Travis County Commissioners Court
September 6, 2005
Item 20
20 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following, a, revision to the Travis County classified pay scale by widening the widths and increasing the overall pay scale by 3 percent to achieve market competitiveness; b. Recommended job titles and pay grades that resulted from the abbreviated job analysis project on selected titles in the equipment road/general maintenance and technical/skilled trades job families; and c. Reassignment of building service manager and building maintenance division manager job classifications to more appropriate job family.
>> good afternoon, alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations. Earlier this year the -- the court commissioned an abbreviated market salary survey of a -- of a selected job titles for two job families ... About 20 a job classifications were reviewed. There are about 5 recommendations that are included and in a report that was submitted to you several weeks ago. And we have -- briefed the court on this at a work session. And we would like to come back and -- and get a vote or some direction from the court on the recommendations before you. In terms of the recommendations I would like to -- to have the court turn to -- to the last pages of the report where the recommendations are summarized and the rationales for the recommendations are abbreviated and that is page 19 of the report where it starts. And the first recommendation is that Travis County should adjust the width of its salary ranges and I知 going to cover recommendation 1 and 2 and talk about those together. And that from Travis County should increase the range minimum by 3%. One of the things when the consultant started looking at the structure, salary structure, started looking at these particular classifications, starting looking at the pay structure. And when he started doing that, he looked at the minimum, the midpoint and the maximum of each of the jobs and the pay structure. And -- and -- he saw that -- that the -- at the minimum, at the mid-point and the maximum, the whole salary structure needed to be adjusted by 3% and secondly the widths were all [indiscernible] the recommendation is that the salary range be widened. The pay ranges in terms of widening the pay ranges, that would help eliminate the red line that is an issue faced by many employees. You have heard that -- that complaint every year from -- from employees. The salary ranges are recommended to be extended out about another five to 10% of -- for each of the pay ranges. The midpoint would increase and the county would immediately become more competitive in terms of its pay structure. The range width for the pay grades five and six would be 40%, the width for the ranges 7 through 14 would be 45%, and ranges 15 through 18 would be 50 and the pay ranges 23 to 24 would be 60%. Shifting the scale by 3% will also provide us a better foundation by which to start our new market salary survey. The court next year has told us to look at administrative job families, at nursing, at deaf interpreters and several other job families. Shifting the pay scale over 3% from levels 1, we have a pay scale that goes level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, up to midpoint and every year an employee works the idea is performance based pay takes you through the levels and you increase your pay with your experience and your performance. So increasing the level minimum, by the midpoint by 3%, would -- would allow us to be more -- more in competitive position with -- with the market and increasing the width of the pay ranges also would allow us to eliminate the -- the red line employees and again make us more -- more competitive.
>> quick question.
>> yes.
>> I get related to the jobs you brought before us. I get it, I知 there. But when you talk about doing these things in terms of widening and et cetera, would this be for all job titles or just the ones we are being -- being talked about? Because it would seem we are having the same kind ofs of issues -- what you have got covered here are basically 5 through -- yeah, 5 through 16, missing grade 17, in is 19 -- missing 19, 20, 21 through 22 and 25 and over. I guess I知 saying is this a -- a global problem?
>> yes. It would be your whole pay scale.
>> so it wouldn't be just these folks under just these classifications. You are basically saying all of grade 5 needs to get wider and higher in terms of all of this. That would be for anybody that's a custodian grade 5 or any other classification. Anybody else that's got a title under grade 5.
>> grade 4 through 32. Okay? Your levels minimum through -- midpoint and then your ranges all the way from minimum through maximum would be expanded.
>> because when we are going through this in terms of what you refer us back to, it is a -- it is an exhibit that is very specific to these jobs and these titles and so if we are doing a global it's all of the four through 32s of starting and --
>> yes, ma'am.
>> that's a different exhibit that I don't think we have in front of us right now. But I --
>> if you look at the backup and I will -- one, two, three -- four, five, six on page six, is the proposed 6 and 7 is the proposed and then 8 and 9 would be the current pay scale.
>> okay. I知 not getting six.
>> it's not --
>> from the very beginning. It's not numbered, but if you count from the very first of -- the cover page.
>> got it.
>> okay. I知 now getting it.
>> sorry.
>> what's at the top?
>> the cover page?
>> the page we should look at, page 6.
>> proposed. At the very top is a proposed --
>> that's at the top of multiple pages, though, isn't it?
>> two pages.
>> okay. I see two. Two pages.
>> yes.
>> so how does it put more money in the hands of those who had us crying down here during the employee public hearing?
