Travis County Commissioners Court
July 15, 2008
Item 27
The next item 27, consider and take appropriate action on the following f.y. '09 items. A, fy '08 job analysis, project, job titles, pay trades and flsa designation. Training, education and instruction. Reproduction, public information, human resources, information technology. B, green circled slots, f.y. '08 job analysis project, that are below minimum of the new market. C, general market adjustment, job analysis project and advance incumbent's salaries closer to the market valued pay grade mid point. D, nontcso peace office pay scale, law enforcement comp analysis recommendations. E, seasonal relief temporary titles, hourly pay rates for elections, park techs, school crossing guards and interpreters. And f, bilingual supplemental pay program proposal.
>> good morning. Alicia perez, executive manager for operations. We have before you several items on compensation. This makes up probably most of the f.y. Compensation plan. On an annual basis, we take a third of the workforce and do an analysis on titles, on -- on titles and pay grades compared to the market and we have a process that we use on an annual basis. This year we were also tasked with looking at nontcso peace office pay scales which includes constables, park rangers and investigators and several of the levels in that particular family. You have before you several items, as the judge mentioned, and we would like to take them one at a time. Some of these we appreciate that are related to budget issues, and you may not want to take a final vote on them until part of the budget process and markup, which is what we've done in the past. On some of these, they are more policy issues and you may feel comfortable in taking a vote on that now. We will go ahead and start. Linda Moore smith and we have self other folks here to discuss these items and we'll start with item a.
>> good morning, Commissioners. I am going to just introduce people at the table to you,. To my left todd osborne. He's the project manager with evergreen solutions to bid the comp work on the nontcso. Leu anne shul. Also coletta valdez, compensation analyst. And travis is a part of our staff now, I feel. With p.b.o. We have presented to you in work session as well as in a voting session the results of our f.y. '08 job analysis project. What we're doing today is preening to you in motion a and recommending that you consider taking policy action on the titles, pay grades, a flsa work that we have completed. I would refer you to the summary page, page 7 of your backup. On that particular page it really does capture the work that we've completed on our classified titles. And just by way of summarizing that and putting it, of course, into the record, I will cite that we did complete analysis on nine job families. Those job families include titles in the courts, senior and middle management, professional support, training, education instruction, reproduction, public information, human resources, information technology, and special projects including elections. Those were the nine job families included in this particular work we've completed over f.y. '08. There was 35 departments affected by the work that we completed. We started with some 219 titles and ended with 229 titles for a net of 20 additional new titles within our classified structure. In addition to that we saw as a result of our work in recommendations that there were 1,096 slots effected, about one-third of your workforce in terms of the titles. And as we analyzed those positions, there was an average of a plus two pay grade movement on all of those titles. So in general slightly over a thousand titles were increased an average of two pay grades as a result of the work that we did. Of the title that is we looked at. 72 of those titles involved reclassifications, which, of course, we would expect that over a three full year period of time that departments would have different business needs that would require a closer examination of redefining the job content to meet whatever their newly defined purposes might have been within that period. We had 142 red line titles as we went into the project, and as a result of the work we ended with zero titles being red lined. Of all of the work completed, there were 248 titles that are green circles, and you will remember the green circled are those title that is are really being paid less than minimum of the new market pay grade. In addition to that we're proposing in motion c for your consideration that those titles affected by this project receive a market adjustment and further discussion, of course, would take place on that particular motion as we get to it. So our recommendation under motion a is for you to approve and consider -- consider approving the job titles, pay grades and fsla designations. I would like to cite for the record that there are several slots that we're still working with departments to resolve, so it would be the approval of all slots with the exception of slot 40, which is a record and in list position under professional support. Under human resources there are slots in juvenile court. Slot 17, 170 and 523. And in tcso there are two slots that are accepted from this motion which are 721 and 714. Under information technology, constable 5, slot 28. And in addition to that just for the record to note that pending in this work is still our work on career ladder recommendation and structure related to the i.t. Job family. If I could briefly run down the slots to be excepted from this particular motion.
>> item may be more propose.
>> item. Under this particular item, the exceptions would be, under records management, slot 40. Under the human resources job family, juvenile court, slot 17, 170, 523. Under tcso, slot 721 and 714. Under information technology, slot 28, associated with constable 5, and a note that we will continue under this year's project to work with i.t. On their career ladder structure. So those are the items, the exceptions I'm proposing to this particular item.
>>
>> [inaudible] the pay grade movements, who is red lined, who is green circled, and who needs market adjustment.
>> that's correct.
