Travis County Commissioners Court
September 18, 2007
Item 29
29 is to consider and take appropriate action on follow-up to budget fy '08 compensation mark-up. A is implementation schedule for compensation actions. B is a pops-tcso and non-tcso, one under b, pay scales as approved in the '08 budget rules two, annual anniversary raises as per proposed scale in fy '08, and three, constable precinct two issues. Good morning.
>> good morning.. On September 5 the court took several votes and we're just here to present the pop scale including implementation date. At that time we talked about the methodology or the steps that the court asked us to take and what may take a different implementation date.
>> is there a way to deal with that paperwork.
>> what I wanted to do was go through. It's on a, attached a of the backup. This schedule shows the actual steps that need to be taken. The backup will providing the tcso pay scale and the non-tcso pay scale. Finally we'll end up talking about precinct two constable. I think there were some questions with that also. I'll go ahead and start off with item number 1, approve job analysis. That has been implemented. Yes, already September 18. So was implemented September 16. All the new classifications and pay grades for the fy '07 job analysis have been implemented. Under rank and file the court asked us to take several steps to implement the changes in rank and file having to do with the job analysis acola. The first step was implementing green circle changes that will be effective 10-1. What we have done on this schedule is put implementation date and the receipt date, the day that the employees will see the difference in their checks. So receipt date is 10-31. Step 2, implement market adjustment. And just to remind everyone, the market adjustment if you look at the matrix we attached just for your information. And that is in accordance with the number of grades that were increased due to classification change and a percentage of pay. That step 2, we are implementing the matrix and the market judgment for fy '06 and fy '07. We estimated the number of paf's and that will be implemented on the first of the fiscal year which is 10-1-07, and the individual employees will see it in the paychecks on the 31st. Step 3 was the cola. With cola we have two implementation dates with no other salary judgments, the implementation date will be 10-1-07. If there are other salary judgments --adjustments because they have to be taken in order, the implementation date will be 11-1-07. They will see them then again 10-31 and 11-30.
>> when is the date cola?
>> that should be 10-1 and see it at the end--
>> January.
>> January 1?
>> January 1 every year, right?
>> okay.
>> they will see it at the end of January. Okay.
>> I wasn't quite sure what was involved in implementing these increases and why they would take as much time. And you all explained it to me. Can I hear the explanation here in public? In addition to this explanation, I think for the average employee if we could get this on our, what do we call the sort of e-mail? Intranet? Where these dates are there and so employees will be able to see where they are impacted, because you are impacted in different ways. Cola is easy to do but some of the other more specific stuff require special attention.
>> biggest thing is to do everything at once. I think the might be easier to explain why we couldn't do everything at once.
>> okay.
>> to do everything at once and do it legally, or to do it, let's say, I think the other big question was why we couldn't do it retroactive 230 some of the things.
>> --for some of the things.
>> okay.
>> as far as why we can't do it all at the same time, there are too many differs things that have to happen in a specific order for these to be processed correctly and for us not to go back and make a bunch of corrections the next pay period, which takes way too much time when there's more than one or two of thoselve for example, the green circles since you want to do those first, if we had done satisfying else, let's say the cola, that would take care of some people that were green circle so we would have less to do. But to do them first, have you to do all the green circles. And the department have to enter those pafs or we create them and departments have to approve them. Then they go to hrmd and they need to be I proved there individually. You can't just pick the whole group of them and do them. So these are individual pieces of paperwork that have to be done. Then they come to our office and we approve them and they have to be loaded into the payroll system. There is a very short window that all of that has to happen. It's couple days essentially in each pay period. For a big chunk the time we're entering the hours and getting the hours into the payroll system. So there's not a lot of time in between each two-week pay period where like these kind of things can be processed. So that's kind of a short explanation of why we couldn't do, and there's over 7,000, these actions create over 7,000 paf's, which will immediately come to mind. That's more than we have employees because some employees are going to have multiple paf's be created from thisif I could just add to that. You mentioned a very short processing time frame. We are taking advantage of every opportunity because of the staginging of these pay actions, to remind departments, and I'm hoping that they are all listening now, to really stay tuned to notices that they are getting from hr as well as, well primarily from had hr, on the need for them to go into the ht e system and actually approve at the department level. In some instances, to stage the implementation will literally be a day or two for departments to automatically approve within the system their particular pay actions. So just an announcement to the departments that all of this is stagged but we really need for them to pay attention and to respond to whatever requests and time lines that we get out to them.
>> if they miss different deadlines it just delays implementation of the paf, right?
>> it would, but it does impact the overall implementation of payroll in general.
>> I'm not confused but my concern, I guess, is making sure that everyone that has the authority to deal with this --
>> that's correct.
>> the--managers and what not, I heard intranet is being used, but what other than that can let folks know that this is the cure that we have with these particular dates and schedules, that these things will actually take place? Go ahead, I'm sorry.
>> we have been communicating to the departments. The auditors office as well as pbo and hr have already worked together to get the implementation schedules in place.
>> all rightat the same time we.
>> all right.
>> at the same time we have sent notices to the dent to remind them of how important it is to adhere to the time line for approvals that we laid out.
>> okay.
>> okay.
>> step 3 would be the cola --
>> you finished?
>> do you want more detail on the complexity or are you satisfied? I mean, I could talk a lot more about it if you like.
>> we think that's the best we can do.