>> let us get to that. The first piece we want to go ahead and address the structure as the number one and two much the recommendations. As number one and two of the recommendations. Let us go ahead then and go to 3 and the rest of the recommendations and then adjusting the pay grades of the affected classes in the manner consistent with exhibit 10 and that addresses the actual moving the individuals of the job classes that we looked at and the pay grades. So belinda or t.o.d. Do you want to -- todd do you want to address --
>> todd may chime in later, as we were with you last week, a couple of weeks ago, we found a bit of confusion about the way that the charts, the data was represented and presented. What todd submitted to us is supplemental information. You will find that information beginning on page 1 a. Just behind the current pay scale. The recommendations that we are making as a result of the market review are really captured on page 1 a. What this particular chart represents to you is the current pay grade under the existing Travis County classified structure, that -- that moves us into the proposed pay grades that -- that would be under the structure that alicia has identified the need to shift. As you take a look at the chart on 1 a, what you will find there is the current Travis County midpoint. As you move over to the proposed, of course the percentage difference in the far right-hand column, so as represented by the numbers here, you will see that -- that all of the -- the proposed pay grade mid-point is increasing, which -- which would clearly represent increases in -- in at least the minimum of those proposed pay grades. So the recommendation represented here would be to approve the recommended or the proposed pay grades that are represented with each of the titles that are on this particular page.
>> so where the proposed grade is the same as the current grade, but the -- but the -- the compensation difference, but there is a compensation difference, that just means we are recommending an increase in the steps?
>> no. Todd and lou anne would address that. It's a shift in the pay structure that alicia identified that keeps it --
>> so at the lead custodian, the current grade, proposed grade, both a 7. But then we have a differential there of $1,600 and the reason for that is the 3% movement up the scale.
>> todd will --
>> the actual reason for it is the -- the width of the grade itself is moved, as we say, to the right, in other words gotten wider, therefore the mid-point itself also moved to the right or gotten higher. So although they may have been in grade 7 before and they are proposed to be in 7 now, the actual midpoint itself shifted higher or to the right.
>> well, are they at midpoint now in the current rate?
>> this chart does not represent employee pay. This just -- this chart represents structure to structure. Current structure to proposed structure.
>> the department had better know where their people are within the -- where their people are within the current pay ranges.
>> out of the 28 positions, judge, to respond to your question, 12 of the --
>> what page is that on?
>> if you look at page 17. That will give you a -- a -- a quick synopsis. And it's not -- it's not specifically on there. But let me give you my notes. Out of -- out of those classifications, 12 of those classifications went up in grade. 15 stayed the same. And one of them would just -- just said we didn't need to look at on this study. Now, how that affected individuals, anyone that fell below minimum we are recommending be brought up to minimum. Anyone that was red lined, next year, if you adopt this new pay scale, will have an opportunity to get an increase to their base pay and not be red lined. The total of what that would cost is $127,000. Is what we -- we figured in terms of both general fund and other -- other funds.
>> so when we have got things here like it's -- it's a seven and it goes to a seven, what you are seeing there is there's basically about -- that we kind of go through here of 5 to 7% movement, if it's -- if all we are doing is going horizontal. But a good number of these things are also going vertical. As we would call it on the pop scale, it's a two step, over and up or up and over kind of thing. So when you have a seven to a seven, it's only about a seven percent shift. That's shifting the whole structure over. But somebody right below it, who was a six, is going to a seven, is not only getting the benefit of that 7%, but from jumping from a six to the new seven it shifts it almost 15% over. Which I think was part of the lost context that we were getting is comparing old numbers, new numbers, not really seeing it. This is finally getting us that if you are a one step, basically it's just the structure moving over, you will see more modest numbers, but when you see things that are two digit, it is basically up and over. It's a two step kind of thing in terms of how it needs to move over. Some people are three steps. I see there were a couple in here that were like a seven to a 10. That's about a 31% increase because they were making -- it was a structural change in multiple ways in terms of getting where they needed to be.
>> we have heard from the heavy equipment operators, for instance. So what you have here, does that address the issue that they had, that they were making more at other places where they went? Where they were going? So does this fix address --
>> I think joe has a -- has a proposal that actually puts money in their pockets. This addresses the market in terms is your structure, is your pay ranges, are they competitive. Not is what you are paying them, but is your structure competitive. And joe has a proposal on the actual dollars.
>> [ phone ringing ]
>> we don't disagree with the conclusion of the study. But if the outcome is adjusting the green line, it does not help our problem. Basically, the clats classification that will helped to bringing everyone up to minimum, green line, will be vacant positions and heo's, senior park workers and park supervisors. So we've -- that would cost about $111,000 within t.n.r., so we have used quite a bit of resources, but we have missed the problem of retention and recruitment. The only way that we could actually address the issue, particularly when our tenured -- road maintenance -- road maintenance workers and heavy equipment operators is that if we matrix those tenured employees within the new structure, that's the way we would actually compensate the structures there to take care of the problem. But actually the current problem you have to fund it. By funding it that means that you have got to actually take these positions and move them within the range. That takes money. Ours is not -- after the recommendation, the structure may be fixed but the problem is not fixed because it's a funding issue at that point.
>> [indiscernible] referring to as far as funding, even if it was a matrix [indiscernible] the scale itself, what amount of money are you referring to as far as fixing the problem? I知 thinking what Commissioner Gomez is trying to get to.
>> total, about $471,000. Of that, about 177,000 is general fund, and about 300,000 is road and bridge fund.
>> so about 400 some odd thousand you are saying.
>> that's correct.