>> so this is just -- item a only going to identifying problems, not what the solutions should be. Identifying issues.
>> identifying the green circles, the greenstick else will be dealt with in b. This is merely approving the new job titles, flsa did he go nation and pay grade to say these are the appropriate pay grades, flsa and new titles. Then we start working on job descriptions.
>> move approval of a.
>> second.
>> let me ask, so does pass ing this, a, does it affect at all what we will eventually get to weighing in on regarding the method by which we are considering compensation?
>> no, sir. We have in the past, the court has separated their compensation strategy, analysis, the job analysis, from implementation on how to pay for it. So we've done this before.
>> but I'd add though, it would create green circled slots we would have to address through a funding mechanism. I want to make sure everyone is aware of that.
>> but we've had over hundreds of green circles for several months. So without funding you can still have the 248 slots green circled.
>> it would be formal recognition that certain jobs should be paid certain amounts of money to be at market.
>> that's correct.
>> basically.
>> and that is the charge that the court has given to h.r. Through your authorization for us to do this work. The acknowledgement that they are below market to what we're recommending.
>> or at market.
>> or at market.
>> so what we're doing here today is just identifying and kind of separately these because of these magnitudes of I guess being not looked at in the past and now they are being looked at as far as title, grade and also the other components that were mentioned here. And I guess -- well, I guess during the time of the budget process, which I know we haven't had a chance to look at the budget, there's no funding, per se, for this particular item that has been moved on and also seconded, there's no funding at this point --
>> this item does not require funding. It is just changing the grade and the title.
>> right.
>> how you fund it, that it goes to the green circles, the market adjustment and those items. This is just recognizing that there is a new title and that the market reflects a different pay grade. We have, as was pointed out, have left individuals in green circle positions over time previously.
>> and every year it appears that every once in a while we're not satisfied the green circle employees, as many as we possibly can basically every year, but again, that issue continues to be with us as we go through the process. Again I guess we'll look at it -- all of these things, I guess, during the budget cycle. So but I just wanted to make sure that what we're doing right now does not require any funding right, you know, any funding within the motion that's being made. I want to make sure of that.
>> that is correct. That is our understanding, yes.
>> but it would be approval of the market salary survey that was done on these jobs in '08, basically.
>> yes.
>> and it would be approval of elevating the grade, but adjustment steps we would have to deal with later on. That's where the money comes in.
>> that's correct, yes.
>> so employees who want to know what jobs are included, we basically will send them what's behind tab a.
>> that's correct. And they have received that.
>> those who asked for it. Everybody received it?
>> the departments have received it, yes.
>> employees, though. If john doe wonders whether he is covered, I would send him --
>> to the department preferable.
>> the department is not going to contact me.
>> they can contact h.r. Or we can work with the departments to communicate that.
>> but if I send a, I'm sending the positions that are conferred and the recommendations.
>> that's correct.
>> any more discussion?
>> yeah. I'm missing something here. I just want to make sure that with this motion that we still have the opportunity to talk about which process we are going to use for the ultimate compensation and where these people are.
>> yes, sir, that would be correct.
>> for example, we have predicated all of this on the matrix system, and I want to talk about the matrix system versus the comp ratio. And I want to make sure that I've got the opportunity at the right time to talk about it.
>> that comes under general market adjustments.
>> I think the other thing that can happen is if somebody calls our individual offices to see if they are included, we have the information behind tab a that we can refer to and say, well, what is your position and then we can look it up and say yeah, you are on this list and you were approved.
>> and that's an excellent point, Commissioner. We have given you a higher level report that we can certainly release to you at the department level, that detailed that would allow you to go directly into a particular spot.
>> right. And we can give them general information, yeah, the title is on here, but you need on to refer maybe to your department head for details or h.r. For details.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> well, I guess, too, the implication of directing that a market salary survey be done is that we will recognize it, either move it if we don't agree or approve it if we think it's accurate.
>> yes, sir.
>> this is the last of the annual analyses, right?
>> the three-year plan.
>> three-year cycle.
>> any more discussion in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now that we've approved it, is the county judge listed there?
>> [laughter] a little humor, y'all.
>> thank you.
>> b.
>> okay. We'll go to the second item, and if you look at page 2 of your backup, you have the financial analysis for the cost of each of the issues. We will start with green circle. Green circle slots are those slots that fall below the minimum of the new market competitive pay rate. That means that if someone is green circled or a position is green circled, that their new pay grade, they are earning less than what the market does that they should at the minimum cost. That item -- green circled slots have been funded by the court for at least the last three --
>> two years.
