we ought to go
from 9 to 10 dollars. And this motion basically says, departments, do the
best you can to get there. If other money were available, I think the court
would have responsibility to make an additional allocation to the impact of
the departments. Other money is not available. We have that discussion two
and a half hours and day and we are still trying to squeeze -- we have the
squeeze a little more between now and next Tuesday, but finally get there.
>> believe me, I have no problem with the $10 a hour. I just
think it falls disproportionately on the employees. There were [indiscernible]
employees in my department and performance pay. Those employees are paying
for the $10 an hour. And no problem with the $10, but I think it out to be
treated county-wide first and then look at the policy.
>> do you have more than 39 employees?
>> I have almost 60 employees.
>> 65 is what we counted.
>> why am I looking at a sheet of paper that says it's 39.6,
road and bridge.
>> that's just road and bridge.
>> that's what we're talking about.
>> road and bridge, the actual number of slots, if you bring
all the slots up, it's almost 60 slots that are below $10 a road and bridge
alone.
>> [inaudible].
>> we don't have any --
>> the numbers that were run were just on employees -- filling
slots because they had an hourly rate to go -- to calculate from. So I didn't
calculate a vacant slot. That could be the difference in the numbers.
>> we have over 50 employees on road and bridge alone including
vacant spots that right now earn less than $10 an hour. And the majority of
them are not much higher than $9. They are about $9.17. If you look at the
general fund side with t.n.r., Approximately 28 employees who are not making
10, the majority making exactly 9an hour.
>> well, I empathize, but I ask that you empathize as well.
These are employees working in all kinds of weather whether it's real hot
or cold and they are fixing the potholes, they are cutting the grass on the
right-of-way, they are picking up the trash, and these are all in response
to calls that we get in our offices. And so they respond pretty fast. We get
a call of thank you for responding. But it's those employees who respond.
And for them to make less than $10 an hour in this city, in this county I
think is a little embarrassing for me. And I think that we ought to really
just find a way.
>> joe, I guess -- I think the judge summed it up well, in
my opinion. When the revealing testimony came in during the public hearing
from a lot of members in your shop, and even the -- some of your management
persons in your shop, I think this is something that needs to happen and I
hope we've got the vote to make it happen, and really they kind of applaud
the direction we're going here today and I don't think we'll make this mistake
and I don't think we're missing the mark to address the concerns of so many
persons here in Travis County that do not make $10 an hour. And it's very
clear to me in my mind what I知 going to do and I知 going to vote for it.
>> I wholeheartedly agree with the $10 an hour. That's not
the issue. The issue is that t.n.r. Is paying for that $10 an hour out of
the 1.75 otherwise allocated to performance pay. And so because of the disproportionate
--
>> [indiscernible] including minimum wage.
>> exactly.
>> the court hasn't set 1.75 performance pay. In fact, if
this passes, it will be performance pay plus. But the sad news is we have
a finite sum of money we're working with. And a bucket full of needs. And
the question is how best do we get them done. I don't know that we expect
if I magic to be done with the 1.75. Managers basically try and do the best
they can with it. But the court [indiscernible] has the same problem. If we
give 4%, now, our staff is smaller than yours, but we'll still have the same
1.75 to work with on some of these same issues. We don't have anybody that
works below $10 an hour, so we ease by on that one, but on some of the wers
we do.
>> we just finished discussion an hour ago talking about
road and bridge and different strategies and since we're going to be delaying
that action related to is there a reallocation of dollars within road and
bridge, talk about a strategy next week as we go through all of this stuff
that takes into account maybe we back off a little bit more on the t.n.r.
Money to basically deal with a disproportionate number of folks within your
department. There's a lot of stuff in play right now, but I think we're setting
the ceiling -- excuse me, we're setting the base, we are not setting the ceiling
as to what we're trying to do here.