>> to correct the classifications that are in this abbreviated market salary survey. [ phone ringing ] now, understand that -- that the 3% when you slide the scale, by 3%, you are not just affecting the classifications within the study. So it presents a -- a -- another issue for us in that there will be other t.n.r. Employees who will be green lined if the scale is shifted and then we have not really calculated what it will cost to cure that green line problem. We have only calculated what it will cost to cure the green line problem for this set of employees.
>> further in your memo, joe you do have -- I think that we have a little bit of a ways to assist in trying to get to that $471,000 goal.
>> that's right.
>> you are not just asking for 471.
>> I understand. We have about $65,000 left ove from the fy '05 market -- pay for compensation, merit pay, what do you call it? Performance pay. Showing my age. [laughter] performance pay. I am now corrected. And then, of course, if the court does approve for fy '06 a 2% performance pay, we will have about 260,000 available. But I would end up having to use all of those resources, which means no compensation benefits for any of the other employees within t.n.r. And I still come up short. And basically I think the -- the market abbreviated market salary survey helped to point out how -- how perhaps big the problem is. And then I come before you, I don't have an answer because -- when we started this, I truly thought that t.n.r. Could -- could cure the problem with internal resources. I think the only way that I can be able to do that at this point is by totally restructuring t.n.r. And reducing force in order to pay for these out of market, which would mean a potential reduction program services. So that's -- that's possible, but it would be -- will take some major shifting around to do that.
>> joe, when you talk about the people that you would have to -- to come up with some money for, it would be the -- the equipment operator, the senior equipment operator, the senior park maintenance and the senior road maintenance. Can you talk about the senior positions? Is that what you are talking about?
>> actually, I think the word I used was tenured. It has more to do with how long they have been in the workforce than necessarily their job title.
>> okay.
>> I知 stunned by the turnover numbers. Those are numbers in terms of -- that I think this is our first time to see on the road maintenance workers in '05, a 29% turnover, senior equipment operator 20%. Senior root maintenance worker, 16, equipment operator 12, park maintains worker 12; park maintenance worker 12. Those are the numbers --
>> [indiscernible]
>> well, I know that, it's one thing to have it by somebody saying well that's the way it is. It is another thing to see it in the actual numbers that it's not just legend. It's -- it's true.
>> those are essential to what t.n.r. Does, right?
>> core business.
>> very.
>> grass roots.
>> very central, yeah.
>> so in our definition of -- of turnover, do we include voluntary severance and involuntary severance or just voluntary severance.
>> voluntary.
>> [multiple voices] [indiscernible]
>> the ones where we looked at 15, I think, of the -- where we did some analysis also on -- on the termination and I think of the 15 heavy equipment operators that -- that were showed as your vacancies, I think, half were involuntary terminations. And one of the things that we've -- we thought of in terms of -- perhaps helping the retention is really working with some of the community programs where they may be a -- a more of an incentive for -- for retention. Of staying on the job. Rather than -- whether it be work source or some other community based organizations. Where maybe recruitment training -- I don't know -- there are plenty of service organizations out there. Where we could recruit and assist, h.r. Could assist with placement into some of these -- some of these positions and we could do, say, you know, five as a pilot to see if we could increase the retention level because the 78% turnover rate like in road workers, that's extremely high. It's a tough job. But we don't see that in -- in custodians. I mean, we just don't see near that. That's also a very -- you know, kind of -- kind of tough job. Also. So I mean we would like to -- to work with t.n.r. And see if we can improve that through other means other than paying. Not to say that pay is not important. But I think perhaps we can address this and -- in other ways. I would also like to point out to the court that in terms of the -- of the green circle, that there will be other positions also in the county, upon the adoption of if the court chooses to adopt the new pay scale, that there will be other positions also that will be green circled throughout the county. And that -- that all departments will be challenged in -- in taking whatever compensation money there is and bringing those up also within the minimum.
>> I didn't mean to cut you off. That green circle employee situation has been before the court before. I mean, we have addressed it and of course when money goes to the department, one of the things that -- that -- you know, I think that have been stretched, I know I知 stretching it a few times, I guess other court members have too, in the past, is that the discretionary use of those funds are not -- [indiscernible] department is not addressing the green circle employees, it's going to continue to be a problem. That's what I知 trying to even joe with his suggestion today, well, I got addressed by green circle employees. I知 sorry to say that but I believe that there may have been green circle employees in t.n.r. Prior to what action we may take for t.n.r., that problem existed. I don't know whether it's true or not, I知 assuming that they did, because I think they exist all across the board as far as the county is concerned, because the money that we do give to departments, they are not taking that money and using it to address green circle employees. So it's a fixedization that we -- fixed situation that we have not had a chance to overcome yet. Kind of puzzling to me why we haven't done that. It's still a puzzle to me.
>> Commissioner Davis, if I may, we have not run all of the stats on the three year strategic effort. But out of each study we have always said to the court that there are some number of green circled employees. One of the things that we know is preliminarily that many of those green circle issues are going away. Some departments have indeed used their comp allocations to eliminate that. With decisions such as we will fix the green circle before we apply any performance money, you know, across the departments. There have been some that have benefited by the comp allocations that have been across the board, realizing that if people are a few dollars away, if you will, from reaching minimum when you do a two percent, four percent across the board as you all have awarded. That bumps them then to minimum or above. So -- so the -- we were waiting to come back to you with the full report on the status of green circle red lined and everything, but as we look at the numbers, that number is going down.