>> two years. At least two to three years, and the cost for that is $628,991. Again, this may be an issue that you will want to take up as the first thing during your budget hearings, which is what we've done in the past.
>> basically we've been funding it basically through the comp reserve as far as some of the things that we've been looking at, but if we look at the balance of the coverage reserve at this point, as of today, the comp reserve has about $500,000 in it. So as you see right now, that's not even enough to cover this first item. That we just spoke to. That's -- like I said, that's where we normally go to deal with some of the shortfalls that we have dealing with all of these things is basically look at the reserve that we had set aside. So according to my sources --
>> would it be helpful if I quickly went over what's in the compensation reserve right now?
>> yeah.
>> '89 or 9?
>> > '09. There's currently over 5 million in the comp reserve.
>> how much?
>> $5,745,790. It's made up of a few components. We've been able to reserve 4%, which is. The annual pot step increase, which is $575,980. As Commissioner Davis mentioned there's 500,000 in the reserve for the market salary study. Elected officials salaries at 3.5%, which is 63,924. The court still needs to make a final decision on that. And 40,426 for starflight performance pay.
>> thank you.
>> one of the choices that the court has had to make in the past is how to distribute that reserve. I think what travis presented is what is in the preliminary budget. That has really not held in previous years because the court makes decisions in terms of the priority items. Is it more important to do a cost of living increase, is it more important to fund green circles. Do you want to do a market adjustment. So those are the sorts of issues that have been debated by the court and the decisions that are before you. What we have on your sheet on page 2 is the green circled slots, if there are any questions on that, we have the amount. If you look at that page 2, we have totaled all the items that we will be discussing today, and they total to about 2.5 million. If you were to choose to implement those today, of course that would be direction to p.b.o. To include those in the preliminary budget. Then you would see what you would have left for cola. There's a way that you could address that issue or wait until we have the compensation hearing for the budget. But we're still on green circle. If there's any questions on that.
>> but the general fund hit by a comprehensive green circle remedy would be $628,000.
>> yes, sir.
>> of which is not part of the preliminary budget.
>> that's correct. There's 500,000, so if you applied 500,000 -- if you wanted to do the green circle first and start that out, if I applied the 500,000 to the 628,000 roughly you need another $128,991.
>> or you take your 5 million and divvy it up as appropriate. That's how we've done it in the past is you take your 5 million and then decide what are your priorities. If funding, if your market competitive stands as most important, then those green circle slots would be funded first, and that goes into your preliminary budget.
>> what do we need from p.b.o. Is a breakdown of the five point some odd million dollars that has been broken down, that you broken down and categorized when I posed the question only the $500,000 would be actually set aside to deal with -- for comp reserve as far as market is concerned.
>> okay.
>> I hear what alicia is saying, however, that five point some odd million dollars that's there for compensation purposes is based on, again, three point something. Could you just highlight that again of what that is set aside for?
>> I'm happy to do that. One thing I would add is this is based on the second revenue estimate, the third revenue estimate is still pending. So potentially if that could change, these could change these numbers. Again, the components of the reserve as rank and file at 3%.
>> rank and file 3%. Okay.
>> the pop step increase. Do you want me to give the dollar amounts tied with each component?
>> if you like.
>> rank and file at 3% is $4,565,567. The pops increase is $575,980. Again as I mentioned, we have 500,000 set aside for the market salary survey. Elected official salaries at 3.5% which is $63,924. Starflight pay for performance, which is 40,426. And again, those total 5,745,897. And all these numbers along with additional information is included in memo I believe most of you have. I would be happy to share some other copies with you.
>> I would like a breakdown of what you stated there.
>> for the green circled employees listed under the other fund with benefits available, that money is available? The total is $139,000.
>> what page, judge?
>> page 8. One column has general fund with benefits. That's where the 628, 991 is.
>> uh-huh.
>> and next column says other fund with benefits.
>> yes, sir.
>> $139,268.
>> yes, sir.
>> is there 139,000 funded?
>> it would be anticipated that there are would be funded from the other fund.
>> from the line item.
>> other funds. So there wouldn't be an impact to the general fund.
>> but the money is there.
>> yeah. I'm assuming it's there.
>> do we need to confirm that?
>>
>> [inaudible] we're kind of nip and tuck on road and bridge fund.
>> let's confirm that. If that's an issue for us, is sooner we know the better.
>> okay. We get the -- we'll know by Monday.
>> green circled employees are those whose current salaries are below the minimum of the grade.
