Travis County Commissioners Court
September 7, 2004
Item 7
Let's jump to number 7, we need to figure out what to do on item 7. 7 is
to consider and take appropriate action on fy '05 compensation for employees.
A is cost of living increase for Travis County retirees. What we have in the
preliminary budget is an increase for Travis County retirees. [papers shuffling
- audio interference] I move that we approve the amount of three percent which
is contained in the preliminary budget as a cost of living increase for Travis
County retirees.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> judge, one question was raised by the retirees when they
came to the public hearing. And if there was semi way for us to have a raise
built in every year instead of them worrying about whether it will be dropped.
It will drop for several years, and I guess we kind of lost track of it. So
--
>> when we look at active employees, that's on their salaries
that we ought to consider the retirees automatically. I don't know that we
ought to promise to consider them no matter what we do.
>> so be consistent with rank and file?
>> that's what we've done the last few times we gave rank
and file, incumbent employees increases, right, the last three or four times?
We didn't necessarily give the same amount, but we gave them some.
>> yes, you have given an amount. It hasn't necessarily been
the same amount because one is a cola, and in the past, for example, sometimes
you've awarded performance-based pay and it's 100% of performance-based pay
and still award add cola. And -- awarded a cola. The way the Texas county
retirement system is set up, you are actually to actually make a separate
vote each year so what to provide the retirees. There isn't any general direction
you provided to the planning and budget office on this question. We've basically
kind of handled it on an ad hoc basis to the degree you want to provide some
direction. However, if you say rank and file get a cola, we should follow
suit. But next year that leaves an open-ended question about retirees.
>> I just don't want them to forget retirees. Iks I think
when we give pay raises to incumbent employees, we ought to consider some
increase for retirees.
>> and I think we followed that suit.
>> any discussion of the motion? Additional discussion? All
in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Peace officers are next. B-1, university
officers. 2, corrections officers. 3 supervisors in corrections. And 4, peace
officers outside the sheriff's office. As kind of an overview, my own view
is that on September 21st there should be an agenda item for the Commissioners
court to consider taking a comprehensive look at compensation for the sheriff's
office, especially corrections and law enforcement, the non-sheriff's office
peace officers, supervisors and managers, etcetera. And the question that
we need to mull over between now and then is whether we contract it out or
try do it in-house. And the jail compensation study went very well. And we
need to try to reduce the cost, but at the appropriate time we got some outside
expertise. And I think we ought to use this approach in the future because
annually, in the last few months we've had reports from the various departments
who have organized, some formal, some informal, but we will put in place a
pay structure to allow for three, four or five years and let them know what
we're trying on do and what we'll do ourselves. And you put that structure
in place and you still have to review it. But I would think we would not review
it every year. That does not make this year's decision any less painful, but
if we were to do that at least, we would know in advance what we plan to do.
It's like of state of Texas, subject to the availability of funds, but if
we had a structure in place, it would help. Right now law enforcement would
like to be tied to apd, corrections wants to be tied to law enforcement. Correction
supervisors want to match the law enforcement supervisors. Sheriff's peace
officers want to be tied to law enforcement in the sheriff's office, and those
relationships may make sense. And I need a lot more expertise that could help
us land on that. And I知 mindful also in order to do this we need to start
early in the fiscal year in order to give affected persons an opportunity
to provide input to whatever is doing the work for us. If we do this, we would
need to set aside some amount of money, and I keep thinking that $50,000 ought
to be sufficient based on what the jail operations consultant cost us. And
rather than budgeting that separately, we could have it earmarked against
the allocated reserve. This is just something to think about between -- I
say the 21st because next week we do have a couple of big items on the agenda
already. I do think we ought to land on on that before October 1 so we can
go ahead and put it in place. So having said that, I have thought about the
various subgroups. Money is not infinite. And what I had -- what I hope we
can do is the best we can with the resources that we have. And try to make
peace and at the same time be fair to all these people. I can lay out my compensation
strategy or I can listen to somebody else.
>> i'd be happy to hear yours.
>> here's what I think we can afford and here's what I think
we ought to do. For the corrections supervisors or management, and I think
they have been called both, that we would budget 50% of what has been recommended.
And what's been recommended is parity with law enforcement. So my recommendation
would be 50%. For the corrections --
>> 50%? What was that according to? Because the parity figure
was 507,864? What was that figure?
>> (indiscernible).
>> but they're all really good.