>> we're pretty sure this is the best we can do. This is what we felt comfortable committing to. If we can do any of this faster, we're going to. I mean--
>> right.
>> there's nothing to stop us from doing this faster if everything worked out but it has to be both with the departments' cooperation as well as rmd and the auditor's office. This is what we think is the fastest that we can do this.
>> okay.
>> step 3 on the rank and file items, the cola, the court approved 3.5. I think we discussed that. With no other salary adjustment implement's date will be 10-1. With other salary judgments it will be 11-1 and it will be in the check at the end of the respective month.
>> cola alone, October 1.
>> if there are no other salary judgments.
>> cola alone, October 1. Cola plus, November 1.
>> yes, that's right.
>> if you are fortunate enough to have compensation in addition to the cola, unfortunately, that will be implemented one month later.
>> okay.
>> but you will see your consider.
>> trying to avoid a few phone calls after today.
>> you will see your other judgments, green circle and market judgment on 10-1.
>> okay.
>> you will see the other things moving on your paycheck.
>> okay. Now we move on to two pay scales tcso pay scale and the nonptcso pay scale. We have attached both of those because there are, there is one slight change on from the actual proposal that you approved and we did not have a non-tcso until the court voted. We have both of those there for you for approval. A the non-tcso the scale moved 7.5 percent for scon table--constables of we want to be sure it's the court's attention to inon both the tcso and non-tcs o. The anne versere raises as per the proposed scale. And then approved and certified civil process proficiency pay, that was approved by the court at the time that we came to you. I think we may have had 13 or 10 constables, we ended up with 16 eligible in fy '08 who had indeed passed their certification tests and are eligible for the pay, and that's $125 a month for that particular pay. On the park rangers and invest fy '08ers, the scale changed and we wanted to be sure the inattention was to continue the raises at approximately two percent. That takes us to the precinct couldtwo constable. You wanted comparison of allocations received compared to other constables so you would have some idea of what would be the appropriate allocation for that office and. I'm going to turn it over to linda. You have the backup for that in your attachment 3.
>> basically two questions that we explored with the information on comparing the titles for precinct two to those comparable tightls on the non-tsco proper scale. As we completed analysis based on the same approach used as constable two came off of the pop scale, we did conclude those titles would mirror one pay grade adjustment for fy '08 and for the same titles on the non-tcs o. We provided on page 3 a spreadsheet that shows the titles impacted by the adjustment. In generally it's pay grade 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 respectively. And we're proposal in the far right side of the spreadsheet that each one of those pay grades are increased by one pay grade, which would be respectively 18, pay grade 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. The total cost for making that adjustment, there would be eight titles that would be green circles. The total cost from that with benefits would be $17,817.
>> we have the precinct two constable here. Are you familiar with the recommendation?
>> yes, judge (inaudible)
>> agreement, disagreement? Appreciation?
>> appreciation, very much so.
>> is that it?
>> with that, the 5.5 percent that is allocated (inaudible) would partly apply to constable precinct 2 classified titles, which means the 3.5 percent cola would be applied as part of the increase as mentioned and the office would also have access in the flexibility amount. I believe the date of implementation has been established with alicia's recommendation.
>> that would put the precinct 2 deputy constables pretty much on pay scale with the other.
>> yes, it would.
>> the change in the pay grade, that is all that needd to happen to effect ew ate this, correct?
>> and the green circle funding.
>> doesn't that come with our vote from budget mark-up?
>> not in this particular one.
>> okay. The green circle and the pay grade adjustment.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Discussion?
>> the implementation date on this is--
>> yes.
>> basically the approval of the hrmd recommendation with which the constable concurs.
>> and there was a second question. If you are ready to move forward with that.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Okay.
>> your sceck --second question had to do with the request for the multiyear comparison of the annual compensation allocated to precinct 2 as part of the classified scale in comparison to the annual allocation to the other constabled who remained on the non-tso props. You have on your backups page 2, informatn on the pbo. If you get to thebo line of that table, will you see that for fy '05 through '08, constable precinct 2 on the classified scale received on average 5.31 percent for the period fy '04 through '08, in comparison to those who remained on non-tcso pop scale of 13 percent. The detail is there from fiscal year to fiscal year in terms of the comparison, but that is the bottom line.
>> okay. Questions?
>> I have a comment, judge.
>> all right.
>> I did comment on this when it was sent to me. I want to point out to you that where it shows this percentage for my peace officers on the classified pay scale, I don't know if I would call it an exact science, but the pbp that was added to this during several of those years was used by me to bring up some of my green circled clerks, not law enforcement employees. And by all of them being on the classified scale, not all of the peace officers got pbp for a given year because that had to go for compression issues and performance awards to the clerks also.
>> okay. That's just information. Thank you very much.
>> I want to thank you for your good stewardship of that flexible money.
>> thank you. And happy birthday.
>> anybody hear to comment on that? Move approval of the recommendationlve discussion in all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Now to b, the part that involves pops, tcso and nontcso.
>> pay scale.
>> move approval of the pay scales.
>> second.
>> discussion? All mfavor. That passes by unanimous vote. Two, I move approval that our continuation of the anniversary raises, for some that will be an additional pop but for those that get small increase, if you take the anniversary, it makes a big difference.
>> second.
>> that's why I move approval. Discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Anything else on this item? 29. Did we approve everything we need to approve?
>> yes.
>> you have all the directions you need?
>> yes, sir, we sure do.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
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 19, 2007, 18:30 AM