>> okay. Well, that's good to hear.
>> yeah, the reason that it's higher for this study is because we are moving the pay scale, or proposing that that be done.
>> right, right. But -- but then that would be good to have those numbers to proceed to exactly where we are --
>> Commissioner, what that does in the process that wipes out experience. Understand that you may have a tenured employee who now has five or more years of experience being paid at entry level. So when you -- in the process here the market moves on.
>> I understand that.
>> and even a correction for green circle does not take care of the tenured employees. Who are your experienced workforce.
>> in the old days when we were talking about romp ratio in terms -- comp ratio in terms of all boats rise, what we have is an issue here of not wanting to wipe out tenure it's going to have to, I think for this particular sets of departments be talking more in terms of a comp ratio movement.
>> three percentage would not. Because 5.75% this year. So that should have taken care. 4% across the board for this year, plus the 1.75.
>> but if you were 18% off, it didn't take care of it. Yeah.
>> but it said movement and the pay range that I think the department is not just t.n.r., but even others are saying that it's the movement that the pay scale is there. Based on the market competitiveness one that's being proposed, it's just the ability to move people across that scale, which seems to be the challenge in terms of -- of getting off of that minimum. The ability in terms of dollars.
>> travis?
>> judge, Commissioners. I have some preliminary numbers that hrmd put together for us that would show what the impact could be if all -- if the pay range was changed for all positions, not just those in facilities and t.n.r. The preliminary number for the general fund to bring everyone to minimum would be approximately $912,000. For all funds, a little bit under 1.2 million dollar. In addition, a little while ago, I guess the cost to minimum was $127,000 and if we applied benefits to that, it would be $151,000.451.
>> two numbers that I should add together when you said the 912, the 1.2.
>> those include --
>> inclusive.
>> okay. So 1.2 going to be dealing with all of the issues and -- in all of the departments related to a structural change.
>> correct.
>> on all of this. Okay.
>> the minimum to at least minimum of the new -- of the new proposed pay scale.
>> where are those numbers? Are those numbers that you just gave us?
>> those were supplied by hrmd, we just included the benefits. The latest benefits cost calculations to them.
>> okay, okay, all right. Thank you.
>> those also include the new positions that are currently in that preliminary budget that are not in this year's budget.
>> all right. If we wanted to get a sense of -- okay, moving to the new structure, plus an infusion of dollars into targeted departments where the tenure issue is an issue, we would have to go on top of that 1.2 million --
>> takes just the minimum.
>> because there may be some departments getting it to the minimum is not an issue, but there would be others where we will literally wipe out tenure and experience and -- you know, one of the other issues, too, is that in terms of that 5.75, the departments have been forced to use that money to get rid of a structural problem as opposed to its about performance pay. If -- okay.
>> now, explain to me how 15 to 20 employees who attended the public hearing and made a good case, and persuaded us that -- that an immediate abbreviated look-see and remedy was appropriate. End up costing $1.2 million.
>> [laughter]
>> the problem was limited to t.n.r., structural issues.
>> the system needs to change. But you don't make that based on an abbreviated analysis, do you? My thing was in -- I was told in '05, we could take care of these handful of people, then as necessary fix the system. This is -- this is if -- $1.2 million fixes it for a whole lot of people. Whole lot more than I would -- I would frankly would have concern about, not that the public hearing is concerned about. Not that we shouldn't be concerned. If you go out and start remedying for hundreds of people, then I mean I think that it requires a lot more analysis than I thought would happen on an abbreviated sort of expedited basis. I知 -- frankly I知 a little overwhelmed.
>> well, so am i.
>> markup starts tomorrow. When joe said I can take care of this, I had in mind a figure of 40 or $50,000. But I didn't have in mind hundreds of people, either. So -- when we started this, we were in a position, for a little amount of money we can do the study, a little more money we can solve it. I知 really amazed how far out of market we are. I think what the study did is show that it's not -- it's not an isolated problem. There's a structural problem. And we just -- I知 sorry we helped to identify that. But we can put the genie back in the bottle and say we are only going to apply the structural change to these positions but it doesn't -- it doesn't change the fact that there's still a problem in the larger system.
>> to some extent we've been very focused on -- on structural problems on the pop scale. We are now hearing from the rank and file who went not one year without a raise, but two years without a raise, that there are structural issues that have been building up for the rank and file. And it's basically saying if you are serious, it was probably bigger than ya thought and it needs attention and I think in -- in -- it's equally as important as other comp issues that we have got faced before us.
>> I agree. We are 15 hours before markup. On the '06 budget. And we are posted to deal with it over a period of three days. From 9:00 to 5 being or 6:00. This -- 5:00 or 6:00. This issue is not on there. The employee compensation is for everybody.
>> yes it is.
>> there is one line item.
>> but this is -- that was supposed to be an abbreviated matter that we fixed in '05, and then the other items that are comp issued would be rolled over for '06 budget consideration. So there are compensation issues for next year. But I guarantee you, if we go in there and start voting on compensation for rank and file and pops and the others, we will expect this to be picked up and so -- so they will be treated unfairly for another budget cycle. If in fact they made a valid case at the public hearing is what I知 saying.