>> if you look at this, se he says cost of corrections management
that might have parity, $253,917. We would add to that increment of 1.25 if
we follow the rest of the strategy. And that would be an additional $64,696.
If you add those two figures together, you ought to get something close to
318,000, right?
>> I can certainly just add it up and tell you.
>> 318,613, yes, that's correct.
>> the second part of this would be that for corrections
that we add 2.25% to the 2.75 already in the budget. That gets down to five.
If we try to cover 670 corrections staff members, that would be $715,150.
My recommendation further is that we add to the law enforcement of sheriff's
office, and the other piece officers and other offices, constables, investigators,
rangers, etcetera, will really get them to four%, which is 1.25, that's $248,951.
So all of those should total $1.8 million. I don't see us supporting more
than that. Now, the reason that I say that amount for law enforcement is if
you consider where they are now compared to corrections, that really ought
to leave the gap about what it is. So four percent of an amount of a larger
amount would be about the same as five percent of a smaller one. I did not
do that calculation. I知 trying to use east Texas common sense on that. I
think it will be close, though. So what this strategy does is to do a little
something for everybody that we've heard from. They will spend $1.282 million
--
>> let me second that because we need to discuss and look
at all the -- do we have this money in hand?
>> it just wipes out what we did three seconds ago.
>> well, I am tempted to say yes because of the word that
you received on the ongoing resources with the road and bridge revenue, going
to the general fund of at least a million and a half. I, however, must ask
my colleague whether there are any last minute issues. I believe those issues
are one time. But I want to make sure so I give you the right answer.
>> may I ask this question. What we are doing here is kind
of adding small amounts to what's in the preliminary budget.
>> you're adding $1.2 million.
>> even though a small amount is added would be an additional
$1.282 million.
>> that's correct. The 1.3 is there if you tie it to what
we were talking about on road and bridge. And that will leave very little
for ongoing resources for anything you want to do tomorrow. But I saw a preliminary
update two days ago and I know a lot of people have been very busy in the
last few days. And we've had labor day holiday.
>> let me see the connection I can make with the money coming
over from the road and bridge. And that is that the patrol, the law enforcement
folks who are out on the street patrolling, there is a relationship there.
And I can connect it fairly well. So I can go there. The other question I
have is where would this put the sheriff's law enforcement in relationship
to apd? Which was the other issue that we were trying to address, you know,
so that the message is sent that our -- I have confidence in our sheriff's
department as much as I have in the a.p.d. And so.
>> --
>> one answer to that is if you value the take-home vehicle.
That's why it's complicated.
>> my only question is where does this put law enforcement
in relationship to a.p.d.?
>> and that's why --
>> in terms of parity.
>> and if you include the value of the take-home vehicle,
that gives you one number. If you exclude the value of the take-home vehicle,
that gives you another number. And it also is complicated by the fact that
there are many different comparisons of someone who has only been there a
couple of years versus somebody who has been there many years. Bill can speak
to that.
>> well, not much better than that actually. I知 not sure
because we really haven't done it with this exact four percent increase. I
certainly can do that in the next couple of days or so. It is not that far
if you assume --
>> they may not be that important, judge. I just wondered
if we had the answer readily available so that I could look at that issue
as well. But maybe it's not essential and we have to look at that versus this.
>> we have a stab at it.
>> and the stab is that at various steps for various types
of officers, using the 2.75%, so it would be less problematic with a four
percent increase. If you assume the value of the vehicle, which is about --
I will have to look at this real quick. It's about $4,238 counting capital
and operating costs for sergeants and deputies and about 4878 for lieutenants.
At 2.75%, the deputy, senior deputies would be 3.6% behind a.p.d., Step 6.
Step 11 they would be 3.1%. And step 16, which is out quite aways, it would
be 8.4%. Those percentages would be smaller at four percent than the 2.75%.
For a sergeant it would be 5.9% at step 6. 4.2% at step 11 and 9.4% for step
16. Again, this is including the vehicle. Again, they would be somewhat smaller.
Basically what occurs is that the further out you go on the step, the bigger
the gap widens.
>> if we include corrections and all of the peace officers
in what I知 trying to do, you end up dealing with a whole lot of employees.