>> if I can make one comment, please, Margaret tpraeugser,
I certainly understand where mr. Geiselman is coming from, but we have the
same disproportionate effect if you look at the green circle employees f there
are departments that are disproportionately affected. I知 assuming the 1.75
performance and other, part of the other is going to be any adjustments we
want to make because of the results of the market salary survey. So I mean
I think there are departments that are disproportionate affected by these
and so then the question becomes where do you stop. Because I think that each
of us who like with the green circle issue, you know, ms. Medina is probably
the one most affected by that sort of issue and the sheriff's office is definitely
also very much affected. You might see news here saying the same thing. You
do that there, then you need to take care of ours out of a separate pot of
money and pretty soon the exceptions start to eat the whole.
>> and there is no other pot of money.
>> I understand that, judge, very well.
>> when I walked in court this morning, but after skubgs
of number 15, I知 left with -- discussion of number 15, a whole lot harder
may be able to meet some of the other needs. So here we are trying to take
the 5.75 and do the best we can with known issues, problems and challenges.
That's what it amounts to. And we have talked about -- it's been $9 how long?
How many years?
>> oh, god, three years? Three or four years maybe.
>> I think '99, I believe.
>> four or five years. And -- any more discussions? My vote
is passed in sympathy with those who --
>> what are we on, judge?
>> number 5.
>> 10 bucks. Is what we're setting it at. Realizing it will
affect the departments with a lot of people working around the $10 more than
the others.
>> but it's got to be done sometime.
>> and I expect folks to give us more information as to how
this creates challenges.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Red line
is a big issue. There will be couple, three people giving testimony on that.
I guess we have excluded red line people from increases in the base. We have
lurch summed their increases for I guess the last, what, five, six, seven
years in?
>> no, sir, every other year it was not. It was just a lump
sum.
>> I知 going to try a motion. I move we do not add this to
base because to remind everyone, red line means you are at the absolute --
you are paid more than we would ever pay for that particular slot and you
will still get the money. It has a minimal, as norman has told us many, many
times, it has a minimal effect on your final calculation for retirement purposes.
And I think this is the appropriate thing at this point that if you are at
the end of the salary range, there really is an end to the salary range and
we need to work with to you try to get to you a higher pay classification
that can get you more money.
>> and one of the reasons we have the tuition refund program
in place, as far as I知 concerned, was that you have the opportunity to get
additional skills and the county pays 100% if you are at a public institution,
pays 50% if it's a private. And so I mean that was -- you know, what I saw
that the tuition refund program would do to -- for employees. You don't want
to just remain, you know, Marching forward. You want to move vertically eventually
so that that's where the money is. And I will second that.
>> if I may I would like to take this opportunity to address
some of these items. I came in here fully prepared today to back off of our
previous recommendation for the 4.0, leaving the 1.5 for flexibility and adopt
some of the discussion I had heard about the 5.75 straight across I think
would have taken care of a host of ills including the $10 minimum wage, green
line employees and so forth. With all respect to motion that was made then
i'll keep my comments within those parameters and everything you've done so
far is very much appreciated. In regards to the red lined employees. I知 going
to ask to you take the red lined employees themselves out of this equation
and not talk about whether we take the 4% and add it to their base, but I
want you to focus upon the fact that while our pays have been stagnant at
Travis County for the last two, three years now, markets out there have not
been stagnant. Even the most conservative numbers talk about a 1.75 to 2%
cost of living increase that has been affecting job markets. Including pay
ranges of employees. A simple proposal says that you take that same 4% that
you are going to be applying to employees to their across-the-board salary
increase and you move those pay ranges, all pay ranges in Travis County slide
forward 4% with respect to what the tpharbgt is doing out there. -- market
is doing out there. That keeps us moving forward in our pay ranges because
I don't think it's a big stretch to say by not doing that, and we've seen
this in the past, have we not, where we have to make these quantum leaps in
our pay ranges to catch up with what the market has done because we haven't
gotten around to doing market studies in several years and funding them several
years after that and we have this quantum leap with this enormous price tag.
