Travis County Commissioners Court
November 1, 2005
Item 15
Number 15 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to extend date to January 1, 2007 for application of house bill 633 relating to 900-hour rule to review and re-define, as appropriate, temporary class of employees. Thought -- seems to be fairly straightforward.
>> yes, it is. Good morning, linda Moore smith, director of human resources, lillian shoal, compensation manager. We are coming to you to request to extend the date of implementation of house bill 633. Which was passed in the last legislative session. There was a proposal put fort and accepted by the legislature from the retirement system that the 900 hour rule be removed from the legislation. But this requires that we do, as you might remember, the 900 hour rule puts us in a position of deducting retirement from individuals who work beyond that 900 hours. What we are asking for the court to do today is to approve the order to allow us as staff to extend the implementation date to on or before January 1 of 2007. And in order for us to -- to accommodate the -- the infrastructure, to accommodate this particular change, it will require that h.r. Work with the auditor's office, i.t., the departments that hire some 1500 temporary employees, really take a close look at how we define temporary employees within Travis County. We know that there will be a need to have collaborative sessions with the departments in order to achieve all of the changes that must be made to accommodate it. So that -- this particular request is to allow us to extend the implementation date, which is permitted under the legislation, until -- at the latest, January 1 of 2007.
>> and we need that time to work with the departments.
>> yes.
>> and I guess modify --
>> our hte system will need to be recoded, department communications and collaboration on redefining or how it is that we would propose to the court that we define temporary employees. The benefits committee will also be impacted in terms of discussions related to this, as well as policy changes that we will have to take a look at. So with that, and the amount of work required to accommodate it, we are requesting the extension.
>> so for retirees, who are working for Travis County and n a temporary capacity -- in a temporary chase, this means what?
>> what that means? That's the fyi at the very bottom of your memo, what it means for current retirees is that they are eligible to be rehired as really a regular employee of Travis County. And in accordance with the -- with the legislation they must be actually rotated through the county system or off of the system for 30 days. Individuals would then be able to retain their annuity as if they -- there would be no limitations on them being able to receive their annuity. They will be able to receive that retirement as well as be employed with no constraints by Travis County.
>> did they lose their -- their "seniority" et cetera because they have come off --
>> the attorney is responding to that.
>> I’m attorney [indiscernible] is sitting out in the audience saying that sound like double dipping, get county retirement, lay off a month, come back at the same old spot, how am I supposed to be better off with this. Ms. Wilson?
>> the thing that you have to understand, everyone who is doing any rehiring of any retiree has to understand is that we can jeopardize the tax exempt status of our pension plan if anybody quits with a job offer in hand. When you retire, it has to be with the intention of there being no job out there for you to take over. If after you're I don't know, we find that we really need something that you can offer us and we want to rehire you, we can. But any shams that are created where people say, by the way, linda, if I just retired would you rehire me in a month, that jeopardizes our -- the tax exempt status of our pension plan and don't assume you are not going to get caught because we ought to take from national news that everybody gets caught eventually. We really just can for the do that. Which means you don't go back where you were before because that would imply an intention to rehire.
>> well, do we get -- employees about to retire sign some certification that no promises have been made about -- about reemployment in Travis County?
>> that would not be a bad idea at all.
>> thank you, ms. Wilson.
>> those are the kind of details that we would be working with the county attorney's office to clarify as we bring policy related issues back before the court. The intent of the legislation was to afford retirees an opportunity to compete, to come back into the county and receive their annuity, but still be able to work without --
>> and no special preference can be given to a retiree because they are a retiree and rehire.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner's question was would you come back with the same seniority that you had when you left? I’m saying you are a new hire. [multiple voices]
>> the answer is no.
>> the answer is no.
>> longevity pay goes away, sick leave, basically [multiple voices]
>> rehire arrangement would be, completely separate.
>> because anything else suggests as a continuation of your former employment. If it was, then it's -- it's a sham. And if it's sham, then we are in trouble.
>> so if you retired a year ago, and you were interested in working again because all of your friends are still working and you are alone every day, you can apply for a job and rehire you, that's all right. We can rehire you and we would expect you to apply for another position, whatever is available, we can hire you, you can receive your retirement checks plus your income and employee compensation from Travis County.
>> that's correct.
>> and that's -- that began January 1 of '06.
>> yes, it does.
>> but we are giving ourselves one year for that to be in place before we do what in January 1 of 2007.
>> that can happen January 1 of '06, the scenario that you described. January 1 of 2007 allows us to take a look at temporary, how we define temporary employees within Travis County on the 900 rule. Really two separate actions, but both included in the bill that was approved by the legislature.
>> but now they are talking about 67 being the retirement age and so it really -- you have to really think carefully before you retire, before you reach the age of 67. You really should give it some really serious thinking.
>> I have two things related to the whole idea of coming back into the system. That is to check with our employees benefit committee and to understand through risk management, hi dan, the consequences of somebody being eligible and having to make choices related to retiree health insurance and then whether they are allowed to come in under active health insurance because I think the rate break is substantial if they are coming in under active because they are employee only versus retiree. We need to carefully think through the implications to the health insurance system. And the second question is do people in addition to keeping their annuity, do they continue to pay into the retirement system or does that piece of it, barbara, stop? Because you are already getting an annuity, you build upon your appear new annuity --
>> actually, I think it's going to be a little bit like if you go to the county and work for five years, go to the city and work for five years, you get two checks. It's two different checks. So I think if you work for the county and retire, and get your annuity check and then go back to work for the county, you would be getting a second check based on eligibility under the second working.
>> adding to your eight years of vesting.
>> no, you start over again on your vesting.
>> a separate account is actually set up.
>> but it doesn't -- you know, you have to hit the magic 8 years to be vested as opposed to what you just described there of multiple governments you can be vested at the city of Austin but our time does not get you vested at the city of Austin. You would have to do your own 8 year, but it can add to service in terms of being less than vesting over here -- [multiple voices]
>> no.
>> you have to vest someplace.
>> actually, Commissioner you don't. If you were to work four years here or say seven years here, because eight is vesting, go over to the city and work four there, after the first year that you have worked at the city, you will be considered vested because of the combination of the two would allow for vesting. At least that's the way --
>> at which place?
>> at both places.
>> both?
>> yeah.
>> I don't think that's --
>> I’ll go back and double check that.
>> you have got to vest in your own place.
>> let's have an appropriately worded agenda item to discuss.
>> that's what we hope to come back with. Dealing with temporary employees, though. Just to clarify that we do not have an option on the January 1, '06 date to allow the rehiring of retirees. I wanted to --
>> state law.
>> that is state law. We do have the option to get the extension for the one year to define the temporary employees, which is why we're here.
>> this is retirees who hire back as temporary employees. That were covered. That this item covers.
>> they are hired back as regular employees or temporary employees.
>> but this item only says --
>> yes, yes, as a temporary.
>> temporary class of employees.
>> yes.
>> a minute ago I heard you hint that we employ 1500 temporary people.
>> yes.
>> that's in addition to the 4,000.
>> yes.
>> judge, a lot of those are elections people. There's a ton of people on elections.
>> I would like to see that list sometime. No rush on it.
>> we can provide it. Any more discussion? All in favor? Move to approve.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, November 1, 2005 8:22 AM