The number gets big. So although the amount is big too, when you look at the
per person increase, it's relatively small. And what I had tried to really
was to factor in all of the relevant concerns, look at the amount of money
available and basically try to get everybody a little something. In the end
I think that we need a study done that we buy into, and I don't know that
we will ever get unanimous agreement. But we all say this is what we plan
to do, and annually we will know what direction we're headed in and we will
prepare for that, do that periodically, instead of the ad hoc approach that
we're doing now.
>> well, given the fact that the money is not, you know --
is not available in huge amounts, I think that as usual we've done a very
fair job in trying to work with that number.
>> we just seconds ago found out that there may be 1.38 million
of new, ongoing funds made available. If we take this action, it would literally
wipe out everything in terms of those resources. So when we start mockup tomorrow,
there's nothing. There's nothing other than maybe 180, $200,000 of ongoing
money to take care of things like increasing the amount for the after school
programs, the basic needs coalition, something I think the sheriff's office
cares dearly about, which is the cold case unit. There's an awful lot of things,
and I am happy to stick this into the parking lot and let's see if what is
left over at the end and much of what is left over goes towards this. But
to say that the most important things before we even start markup is to put
more money into law enforcement and corrections are numbers that basically
give them pretty close to the same raise as our rank and file, I can't go
there at this point because we haven't had an opportunity to talk about the
facts implementation, ongoing money, the hospital district reserve. There's
an awful lot of stuff on what christian just gave us, $2.3 million in ongoing
requests, that at least three of us said i'd like to talk about that. There's
no reason for us to even have markup if that's the case because there's no
money other than if we were to go to a tax increase, and I haven't heard anybody
here say that the way to get ourselves out of this would be to borrow more
on or to raise the effective tax rate. I can't go here. And it doesn't mean
that I don't think the world of these folks, but I can't make this decision
today before I go into markup because otherwise I would have to turn down
every single request tomorrow because all the money's gone, and I don't want
to go there. I'd like to have a full range of options available to me as opposed
to it gets taken away and there are no options.
>> just to reflect on that, and I wouldn't be doing my job
if I didn't at least say this once and then have you react. Which is that
you will be seeing a reduction in the tax rate due to the hospital district
switch. At this point we are within an eye lash of knowing the exact amount.
We've had our meeting with maxwell, lok, ritter, so we will know know the
size of that and I think it's fair to say it will be between 1.4 and 1.5 cents.
It will be somewhere in that range. And you should know that the numbers work
out that two-tenths of one penny, 2.002 does.one $.2 million. So that is a
lever. You may choose never to pull it, but that's the way the mathematics
works.
>> but here's the problem with that, christian, and that
is that the folks who voted for the hospital district, and I happen to have
been one of them, had expectations that yes indeed, the Travis County tax
rate would drop.
>> yes, I understand that.
>> by that 1.4 cents. They didn't think we would rescoop
it up and spend it so they would see zero relief on their county property
taxes. In addition, anybody who lives outside the city of Austin will not
only see that 1.4 cents stap on the county's side, they're fixing to be hit
big time, words of dick cheney, related to the hospital district. They are
going to be hit hard in terms of getting that bill from the hospital district.
So you would be double hitting anybody who lives outside the city of Austin.
I don't think that's what everybody's expectations are, so that the 1.4 cents
is a deduct, but we're going to add it back in. I知 not going to go there.
I don't think that's what people were told was going to happen.
>> reality check. Having gone through 15 markups, we will
find a way to balance the budget without increasing taxes further. We have
delayed making this decision three or four weeks. I laid out the best way
I think we ought to deal with it. And there is nothing in law to keep us from
revisiting any decisions we've already made. There are some reserve funds
that could be tweaked a little bit to generate additional revenue for us.
Nobody said markup is supposed to be easy. In fact, it was too easy last year.
We had too much funds to approve an expenditure. But we have dealt with all
the other compensation issues. I think we ought to deal with this one in the
way that I have laid out unless there is a better way.
>> judge?
>> I知 almost done. As we start tomorrow morning identifying
areas, in addition to what we identified today, and then start spending money
and identify other items that we think are more critical than the ones that
we have -- more critical than the ones we've approved, then we simply revisit
it. We ought to do this every year anyway. We have three days markup and we
have various items and need a report back on the status. So we need to take
advantage of the three days and then we don't have to have this thing in concrete
until late September. Unless we wait until October 1. But we have until September
21st or 28 if we take that long. So I feel real comfortable in our creative
ability dozen this compensation, deal with the other items that we ought to
fund during this budget process, otherwise I wouldn't have made the motion.