>> the appeal that -- that h.r. Is making is one that says that with this recommended market competitive structure, it sets the foundation for us to move forward with the comp work. That you have already assigned us to do. The timing of this for us is one that -- that we would have probably been back to you within a month or so saying we have now finished that three year strategic plan, we have looked at the classified structure; therefore we have a need to propose that it be changed. We looked --
>> in the '07 budget.
>> I知 not dealing with the funding side, judge.
>> we have to.
>> I understand, I知 -- I知 respectful that we are. But we are talking structure here.
>> well, but I think belinda I think we can. I can see us being able to do both. You have told us about the whole structure. I think we can set that aside. But we seem to have the problem with the people who showed up and said that there's a vacancy rate and that there is an issue of -- of us losing them because they are getting paid better have else. And I think that what we need to do -- it may sound like it's patching, maybe it's patchwork. Kind of like road work, you go in and fill in the potholes. Maybe it is possible for us to address these few judge, and see how much it will take to fill -- to -- to fix these. Few. This is where we seem to have the problem. But later on -- [multiple voices]
>> entire structure.
>> [multiple voices]
>> 7,000 is what it would take.
>> well, that is to bring them to the might be of the new scales. The real importance of adopting the new scale is that if we don't do that, then you put them at -- at the grade that is being recommended then you adopt the new scale next year.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... Had been discussed. I know Commissioner Davis had brought it up before. And so, judge, I think it's real, real basic to us than moving on with the work that you've asked us to do next year with all the other market salary survey work on the nurses and the deaf interpreters and the administrative classes. But it's --
>> I hear what you're saying and why it's important, but to me we don't have the problem -- we don't have as big of a problem of everybody overall as much as we do this little group of people here. These groups of workers. And these are very crucial to taking care of the work that we get calls about at our office. Almost on a weekly basis. And so I mean I don't see any problem with taking care of this issue and then later on keeping in mind that we have a structure problem that is county-wide.
>> let's back up then. Based on our conversation the piece of this where the problem was clear and you could deal with it in '05 in your own budgeted. And alicia I thought represented the same thing when we added her people. So what piece of this can you all take care of in your own budget today? Maybe that's the question.
>> '05 or '06?
>> '05. Today. [inaudible].
>> let me rephrase that. I致e got $65,000. Most of that is [inaudible]. If I知 given latitude to move within the -- all the line items of my road and bridge budget, I can probably cure most of the road and bridge issues.
>> and how many people would that be?
>> I don't have the number of f.t.e.s.
>> well, based on the public hearing we had, how many -- there were specific categories of workers that had real problems based on their testimony and the managers who came down from t.n.r. So if we fix their problem, if we fix their problem in '05, how much money would that cost?
>> that's what I was saying, if I just took the worst turnover, six classifications that would include both road and bridge and parks, I知 talking about $326,000. And that's -- that's straddled between road and bridge and general fund. That's money just to target the problem.
>> all right. Have you got that much?
>> I don't. And my -- and I can solve the road and bridge problem by moving things around within line items.
>> how much is the road and bridge part?
>> roughly 230,000. 230 out of 326.
>> okay.
>> and the general fund side really is where I have squeezed. I don't have as many degrees of freedom as I do on the road and bridge side because of the magnitude of the budget.
>> there's also a hybrid that could be possible here that if there is agreement that there is a structural problem here, we can fix structure and not fund it and then basically know that we've got a green circle issue that we can start attacking and start trying to work on in hopes that what performance-based pay and other resources are given can help attack that problem. And then if there is a targeted piece in terms of where we need the infusion or the movement around money, we can deal with that. This problem can be as big or as small as we want to make it, but I am blown away by numbers that we are talking about proposed mid-point, not even the entry level salaries on a good portion of the people who work for our workforce. I mean that's how -- you talk about the haves and have nots. I can't even imagine that halfway through the structure here you're making 24,000 bucks. That's like -- these are like low, low, low salaries. And if there is a group of folks that deserve our time and attention to get infusion of money of the people who most need it, it's these kinds of classifications. It's the lower end of these classifications.
>> and I think low, low, low picks up me people. That's what I知 concerned about.
>> and I think we can do that. I think we can make it work.
>> we [inaudible].
>> it's really not one, I know that we have provided numbers on what it would take to move everyone over to minimum if the pay scale is accepted, but it's no different than what we've done before. When decisions are made we have a larger number that are green circled. Then as we begin to work through our comp work on our strategic focus, then the people become ungreen circled. Our proposal is not to you to necessarily fund everything on the -- that would result from the movement of that scale. You can pick and choose where the high demand areas are, which is obviously what you are considering.
>> so we would propose an option on the pay scale without --
>> because we --
>> the first step.
>> adoption of a new pay scale without the funding as a first step. That way you don't have the issue of the 1.2 million, but at least you have a new structure from which to work.
>> and I壇 like to move approval of that because I really think that we -- this widening the scale is not nothing new. We've been discussing this for a few years especially trying to deal with what the impact is on our market.