By doing something as conservatively as moving our pay races forward, we're
keeping ourselves moving at least in the direction marketing is do. So if
and when and I知 hoping it's when rather than if get around to doing and implementing
market studies, we're not going to have these huge, you know, $11 million
price tags that we used to have in the past by doing. That I think it's a
fiscally responsible move. I think it is fair to those employees who are at
the end of the pay range because I think they are at the end of that pay range
artificially because we have locked in those pay ranges when everything else
in the world is moving forward. The cost of milk, pay ranges, the market for
these jobs, everything. So I would really ask you to consider just moving
though pay ranges and we'll let then the 4% will apply accordingly and how
it will impact some employees and not -- it's really not my issue. My issue
is it will free up those employees at the end of the pay range to receive
that 4% as a part of their base, and I think it's a good fiscal move for the
future for Travis County.
>> greg, I知 going respectfully disagree back. We have been
doing those market surveys. What we have not been doing is funding some of
the results of those market surveys, but we have gone through -- we don't
use the word "reclass," change after change after change of some stay the
same, but many of our folks are moving to higher pay grades which not only
extends out the final salary, it also ups the initial salary. And so we have
done exactly what you've said there and I think that the problem is not at
the end of the pay range. Where we have appropriately checked market, luann
and her thoebgs have been busy in terms of the large number of groups we looked
at and we looked at market. The problem with not a pay range out this way,
it turns out they were in the wrong classification and that moved the initial
salary forward which is a good thing and it also moved the outer salary out
and we have made every single one of those changes so it is not correct to
say we have stopped doing market salary surveys. The problem was we were not
implementing some of the answers that we got and that's why we created this
brand-new term which is goofy called green circles. We can't even get you
to the initial new salary for that much higher pay range.
>> correct.
>> so I知 just going to red line is just -- it's not the
[inaudible] and in terms of strategies that makes that one-time money as opposed
to ongoing money because little one time infused into the salary and could
create some -- i'll call it space within the ongoing allocation here that
we would not have if this were -- if this were added to base, that means all
that money is ongoing money. But we might have a splitout of things in the
general fund what is ongoing because you are not at the end of the pay range
versus a red line lump sum is one time money.
>> what was our justification in 2001?
>> it's been several years since we did the market study.
>> judge Biscoe.
>> I will elaborate on what Commissioner Sonleitner said,
and the proof is really in the numbers. In 2002 we projected a total of 567
read line employees. Today we have 188. That's a 67% decrease in red line
total. And that has been because the court took a three-year strategic plan
that every three years we would look at 100% of the job classifications in
Travis County and we've done that. In some of the years you have not been
able to fund them like the last two years. Some of those have been funded
internally by the departments. And what we have today from '02 is from 557
red line to 188. We hope to continue that sort of work and we'll bring a plan
back to the court to continue the market salary survey.
>> judge Biscoe, we're talking about two completing different
things here. I understand that reclassifications have occurred and, again,
they have not been funded for the last couple of years. The kind of adjustments
that you are talking about, Commissioner Sonleitner, are those kind of reclassification
studies where we look at the jobs these employees are doing, their job duties
and we say with the work you are doing you need to be reclassified to a higher
level of position. Higher responsibilities, more duties, responsibilities
and so forth. It calls for a different classification, a different pay jump
altogether and of course as the different pay range goes with that. And it's
a higher pay range because it's a higher level position. It's not what I知
talking about. We do market studies specifically at tkpwrupbs of employees
that are doing the same kwrobs they've always done, t.n.r. Is a good example
and we say they are doing the same work and whether or not the 3 and a half
in terms of the pay raises, the market is moving forward in terms of what
the rest of the world pays for a equipment operator or maintenance tech or
so forth, right? That's a market study. It says what's the world paying for
an equipment operator. We go study that. We pull in city of Austin data, Travis
County, private sector and get a composite and say here it is. Our employees
are fine. Our employees are below the market. What I知 saying to you is the
market has been moving on over these last three years since some of our employees
have received salary increases. And with respect to that, we shift the pay
ranges that these employees are in forward conservatively 2% each year for
a total of 4% and we are keeping abreast of what -- these aren't my numbers,
the numbers that are coming out of human resources department, coming out
of the department of labor, any reasonable source says it's 1.75 to 2% a year
that the markets have been moving forward. That's what I知 talking about.