If I am wrong, though, and a motion to revisit any of this is made, it would
be appropriate. Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, judge. I think you laid it out adequately. I know
we've all been working really hard to try to come up with a resolve so this
issue. I mean, you just take a look at all of this paperwork here, all the
proposals, all the different visits that we have inquired of pbo for them
to come up with some type of resolve to see what we can do for compensation
of the folks. Also, we were able to move right along extending the realm of
the preliminary budget with the rank and file folks. We have not been able
to be as expedient in dealing with the other folks, which is posing a real
challenge to all of us. I for one -- and I can recall very vividly the discussions
we had during the budget hearing about the columns and the goals and the things
that were tried to be reached when it came to correction, law enforcement
and others. And basically what was apparent the parity among the supervisors
or the managers, lieutenants and sergeants on both sides. How do we bring
about parity because the gaps are really -- have been widened tremendously.
And there have been a lot of other things. How do we deal with that? We looked
at that, and of course we came up with some figures to bring that situation
in within those two groups, which was fine. I support that. But also, there
has been a gap we discussed in the -- moij law enforcement officers. So we
looked at -- instead of the preliminary budget being 2.75%, then we did a
budget for all of pops. We looked at trying to narrow that done and giving
them at least 2.25 over the 2.75, which would bring them to the correction
officers to five percent. Of course, looking at the scheme of things of narrowing
the gap, so -- with law enforcement. So this thing that we continue to support.
However, flexibility is another issue that came up within that particular
area as far as the managers in that officers being able to do what they want
to do with the flexibility of money. So those topics were discussed and fleshed
out very well. And here we are today still fleshing out or trying to hash
out a resolve on how we get there. Now, if we look at the incremental of what's
being proposed today, and we're looking at the overall incremental cost of
1 point -- when you total it up, it's really 1.25, which could be applied
to everyone else. So you're really looking at a one percent differential between
the correctional officers and law enforcement, a four percent versus a five
percent. So that the gap that we want to formulate? I don't know. It appears
to me, though, that if we're going to increment, it should be incremented
all across, not only for the correctional officers, but if we're going to
increment one, we've got to be consistent not only for the correctional officers,
but I think we've also applied that to the managers in this particular case.
(indiscernible). So I知 kind of concerned about that part of it. If we're
going do it, let's do it where we can still keep the margins at where it was
at, but also narrow the gap, so I think it's pretty important that we stay
consistent if we're going to do that. We've had to struggle on long time on
this Commissioners court dealing with different issues. We've had major challenges.
I feel good about the things that we have accomplished over the past. And
I just think this is a major challenge, and judge, I really wish you could
go over there and reduce the -- and I know -- and I would like to see if you
would accept this as a friendly, would be that you reduce half of that $507,000
and you reduce it to half of that, so if you could go ahead and bring that
back -- because that is the true parity. If we don't address parity, which
has really been a big, big problem. If we don't address the true parity of
these things, then again here we are going through another year, and I think
it's something we need to continue to do is look at -- we're just addressing
half of the parity. And of course it still exists. So I知 still kind of concerned
about that. I think the numbers will reflect that in the end. And of course
the true parity was the $507,000 for the sergeants in the correction nal facility.
You -- correctional facility. I would really like that as friendly if you
would accept it. That would be great. To keep everybody at the same consistent
parity. The increment on one would be incremented to all on both sides.
>> I知 looking at dollars, and my thinking was -- let's take,
for example, five percent of 45,000 would be about the same as four percent
of 50. I just pulled those numbers out of the air. The dollars would be about
the same increase. To be honest, I was looking at the available revenue as
well as trying to keep the gap where it was, so I wasn't trying to close the
gap. I was trying to keep the gap from ploas closing up. Let's hear from the
sheriff and the auditor, and then come back to the court.
>> well, I think -- obviously it depends on whether you're
talking about gaps in dollars or gaps in percentage as part of the issue.
>> I知 talking about dollars myself.
>> well, that's the court's -- I知 just saying that that's
the difference there. On the supervisors, I do think that part of what needs
to happen is that we really need to look at the relationship of everybody
on these scales and decide who should be on the same scale and who should
not be. And because I do think that what we have happen -- it seems like every
year is that there are certain groups who work very hard to have issues brought
before the court and talk to the court and work with the sheriff, and then
at the end we have other folks who come up and go, me too, me too. And it
wind up sometimes skewing the costs. So I do think that one of the things
that needs to happen is look at the relationship of all these to each other.