>> and we'll have -- [multiple voices]
>> but I think widening the scale to address what's out there in the market, that's basically what we are doing. And of course, as far as the funding aspect of it, I think according to what is needed in some of these departments like t.n.r.
>> widening the scale doesn't bother me, but how do we address the issues of the individuals -- greg, let's give you a chance and let's give the consultant a chance. He's been waiting. Greg, then the consultant and then --.
>> [inaudible].
>> sounds good, but I think -- [multiple voices]
>> let me hear from them and then I値l make that motion again. Thanks.
>> I知 just here to urge the adoption of the proposed pay scale. We understand that it's going to cause a problem. We're not asking you to fund and fix that problem, we're asking to get the structure right. And then things will fall in line as they have over the years when we start -- please understand that that employee that's at the minimum of the pay scale that moves forward 3%, we give him 2%, he's only 1% behind the minimum. So the problem is not nearly as gross as it may appear on this front end. And that's all I値l say for right now. If the discussion is on the adoption of this pay scale, I fully support it. I had my -- I didn't understand last time, they've come forward with the missing link here which was what the new proposed pay scales would look like. And then you can fit this market study into it and it makes much more sense. So that's really why I知 [inaudible] right now.
>> anything new and different?
>> I guess the only thing new and different is that should the commission decide -- or should the court decide not to adopt the new scale, it would be possible to place the employees that we're discussing here into the old scale. That's not the way it was done in this particular study because we were looking at -- had broader issues as well as specifically what was going on here, but just to say it could be done, we could slot those employees into the current scale. Then that impact would be some of the people who move maybe one pay grade on the old scale would move -- or on the new scale would move two grades on the old scale.
>> so we were not able to pinpoint what we were told were problems and fix them.
>> yes, I can fix them with money. It really boils down to money. I can fix the problems, whether it's by slotting with existing scale or slotting with the new scale, but I致e got to be able to move people up the steps. And to do that, just for the six positions that are most out of whack, you know, not only with the market but with the turnover rate, I need $95,000 in general fund and about 230,000 in road and bridge fund. I can handle the road and bridge fund if you give me the authority to move within all the line items of my road and bridge fund. Which right now remember, these are permanent changes. So it's not just this year. I致e got to live with those changes forever. So I致e got the latitude on the road and bridge fund to fix the problem. I do not have the latitude in the general fund position which are primarily parks to fix the problem. In only the most difficult targeted positions.
>> okay. So the salary savings was one time money.
>> that's right.
>> but has that been rebudgeted or is that -- is that rebudgeted in the preliminary budget, travis?
>> I知 sorry, sir.
>> t.n.r. Salary savings from '05 rebudgeted in the '06 preliminary budget?
>> that's normally funding -- if you are talking about temporary salary savings. If there's permanent salary savings that would be in the [inaudible].
>> so it would be one-time money, but it's in the preliminary budget '06 or is it just out there waiting on delivery until the year-ending balance?
>> if it's one time it would be in the current budget and go away in the sense --
>> 65,000 [inaudible] is rebudgeted because it is part of the performance-based pay. And they don't take that away so that is left over until it is in our '06 preliminary budget. So it's only 65,000. Salary savings are rebudgeted and changes as the turnover rate changes. So one time it's up, one time it's down. And it is just one-time funds so you can't use that. That's what joe is saying, you need other funds, the latitude within the rest of the line items to be able to move it to the salary line items to take care of the issue.
>> is one -- does one -- does a one-time road and bridge balance become general fund money at the end of the year?
>> if there is any run-time savings within the road and bridge fund and it wasn't going to be spent this year, it would become part of the beginning fund balance of next year.
>> well, have you calculated that one-time, joe, road and bridge money into your figure? [inaudible].
>> it has to be permanent.
>> you can't use one-time money for long term unless we vote to do so. That's the difference. It's got to be replenished during next year's budget cycle. During next year's budget cycled, it's got to be replenished, but that gives us a whole year to plan for it. If we want to fix this thing, we can identity. If we need 95,000 of general fund money or joe hadn't figured into it, let's take one-time road and bridge money and know we've got to fix that next year to make it more permanent. It's as easy as that if we want to do it. But we ought don't want to do it if we are really fixing the problem we set out to fix. It doesn't bother me if we need to revamp the structure and widen it by 3%, that makes sense to me.
>> I would make a motion to that effect on 28 which is a part of that and that is widening the rank and file employee pay scale.
>> second.
>> 3%. So we would at least be market competitive.
>> this is the best permanent solution we've come up system-wide, widening by 3%.
>> shifting over the scale by 3% and then widening according to the recommendation. Without funding, there is one caveat.
>> the motion is just do 3% widening. Does that -- that would apply to all jobs in Travis County.
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> I知 sorry, one thing I would want to mention though, if you did change and we had new positions and they were brought in at the 3% increase, they would be making more than existing employees.
>> that was my caveat which I did not get to complete, but with all due respect to the court, I can explain that.