I know there's a lot of employees that have been addressed as far as reclassifications
are concerned and the numbers evidence that. There are still 188 employees
who we have not gotten around to and I contend that there's justification
for freeing them up at least by 4% by moving their pay ranges. And that's
all this proposal is about.
>> what you are suggesting is that the scale actually be
bumped up 2%?
>> not up. Forward.
>> forward rather.
>> yes, sir.
>> not up but forward.
>> that would be 4%.
>> well, 2% per annum, correct. 4% along with the 4% we're
giving as a pay increase.
>> which would also end up addressing the base pay as far
as red line employees. Because they would be going across.
>> I知 appreciating the court's approach to this, the issues,
and I know these are tough ones and I think your priorities are good. You
are moving to the $10 an hour. I think there's every justification in the
world for that. Deal be with green lined employees I think has got to be a
priority. We're asking employees who these reclassifications were done to
but said we're not bringing you up even to the minimum of that new classification.
No, you've got the duties and responsibility, but we're not going to even
give you the minimum pay that goes with that classification. That's an in
equity and needs to be addressed. There's all this discussion about giving
departments flexibility. And I want to give everybody their due, but, you
know, most elected officials aren't going to 4% and keeping 1.75% of their
salaries aside to maintain flexibility, they are taking the full 1.75%.
>> not everybody.
>> not everybody. Appreciate that, sir. That's the pointed
is they want flexibility and they are all basing around this performance base.
We want to be able to reward our great performers. I知 going to sit there
and look them or you or anybody else else in the eye and say any employee
that's been hanging in here in Travis County for the last two or three years
doing their job and doing it well deserves -- I think they've all been exceeding
expectations. They haven't gotten pay raises for if work they've been doing
these last two and three years, right? We don't want to reward them the same
level she we want to give them less salary increases. If you got an employee
that's not performing, we've got a member tpheufpl for dealing with that non-performance
and it's a counseling system, a termination. Don't take a passive-aggressive
approach. That's the kind of flexibility that we're talking about that wants
to be exercised out there and I reject that notion. I think the approach you
are taking is just straightforward, it's dealing with some of the realities
that we're facing, that our employees are facing and I appreciate that you
carry on this vein and I think the last consideration along with the green
line employees is to adjust these pay scales.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... Were all based on that market on that mid point from
our current pay scale. So the recommendation is to not adjust that pay scale.
So I知 just --
>> we are going to have to respectfully disagree on this.
I feel certain they would have told us if we needed to elongate that scale
by 4%, that would have been a recommendation of hrmd. But we have been doing
market salary studies, we have been looking at reclassification studies. And
that was not the recommendation. We made a lot of changes in terms of where
folks ought to be and like I said, we have created 310 green circle people
of good golly they are not even making the minimum of their pay grade, forget
about the maximum. And I just think in terms of what the -- what the limited
amount of resource that's we've got, that -- that we ought to get the red
liners be not added to base and move on. I mean, that will only take that
much more flexibility away from our managers if we require those folks to
get 4% added to base.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, I agree with you. If it's a decision
between addressing the green line employees and those pay ranges, my judgment
would be let's go after those green line employees first.
>> thank you, that's where I知 headed.
>> I think that I know where you are heading in this final
discussion, I just thought that you could hear from me, you won't hear from
me anymore. I appreciate -- I appreciate that priority of going after green
line employees and taking care of the pay ranges. There are people who have
not been looked at for three years and the market has been moving.
>> I would like to make a substitute motion. In hearing what
you said as far as red line, I知 not going to give up on the red line employees
of Travis County. Not saying that you are, greg. But I know -- I think it
does affect the things, I know even minimal, but it is an effect on the retirement.