So I strongly support the judge's position on that. As far as the percentages,
Commissioner Gomez, our law enforcement will continue to -- we had kind of
said we wanted to keep within around seven percent of the Austin police department,
with the idea of the vehicle, but part of the reality is that depending on
what the city of Austin chooses to do, whether or not that was a goal that
can be continued to be met. And I知 -- I think that it's -- the judge's proposal
is certainly one that folks should -- the different members of the associations
are here. I would think that given raises in the fast they should embrace
the proposal.
>> and I want to address the public safety issue. And I guess
that's what the original intention of pops. And -- but I totally agree that
we need to look at this for next year and we need to take plenty of time to
look at it. Because it should not be possible for me to go out and get my
peace officer status so I can be part of pops. But that shouldn't happen.
And what do I contribute to public safety? I mean, i'd love to and drive better,
not have any wrecks and not put anybody out there in danger for being in my
past in any way, with or without automobiles. I think we need to look at it.
It's real clear that we need to look at this for next year.
>> I am concerned and there's been so many numbers tossed
around, I知 not quite sure where we're at, and I understand that the court
can undo tomorrow what they've done today. And there are other needs, including
our cold case detectives. And although the compensation issues are there,
you have to fund the basic services first, whether it be in the sheriff's
office or other places. So that's one of my concerns, is to whether or not
there would be funds left in those resources.
>> if we were to look at --
>> I dream of doing that. [ laughter ]
>> judge, there's a delay in some of the compensation issues,
and we are looking at the effect for the next fiscal year. How would it work?
>> if you wanted to spend a dollar --
>> I知 just asking a question, please.
>> you are making a commitment to spend a dollar over a 12-month
period. Whether it's a dollar or a million dollars. If you start it and budget
it in '05, you appropriate a dollar and you spend a dollar. If you want to
have a six-month delay on any compensation increase, you still are making
a commitment for that dollar. You're just splitting it, half in '05 and half
in '06. You will save, quote unquote, money in '05, but you will start in
'06 eating your way out of that hole before you do anything different. So
it is a choice. We used to do it. We got away from it because what we were
doing was starting our next fiscal year having to accommodate the expenditure
decisions of the year before. And that's how we started this annualization
reserve and it's generally worked. But it is a choice. We would urge you to
not face '06 in a negative position on day one, but we've done it before.
If you want to do it, we'll work with you.
>> not me.
>> susan?
>> mine is an implementation issue. We would like to see
the logical structure, whatever you're recommending or where you think you're
going, so I can analyze whether -- if it requires us to create more scale,
scale can be adjusted, and how long that's going to take. So I hadn't seen
that. It's simply an implementation issue. I know you wouldn't want to do
something that would require three people. That's a waste of money.
>> just two. Just two people is all you get. [ laughter ]
>> I don't want any more people.
>> but just make sure that what we have can be implemented
on the system. So if bill can get with charles and we'll get back to you if
there's some disaster there on implementation.
>> is there any indication that the implementation might
be troublesome. That's a good red flag to know about.
>> if it passes we ask that you give the basic information
to susan and as ues, you can let us know in a couple of days.
>> whatever impacts us. I知 speaking for y'all too.
>> just for the record, it is not my thinking that this is
a perfect scheme. This is an idea that I had. Everybody that chatted with
me gave suggestions that made all the sense in the world. And I left each
meeting convinced that the points raised were meritorious and I wanted to
figure out a way to fund them. But at some point I really had to look at available
resources. And that's how I landed here. And I知 also aware that there are
big issues on the agenda that we need to try to address during this budget
cycle. Again, tomorrow morning we'll try to do this thing.
>> judge? Just looking back at the math of this thing --
and I知 going back to the parity of numbers for the directional lieutenants
and sergeants to be brought up to parity with the law enforcement sergeants
and lieutenants would cost $507,834. And if -- in the proposal itself you
have with the incremental cost for the 70 lieutenants and sergeants on the
correctional side would cost an additional $64,696. If that was totaled on
to that already adjusted parity figure, it would be $517,335, which would
leave the parity at that time. It's just something to consider. Of course,
I never did get the figure for the correctional officers at all. And as far
as the -- the $715,150, if it was incremental. Or 1.25, we slide that right
across a bill, what would that amount be for the correctional officers? Not
knocking what the law enforcement is getting, but if that 1.25% was included
with the vig of $715,150, what would be that for the -- what would that be
for the correctional officers?