>> I didn't know that was part of the deal. See, that's the problem. That's a complication. [multiple voices]
>> my idea is if you are looking at a system-wide approach like this, there ain't no rush. The rush was to fix these problems. We knew about joe's people because they all came down here one at a time. You said a got a handful of people thrown into the mix, we said can you fund them, we said okay, throw them in there. Right? So I think we ought to go back and fix then, and then on the permanent thing, widening, whatever impact it's having, we ought to know about that. Because next we'll be hit with the internal inequity issue. And we'll have to fund that. And we're talking about hundreds if not thousands of people.
>> sir, with all did respect, if I could finish my sentence, I was going to explain to the court how that would work.
>> go ahead.
>> thank you.
>> nobody speak. Let her speak. Let us know when you get done.
>> I was going to explain exactly how that will work since we had already thought that out.
>> in terms of how that would work because we knew that that question would be asked and we had discussed it and thought it out before christian smith had asked it five times. So, you know, we're one step ahead --
>> are you going to tell us what it is?
>> yes. Anyway, how that would work is that anyone brought in after the new scale would be brought in at minimum of the old scale. Okay? We usually when we -- when the court takes compensation actions, we bring in parameters after you adopt actions. Part of the parameters would be anyone brought in after adoption of the new scale would be brought in at minimum of the new scale. And that would be up to management. Year after year the court leaves up to the discretion of the manage whether they be brought -- the new employee is brought in at minimum or at level 1, 2 or 3. You leave that up to the discretion of the manager. The same thing would be left up on the new pay scale. We would recommend that people be brought up -- be brought in at minimum, but a lot of times depending on their qualifications, they use a matrix and bring them in at the level that they think they should be paid at. The same thing would be applied in this situation.
>> the availability of funds that are budgeted within f.y. '06. Not that we would be asking or they would be asking the court to fund that.
>> so when they come and tell us we're not able to fill at minimum, we just tell them that's all the money you got. We're having that problem right now in [inaudible]. And when we say, okay, if you've got the money, go ahead and hire it mid-point, then we got three or four employees with the same thing who are making [inaudible].
>> well, usually what departments do is they take their full personnel allocation and then make that decision what the needs are of that department and who they need to hire at mid-point and minimum and make that decision in accordance with their needs and the qualifications that they are looking for. And if they can't hire, they come back to the court.
>> on adding the 3% out to the right, given the reason why that's important to make today instead of September 20th, so I may be overlooking something. Why is that important to make today and not two weeks from now?
>> well, because it sets the foundation for h.r. The structure that's competitive for h.r. To complete your other compensation analysis again. That becomes important to us because as we speak we're rolling out with our next project. The nurses as you have assigned to us, if we don't make that change now, what we would be saying to you just as we are with this your nursing mid-point is so far away from the market mid-point. So the message that we're bringing to you to fix the scale --
>> within two weeks? You say that b September 20th? That's two weeks away.
>> if we are to get a decision on the 20th, we would probably be okay. But as we move into the work as we are getting to on that now, that structure is important to have in place for the next project that we'll be working on.
>> we're going to start markup tomorrow morning 6789 and if ions are made about not only kinds of projects out there and capital projects and the pops scales, if all of a sudden decisions are made over the next three days, the 20th is irrelevant because the money is all gone. I mean if decisions are made tomorrow --
>> but they told us they didn't want us to fund them. Just decide on the scale. The big compensation for us would be what amount of money do we fund for compensation on rank and file on one hand and pops on the other. Those big questions have been there forever during this budget process and we have just gradually approached the first day of markup. But on this I guess my point is, I mean it may make all the sense not world to do this, but I don't know that we really have deliberated it adequately. I don't know that I fully understand all the ramifications. I heard the answer few minutes ago, but the reality against which I judge it is managers coming up and saying we are not able to fill these at entry level. And then some we think and we ask, well, won't you come to us with an internal inequity issue. So some promise not to and I guess think just suffer through it. But if we don't get the promise from the managers, later on it's the same issue. We got people in there doing the same thing who have been here four or five years and they make the same or a little less than those that we just hired in. And the fix is additional compensation. I mean there are ways to deal with that. I just think we ought to give ourselves more time to think through them unless this decision must be made today. I came in here with the decision to make today of dealing with a handful of folk in positions that we know are underpaid because of the market. And this is the immediate market. I had in mind an abbreviated market survey and we could come in here and just fix them.
>> that's the proposal.
>> and I knew at some point we would have to look at funding. That's why as best I could I got a commitment from the two affected managers they could identity spw-rpbly. Today they are saying they can't do that so creatively I think we ought to use our time to find a way to creatively deal with these individuals today. My thinking was we deal with them today and they will get a double hit because whatever we do for rank and file next year in the market process, they would benefit from that too.
>> if you give me the discretion to move road and bridge within line items, I値l fix what I can fix with my existing resources.
>> when will it take you to come back to the court to give us a decision on that?
>> tomorrow. [inaudible].
>> you got my vote, joe. That's what I had in mind. When did we ask staff to do the abbreviated markup? Two months ago. I had in mind a two-week deal.
>> we can come back -- [inaudible] we've been back.
>> they came in July. We authorized the thing a couple weeks later and this is September 1. They did exactly what they said they were going to do.