Even though it may be minimum, it's still an effect on their retirement. Green
line employees, of course, I think are very significant. I think after the
market has been done on those particular employees and suggests that person
should be making $15 an hour, yet they continue to work at a rate of $13 an
hour because the -- the department has not funded, does not have the funds
to -- to actually address the $15 an hour justification that hnr [indiscernible]
survey has suggested that they be paid. Even so we are still looking at a
group of persons that have -- that are in a -- in a position where they have
been receiving lump sum of course as I stated earlier, is an impact on their
retirement, minimal as it may be, it's still an impact. I feel that they,
this particular money should be added to their base salary. And I think that
we have discussed this in -- kind of beat this up a little bit during the
budget hearings and I am not going to back off my position at all. And we
have several of them that -- I知 not saying that h and r continue to do some
of its things as they have done. But we have done it in the past as far as
adding -- adding the -- the recommendation from the court in the form of a
motion, as far as [indiscernible] to the base that also affected our employees.
I知 not going to back off that. My motion is to add the four -- the cost of
living of 4%, also the flexibility to depend on what the discretionary flexibility
of the department or 1.75%, for a total of 5.75% to be added to the base salary
of our red line employees of Travis County. That's my motion.
>> red line at the 4% to the base of red line employees,
same as the other employees.
>> same as the other employees, judge. The flexibility of
course would be what [indiscernible]
>> I second the motion. Question is whether we put the increase
in the bates of red line employees or not. Substitute motion to be voted on
first. Any more discussion of the substitute motion?
>> can I ask, do we know, does somebody have a figure on
what that would be? If we take and added the 4% to the red line?
>> it would -- in this year, you would not see an increase,
you would just use the 4%. But next year you would because that would be added
whatever you did next year would be added to a larger base.
>> would this -- and would this be the case from this point
city auditor.
>> uh-huh.
>> so you really are taking people that are at the top of
wherever they are, and continuing to bump, you know, that salary?
>> yes.
>> there is no question that jobs have a pay scale that that's
as far as you can get there. , I mean, you either become a sergeant or you
become, you know, the head of your department or you move to a different department.
I mean, there obviously needs to be some consideration given to what you do
with red line people if you are not -- if they really are not afforded the
ability to move. Or to do whatever -- because that's effectively the only
way that a red line employee can really elevate themselves, right? Is to go
to the different pay scale, go to --
>> yeah.
>> the reason I support it is apparently it was three years
ago we voted it into the base. I don't know that anything catastrophic happened
after [indiscernible] in 2001, the third reason is that I don't know that
managers feel pressured to try to help red line employees move vertically.
I don't know if we have ever studied that really. This comes up about every
budget cycle. But if in fact the employees at Travis County and also where
are feeling the -- the pinch of a slow economy, I don't know if there's any
exception for red line employees. The financial impact on Travis County is
the same the first year. After that, it matters. But it also matters to the
retirement benefits of employees.
>> right.
>> after the first year. There are a lot of -- this is kind
of a gray area. If we are trying to help employees, I say we ought to help
red liners.
>> I don't have a problem with that, judge. I guess if --
I mean I would like to work on the policy. I mean. I would probably vote for
it if it were one year. If this is locking this thing in, we don't come back,
if we have this year to look at -- look at red line employees and kind of
talked to them, say, hey you were red lined, you either need to get some education,
or you need to -- to find a place where -- where you are capable of doing
a different pay grade, in order to make more money, I mean, that's -- that's
-- that's where I would like to head.
>> the best advice that I give, mr. Daugherty to my best
friends and so -- that's the best advice that I would give to my best friends.
Maybe even to my enemies, I don't want to see someone run up against the wall
and spin your wheels which is in effect what happens with the red line and
-- and especially since we are offering the tuition refund program to give
people an opportunity to get job-related skills, to add to -- to add to --
to their job description. To get to that opportunity.
>> there was an issue, it would be a minimal impact as far
as what we are dealing with here to address the red line issue. I can't remember
what we discussed at that time during the public hearing as far as the numbers
are concerned, but according to what I thought I understood, there was a minimum
and it really wouldn't be that much of an impact. I don't think it's a real
big deal. How many employees are we talking about red lined alicia.