>> I知 not sure.
>> it's already in there.
>> it's already in there. That's 2.25%.
>> yeah, but the point is that -- the point is that with
the 1.25 that's given to the law enforcement, the correctional officers stay
the same. They didn't get that incremental bump as they did in your example
with the lieutenants and sergeants on correctional side, the 70, with that
same incremental bump.
>> what occurs with the correctional sergeants and lieutenants
is not a percent increase, but rather a pay grade change. That extra percent
is simply to keep whole the pay grade change because the law enforcement people
got the 1.25%. It doesn't apply to the -- to just the simple sliding of a
pay scale itself for the corrections officers.
>> so the difference would still be just one percent between
--
>> there would be a one percent further increase to the corrections
folks relative to the law enforcement group.
>> the difference would be one percent. That was the point
I was bringing up, was above that one percent, and it was if it was 2.25%
originally. It didn't move, in other words, it stayed constant. So that's
what I was trying --
>> it depends on when you apply the 50%. Do you do the four
and five percent and then apply the 16% or do you do it beforehand?
>> the problem too is he's going to bump up the lieutenants
and sergeants at law enforcement. These numbers keep growing and growing and
growing.
>> they're not growing beyond 1.28.
>> what I知 saying is I have issues with the word parity.
Every time we use the term parity people think I need to be getting the exact
same dollar amount as somebody else. I think christian laid is out. Everybody
wants to be matched to the person making the most money. I don't blame anybody
for that, but I think I have to put something here on the record. In meeting
with the two sheriff's associations, throughout this fiscal year with the
folks from corrections, they were doing okay with 2.75%. They were. That was
the number they thought was going to be plugged in, was going to be half of
whatever rank and file were going to get. That number was there up until days
before the preliminary budget is out. And then all of a sudden, no, we want
five, seven or 10 percent, which basically says we want the same amount as
rank and file or even more. The same thing is what's going on with the law
enforcement association. I thought that if they got 2.75 that's doing good,
at the same time we are getting the firing range. Hopefully the court will
consider the good things like the cold case unit. Certainly we'd like more
money rather than less money, but now all of a sudden everybody is wanting
more, more, more. And I don't think we can afford what the Austin police department
has done related to their law enforcement officers. I applaud them for doing
with those numbers, but I don't think those numbers are sus city of Austinable
-- sustainable. And if law enforcement wants those numbers and corrections
wants those numbers, everybody wants the most money of whoever else is on
the scale, and I just don't think that these numbers are sustainable. And
I知 blown away by what I thought were good, safe discussions going on with
the court throughout this year that, gee, if we got half of what rank and
file did -- because they went two years without a raise and we only went one
year without a raise, now I知 finding that the demands are -- that was all
just bunk. And I still don't know if we have corrections officers who are
going to be seeking to get collective bargaining. Are you? They're still going
to try to seek collective bargaining. So this is not going to placate anybody
out there. Let's not kid ourselves. They're going after collective bargaining,
which is their right according to the petition drive and you take it to the
public. But they're not satisfied with this. They're still going after collective
bargaining. Which is your right. But I知 just blown away by all these numbers.
And I still want to do something related to getting the lieutenants and sergeants
on corrections in a better place, but the word parity bugs me, and even they
said, gee, we don't mind if it comes over two years because we get it, there
are other people besides us in this budget. And so when it comes down to when
we actually vote, I知 not going to support this motion, and it doesn't mean
that I respect everybody in this -- that I don't respect everybody in this
process, but I think it's a horrible message to everyone else who works for
Travis County that once again, if you've got clout in your association, your
words can drawn out everybody else's in these debates, and that's a shame.
>> well, I don't think that that clout in an association
per swaidz me one way or another when I voted on the raise for rank and file,
or when I voted for elected officials, like the judges and the county clerk,
etcetera. I considered to myself doing the right thing based on the total
facts. I don't think that a better idea today is doing nothing. And I知 questioned
on this job everyday. I知 questioned to do the right thing. And if I can't
take that, I move on basically. Any more discussion of the motion?
>> go ahead.
>> well, I don't have any problem at all voting on this today.