>> the choice to fund or not to fund is the court. Our recommendation is to change the structure. We feel that the new structure or recommendation is the analysis is that the new structure would lay the foundation for future market salary surveys. That indeed it is more reflective of the market. It is not absolutely new. It is something that we had seen previously. There particular study reaffirmed what we had -- what our analysis had given us some perspective of previously. The widening of the pay ranges also reaffirms what you have heard from employees in terms of the red line issues. Again, whether you fund it or not is not the issue. You have the recommendation before you. And there you have it.
>> I need my one-week, one courtesy week. I also need to see an outline of impact. Of the 3% deal. Whether that's two words or two pages, it doesn't really matter to me. But I need to think through the impact. This is just me. And if it's county-wide, I think the answer I heard a few minutes ago this would affect everybody. In the county.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay. And if we do this and we don't fund it soon, what is the recommendation as to funding? Either we just pick it up through the annual compensation deal, aoe what I知 saying? We have to deal with it in some manner even if that manner is basically through [inaudible]. But we committed on the other was we wouldn't fund it then if we didn't have the money, but we would fund it as as soon as we could. So if that strategy applies to this, then that's fine with me too.
>> judge, a question because again we have markup starting tomorrow, and historicry we usually wind up hitting comp issues on the first day only because they are such magnitude that we kind of have to sort of get them out of the way because it's something you need to do at the beginning of the process not at the end because it's just the way it is. My question is if we're not going to do some of this stuff until next week, is there any thought that tomorrow, that if we bring up comp in the same --
>> comp is only --
>> no, no, what I知 saying is that in the same spirit of the one-week courtesy, that if there is a dollar amount we want to set aside for all comp issues, maybe that's what we can deal with tomorrow as opposed to we decide who in particular gets this. Because if we decide who in particular gets this and it is not the folks that we're talking about today because there's a one-week courtesy until next week, there may not be any money for them to talk about as opposed to --
>> unless we just tell pee -- I agree. I think we ought to set aside a certain amount for rank and file. We ought to do it early tomorrow morning because that's a big piece of available funds.
>> I知 with you, it's just that we can't put off the dollar amount for rank and file because otherwise it's meaningless. And I really want to talk more about rank and file issues tomorrow.
>> I agree. My own feeling is that joe should creatively come up with whatever fix you can for the folks I had in mind and who had the same way. If you expand yours bigger than mine, that's fine with me. But there are certain categories of employees that -- I was just left with the impression we all do what we can. Aoe I do and I will be able to use my salary savings to do that.
>> I値l vote for it. And help you try to persuade three members of this court.
>> tomorrow if all we've got on the table is the [inaudible] that p.b.o. Has in for rank and file, the departments dealing with r pbg and file issues are very little flexibility to try and solve their own issues. So judge to hear you say we can be talking about dollar amounts, chunks of money to be set aside to talk about these different things tomorrow because the rank and file does thought have much in there right now to deal with market issues, performance issues and green circle issues and by the nature of our structure here we got red line issues. I hope the rank and file is up there pretty high.
>> glad they have the five of us up here.
>> ... Just a structure problem. You can do that by just saying in departments from a policy viewpoint can underfill. That fixes your structure. In other words, you could adopt the structure. Any department -- if you are hiring a new person and you need to bring them under the minimum to have equity in your department, just allow them to underfill. If you want to fix the structure, the side for money, that's how you could do it. Just allow people -- because I致e got flexibility that the disk judges give me, I do that. So that would be a way to adopt a structure --
>> so do we have a policy that prohibits undercutting?
>> it's frowned upon. [multiple voices]
>> I know you don't like it, but --
>> this has been a fascinating item today. Anybody else?
>> based on what I致e heard, judge, and -- from the presenters today, I will at this time respectively -- respectfully withdraw my motion to vote on -- to get a vote on 20-a, and based on you needing an extension of some other time to get the necessary information as far as what you requested from staff, I respectfully withdraw my motion.
>> and I respectfully withdraw my second.
>> I appreciate that. I do need the time.
>> that's okay. For.
>> so b -- actually a was the one I needed -- I think I need time on. B and c, do we need to do those today or -- are they intertwined.
>> if you approve b and c, those are based on the recommended structure which is why the structure came as a. I believe the department's recommendations are actually against that new structure. Is that correct, carol joe?
>> I知 sorry?
>> your recommendation for funding was based on the new structure, the proposed structure, right? So all of that is kind of like --
>> it depends if we take one week and not two?
>> one week, yes, most definitely. If you're planning to act on the department's recommendation.
>> I guess at that time at&t maybe I can bring that motion back -- at that time I can maybe bring that motion back again.
>> and we'll be happy to visit with anyone who wants more information on what all that means.
>> and the memo.
>> which one? The one that said --
>> the impact memo. Make sure -- I read it from top to bottom several times.
>> you'll get it.
>> mr. Beall.
>> markup; is that right? That's my --
>> I think we ought to deal with compensation first. We're talking tomorrow morning.
>> I値l be here bright and early.
>> joe, 9:00 is not bright and early, but -- what do we have next?
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:
Wednesday, September 7, 2005 10:24 AM