>> ott new market competitive grade, yes.
>> historically we have looked at a cola, will that get you to the minimum or what? Is there a recommendation this year? If you get green circled relief, do you also get a cola?
>> yes.
>> we did last year.
>> yes.
>> I think we did.
>> but I think what the judge is asking is about a two-step process. The way that we have done it in previous years and we would recommend that we continue to do that is if the court deems that everyone gets a cola, you implement that first. And then the difference between the money that one gets for the cola and the minimum of the pay grade is what is made up. So you take the cola into consideration, the amount for the cola into consideration.
>> first.
>> first. Yes. So it's a two-step process.
>> so the 3% -- so the 3% of rank and file will be applied first, and the difference of bringing them out of the green circle status will be divvied from the $500,000 in reserve. Is that correct?
>> and she reminded me that last year we didn't -- the two step, we did the green circle first.
>> then market, then cola.
>> because we wanted to make them whole first and then apply the cola.
>> and then apply the cola.
>> I have a question about the terminology of making one whole, though. Isn't the principle of the market analysis, doesn't -- at least for the job families that were analyzed for the market, not the other two-thirds, but the third that were analyzed for the market, isn't the assumption that the market is taking into consideration cost of living? I mean, aren't we looking at comparables for areas that have similar cost of living?
>> no, no, we did not consider the cost of living. We just considered their comparable salary structures. So that --
>> okay. Thank you.
>> structure would be --
>> pay range.
>> and range.
>> yes.
>> cost of living, of course, is typically applied beyond that if it's applied at all.
>> so we've done it both ways. The way that we will done it up until last year was we applied the cola and did the difference. Last year we went ahead and reversed that, applied the market and then the market -- the market adjustment "-the first adjustment was the green circle. Second was the market. And third was cola. And they were staged over pay periods.
>> and I think that's the fair way to do it. I really do.
>> what was your last comment? They were staged over --
>> various pay periods. The green circle went in effective on 10-1, and then 10-16 was the market, and November 1st was the cola. So it staged it.
>> the payroll system.
>> will not allow us to do any more than one pay action at a time. They were done in consecutive pay periods after 10-1.
>> so if we did it in those stages, then the 628 is still the good figure?
>> that's -- yes.
>> I move b.
>> second.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> this is a p.b.o. Question. Have we ever gone back and redone the preliminary budget -- I mean we are basically putting money in beyond the preliminary budget right now. Correct?
>> correct.
>> everybody think that? If I want you all -- at least for my office, to go back and to redetermine what dollars will be put in a preliminary budget so that the preliminary budget is no more than what you all have right now, is that something that you have the ability to do? I mean it sounds to me like that's going to be a pretty difficult thing to do, to go back and redetermine everybody's preliminary budget, all the different departments and say guess what, I mean, you know, what we basically signed off on the preliminary budget, if this compensation is going to, you know, take precedence, or priority, then we've got to relook at what we've done in the preliminary budget. It would seem, leroy, that that's got to be done.
>> we receive the third revenue estimate that the preliminary budget will be based on next Monday, a week from today. We are scheduled to file the preliminary budget a week after that. We still have some pending items that we're working on. We're still in discussions with the sheriff on the staffing and various issues. We have not finalized that recommendation. So we have a number of unknowns at this point. And if the court -- whatever they direct us, it's very difficult to go back to a department with five working days to put a preliminary budget to bed. We have to go through and do all of the recapitulation between the 20 or 30 funds. And we don't start that until we get that third revenue estimate. In the past there's been one time that the Commissioners court went in and actually took funding out of the preliminary budget for the -- in that case it was the sheriff's department and reallocated those funds several years ago. So it can be done.
>> the other way would be to reallocate your 5-point -- 5.5 million in your compensation bucket.
>> so if you -- I guess my question is, does -- we are here making decisions that basically will cause us to exceed available revenue at this time based on what we believe you have put in the preliminary budget for departments. My question is, is it written in law that the preliminary budget has to be balanced? Because we are unbalancing it today. So I mean does it have to be balanced or can you footnote certain of these items at the direction of the Travis County Commissioners court?
>> we can certainly do that, and it's my understanding that in the past there has been preliminary budgets brought in that have been imbalanced and that has been brought to Commissioners court's attention. We can certainly do that in this preliminary budget as well. One thing I did want to point out was anything that is done today, obviously is outside of what we currently have in the preliminary budget. We do have approximately 4.5 million in rank and file dollars that are allocated in the preliminary budget at 3% currently. Cost of living is currently running about 5%. So we are under cost of living currently in the preliminary budget. In order to accommodate any action that's taken today within the preliminary budget, without coming in and balanced, we would have to be adjusting off that rang and file number that is correct 4.5%. I just want to bring that to Commissioners court's attention. Unless we come in and make adjustments either off the pop step increase, the elected official salaries or the starflight pay for performance. Those are the only other areas that we have to work from.