>> I was going to comment that you do have a -- a portion
if not -- if not the majority of your red line that's are professionals. For
example, juvie court has a lot of red line employees from juvenile probation
officer 2 to 3. So it could be that that individual would -- may have a --
more education, but they would have to wait for a position to come open in
the -- in the juvenile probation officer. But they are not all your -- your
lowest paid employees. You do have a lot of professionals in the red line.
>> without mentioning names, I have a red liner in my office.
And if that person wants to earn more money, they will have to find a different
kind of a job. But there's a limit to how much we are going to pay somebody
who works within the Commissioners office. That doesn't mean we don't love
them, doesn't mean they are not fabulous, but there's a limit to the pay.
That doesn't mean that anybody is unhappy. But if they want to earn a higher
pay salary, they are going to have to find a different job or know that there
is an end to that particular salary. But I don't have any complaints within
my office about that particular salary, but this is an ongoing commitment.
Even though it doesn't feel painful right at this moment because it's budgeted,
this will have a ratchet effect next year, Gerald, I think what we ought to
do is exactly what you just said. We ought to spend some quality time over
fiscal year '05 to let's look at the red liners and let's be real specific
about why are they read lined? And what can we do to get the red liners off
the red line if that's a question of -- that they are at a job and they love
it and to leave it they would have to leave that job to be able to get more
money, that's one thing. That is by choice somebody being a red liner. Is
it that they just don't want to accept the responsibilities or they don't
have the opportunities for the education? We need to get them those opportunities
and get them to know how they can move within the Travis County organization.
>> Commissioner Daugherty --
>> can they be the last comments on this? We are quickly
running out of time.
>> yeah.
>> if [indiscernible] is making $5 an hour 10 years ago,
where they could have been a red-lined employee, are we going to say to those
employees that by virtue of the fact that you are at the end of your pay scale
then, that rightfully you are going to be making $5 an hour today unless you
find other occupations to move into, other classifications to move into. The
fact of the matter is that $5 an hour employee 10 years ago is making $15
today for one reason and one reason only. Because the market has moved. That's
what cost of living is all about. That's what moves pay ranges forward, whether
you move into another job or not, is disengenuous to say if you don't want
to get paid that, go back to college and get career career. We can't say that
same equipment operator is making $12 an hour, 10 years from now we say you
still should only make $12 an hour, cost of living has moved everything forward,
his housing, milk, everything including his salary. That's what this proposal
is all about. There is no catastrophic effect to it. It is just moving what
the market is doing anyway. You are going to pay now or we are going to pay
later when we do the market adjustments when we get around to them. That's
my whole point.
>> substitute motion is to -- to move the -- move any increase
into the base for red line employees, specifically the 4% across the board
increase. All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioner Davis, yourself truly
voting in favor. Voting against, that motion fails, back to the original motion
not to add the increase to the base for red line employees. But to continue
the three year practice of a lump sum payment.
>> may I add something to our motion, I hope it's friendly
to the second. That is that restructure hr over fiscal year '05 to spend time,
energy, et cetera realit represented to the red line, for -- related to the
red line, for there to be strategies getting that number down to something
lower than what it was in fiscal year '05.
>> is that appropriate for this agenda setting?
>> just giving instruction [indiscernible] they are going
to be utilizing the same --
>> my advice would be at some point before October we bring
a specific agenda item, to look at different parts of it. I do agree this
ought to be studied next year. The motion is not to roll the increase into
the base for red line employees. All in favor of that motion? Show commissions
Gomez, daughterty, Sonleitner voting in favor. Voting against show comirs
caves and yours truly, that motion passes 3-2 --
>> let me say this to the employees and I知 really serious
about this and I think again I -- the minimal impact on what we would have
done today would have been very minimal. According to p.b.o. [indiscernible]
budget hearing. And of course we need to get look at the red line employees.
I -- hopefully we can overcome some of these things. Not saying that I don't
disagree with you getting a lump sum. But you should be added and considered
in with all of the rest of these Travis County employees. Even though you
are red lined. I think that you should get a fair shake than what you got
here today. Thank you.
>> move that we encourage and authorize the departments to
use what's left of their 5.75% to cover the best they can performance based
pay, green circled employees and career ladders.