I mean, I was ready to vote on this, if I hadn't found $1.3 million. Because,
as I said, I -- I think that you have to pay people that are willing to wear
something to protect themselves to go out and do their job, and that is the
number one -- if you ask people what are they willing to pay taxes for, they'll
tell you law enforcement, e.m.s. And fire. Those three. That's what people
pay their taxes for, and they expect a number of other things, but those are
really the heart felt feelings of most people, I think. You know, there's
a lot of history here with how this thing got off. And I can't fault anybody
for that. I know that the court made as conscientious an effort as they could.
They knew some people were going to get upset. I had another breakfast this
morning and I think I will be much more prepared next year and I知 going to
ask everybody, from investigators to parks people, everybody that has something
to do with law enforcement, have a day and a half with me where we have a
facilitator and I really understand exactly everybody's feelings about what
they do, what's expected of them. And I think that it will be an enlightening
day and a half for me. And I invite anybody that would like to come along.
But I intend to use the folks and I know the sheriff said by god you better
take in protective gear.
>> I will do my best. It will fit funny because it's a female
vest, but i'll loan it to you.
>> I understand it's a good challenge, sheriff. I need to
be educated and I need to understand who works on the weekends, who works
at night, who works all the crazy hours, all the different things that go
along with people that are in, quote, law enforcement. I mean, I -- the reason
that I want to vote for this is because I want to lock in -- and I realize
that you can always bring it back as people talk about. But we need to move
forward on compensation for law enforcement. Now, I suppose that we could
try to find another $253,000 to bring the half up to full, and i'd certainly
be happy with doing that. What does it mean with markup? It means that you
go through markup pretty quick. And I realize that we have some difference
of opinions on the court, but I think we we we set out -- our major goal this
year was compensation for employees. I think that that is the major theme
of this year, knowing that employees have sat in the wings for two, three
years without compensation, even though pops and some of the people have gotten
some where other people haven't gotten. Moralewise, yes. Commissioner of precinct
3 generally says, you know, I think that we need to have a smaller workforce.
Generally running county government so that you can compensate everybody more
or what they are due. I don't know that i'll ever, you know, accomplish that,
but I知 happy with -- that we're going to keep the folks at the county, then
let's find a way to keep the morale up, try to find a way to compensate them.
Law enforcement certainly needs to be considered, along with everybody else,
and I look forward to voting on this right now. I wish we could vote for me.
I think the bigger question for me is what do we have to do with the hospital
district? I mean, we have got to have dollars to come. We know those numbers
are all over the board. We do have to do this. People voted for it and it
is on our financial statement, which means that we've got to make sure that
we allow the hospital district to get off the ground. So we know we'll have
to spend dollars there. I think -- judge, I think that you've thought this
thing out. Everybody would probably like to have a little more and we probably
would like to have some areas where people have been brought up to what they've
asked for, which was full -- I guess not to use the word parity, but to match
the other group. We're not going to be able to do it right now. We're already
showing that law enforcement has given, that they've gotten raises which some
of the other people haven't gotten. We're basically appropriating 5.75 to
rank and file across the board. Can I live with five percent and four percent,
which is technically what we're doing with law enforcement? I suppose. I知
happy to vote on this thing.
>> anything else from the court?
>> (indiscernible). Judge, on your particular motion, I agree
with everything that you put forth in your motion, with the exception of the
issue of bringing us the law enforcement and also the correctional officers,
lieutenants and sergeants into parity. And that amount was $572,530. And along
with that, the 1.25% in incremental movement on the correctional officers,
which would bring that up to 6 and a quarter percent. So I would like to make
that particular motion, with everything else intact as far as what you have
here with everyone else.
>> okay, the motion is what now, to increase?
>> to increase the lieutenant and sergeants parity amount
from 574 to 4 430, an incremental movement from 2.5% on the correctional officers
instead of the 5.7. It will actually be 6.24%?
>> this would have the effect of adding the other $253,917.
>> exactly.
>> and the total amount then would be 1,536,000, $631.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...back to the original motion. Which by the figures set
out in bill's handwriting memo and total 1 continue to $282,714,000,000. All
in favor of that motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly
--
>> no, I abstain. I look forward to do this later in markup
but I知 not going to vote for it and take it back.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner abstains. P.b.o., Tomorrow morning
at 9:00, your mission is come up with about $2 million of ongoing heavy new
for us. You do not have choice of accepting or rejecting this assignment.
[laughter]
>> sure.
>> thank you all very much. Anything else on this item?
>> no, 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 10:33 AM