>> second.
>> this is my -- there's only so much money to go around
motion. Seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any more discussion? Seconded -- Commissioner
Gomez?
>> let me try a substitute motion since that seems to be
all of the rage. I want greg to know that I was sincere. I would move that
the court getting to the -- to that owe before we get to that last motion
is that the court fund the green circled to the minimums, that would take
pressure off of the 1.75 that remains and double checked and it takes a lot
of pressure off of t.n.r. Which has quite a few of the green circled.
>> substitute motion is [indiscernible] substitute motion
is to direct --
>> that the court would fund green circled employees to the
minimum.
>> after the 4% or after the 5.7?
>> neither, separate and apart. Which then if that passes,
leaves the 1.75 for performance based pay and I guess career ladders were
or were not, career ladders totally separate. So that would basically leave
--
>> [multiple voices]
>> green circle, again, if you don't include the 4%, and
you address all positions, including vacant, it's about 580,000. It would
be a lot less, of course, if you did the 4% and then looked at the issue again
and addresses the green circle at that time. Or say sometime during the fiscal
year all departments will bring individuals up to the minimum of their pay
grade. That gives the departments the full 5.75 to address those issues.
>> all right. Seems to me we ought to just wait and cover
this during markups, same way we do with what's available and not there.
>> if he with can he do that I have no problem doing it.
>> judge, I agree with you, too, on that. Basically it would
be good to know if those green circle employees, green circle period, you
have vacancies out there, green circles that are not filled. It will be good
to know exactly what the filled positions are of the green circle employees.
In other words those that are individual, vacancies would get the same type
of consideration, even though they are not filled, the money would be attributed
to that vacancy, those that are filled I think is the one that we need to
look at.
>> [multiple voices]
>> I will pull down my motion related to green circles with
the idea that we will take this back up during markup. I have every intention
of pursuing this.
>> why don't we do that, take it up as markup, trying to
address it as best we can. If we cannot that [indiscernible] whatever left
out of the 5.75 anyway.
>> career ladders we already have a separate allocation for
that, separate and apart from the 5.75.
>> [indiscernible]
>> [multiple voices]
>> no problem. No problem.
>> just --
>> I have yet another issue if I may quickly during the discussion.
That is that -- allowing the elected officials and department head to use
the 1.75 to address market salary survey issues, which may be separate and
apart from green circle issues.
>> all right. Can I restate my motion?
>> certainly.
>> cover performance based pay, green circle employees, market
salary surveys, any other comp related issues. Total flexibility on the 1.75.
>> with the idea that green circle that specific issue about
whether we infuse more money will be an issue brought back for markup, is
that correct.
>> I thought it was career ladders.
>> they are already in the preliminary budget. We don't have
to do anything, it's already there.
>> then that's fine -- even if it's in the preliminary budget,
green circle is not in preliminary budget. Career ladders are.
>> yes.
>> let's put both of them down as markup items.
>> but there's no issue on career ladders. Does somebody
want to take away the career ladder money.
>> there will be an issue on everything in the preliminary
budget when we start the markup. Not saying it's three votes to take it out,
but -- [multiple voices] first vote is to approve preliminary budget and then
we change it. I知 not saying --
>> we usually have a hearing about that separately so if
you just move to markup, will there be a set time for a hearing on career
ladders.
>> you have a lot of people who feel very strongly about
the importance of those career ladders for their operations. You may want
to either hear that or -- because I think --
>> the money is in there. Already in the preliminary budget.
>> some of the points I think that need to be heard of course
the career ladders anything above the 5.75%. Or within the 5.75. Part of the
deal that we are talking about, over -- 272,671, 77 collars it's $77 actually
set up in career ladders, but not only that, 5.75, we have already voted on,
now on top of that. You are talking about the career ladder aspect. So this
is basically where we are at this point right now.
>> I want to make sure that's very well understood.
>> [indiscernible] [multiple voices]
>> okay. [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> first day. How's is that?
>> that does it for reconciling employees. Doesn't it?
>> yes, sir.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:02 AM