>> well, it was occur to go me as I was looking at this, is it possible that the actions that we take today would do better for employees than cola? Could we -- could we balance some of these decisions off with a cola knowing we're going to make more permanent improvements than through cola.
>> something that -- the answer to that question is yes for some and not for others.
>> so it applies to the one-third that's being analyzed this time but not to the two-thirds.
>> that's correct.
>> so if we made the adjustments, we wouldn't apply cola to them.
>> that's correct. It would adversery affect the rank and file folks not included in this. So two-thirds of your workforce that we currently have the cost of living built in for now would be impacted adversely as a result of taking any dollars from this --
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> there might be --
>> for this one year, because remember this is the third year of a three-year plan. In the last two years, you have indeed funded green circles. So for this year you would adversely impact. But if you look at it as a three-year period, you would be consistent in your implementation strategy. So that is really a decision, it's a policy decision for the court.
>> we have time to deal with this. Here's my question, and I'm going back to what I asked earlier. And that is looking at the compensation packet, the five point whatever million dollars that's there, looking at the green circled employees that we are trying to deal with here in item b, allowing them to use their 3% at that time, and also using part of the $500,000 comp reserve. What kind of impact would it have, in other words because if we're going to bring them out of the green circle status, they will be using the cola to begin with, which is already there. And the $500,000, which is in the comp reserve, that would basically it appears that it wouldn't -- how will it affect anybody else but them.
>> the green circle employees --
>> go ahead.
>> we can accommodate the green circled employees. That leaves us about 128,000 short of being able to fully accommodate green circles, using the comp reserve that's currently there.
>> but how would that be if they were to use their 3% --
>> cola.
>> -- cola, and then use a portion of the $500,000? I don't see the 3% plus a portion -- I don't know what those numbers are, of the $500,000 reserve could bring them out of green circle status.
>> what we would have to do is look at each of the individuals within the range, the ranges being discussed or the classifications being discussed today and find out what that total would be. But Commissioner, I would suspect --
>> I would like to see that.
>> we can do that.
>> because in other words, if that's the case, then it really wouldn't be any effect, in my mind, on an increase -- everything would still be consistent within the preliminary budget as is because of the fact that there is already $5.4 million that are sitting there, and also $500,000 sitting in comp reserve. Using both of those tools to come to that end of addressing green circles. So I would like to see what that is, the number that we have and looking at the cola and also the comp reserve.
>> and we could certainly do that and we'll go back and pull those numbers.
>> I would like to see that before I make a vote on it.
>> can we go to lunch and withdraw that motion? I think we need to discuss this.
>> the item involving -- the item we said we needed the consultant on.
>> deferred comp.
>> we need to take this item up first. So I would suggest to him closer to 2:15. Then after the corporations, we'll take this item up and try to conclude it. Is that okay?
>> yes.
>> who made the motion?
>> I did.
>> withdraw it and take it up further this afternoon, is that okay? Move re recess to 1:30. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We'll call this item up first before the Commissioners court this afternoon.
This morning we started our discussion of item no.
>> 27.
>> 27.
>> and we are right in the middle of it. When we heard the call to -- to -- the lunch time call. We were discussing c. Edge ral market adjustment (fy '08 job analysis project) and implement criteria and guidelines to advance incumbents' salaries closer to the market valued pay grade midpoint;
>> I thought we discussed the green --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>>
>> I thought we didn't -- I thoughts we just moved from --
>> lunch time, so we could go to lunch.
>> I thought we started -- I thought we heard we were discussing c. No action on b.
>> judge, what about additional sums from salary savings.
>> I think those have been budgeted and projected.
>> that's not a source.
>> probably one that we are already using now. We have a large number of vacancies budgeted positions that have not been filled. The report I saw showed some have been vacant for three months, six months, nine and more.
>> sounds to me like that's money that might be available. To meet today's needs.
>> I ask our staff to creatively review those, try to figure out which ones in fact are needed, which ones are not.
>> in the past, judge --
>> I think at some point we ought to put it on the court's agenda.
>> look at what the amount is.
>> seems like kind of a claim to -- I remember talking to leroy, nellie, a few others at p.b.o. In years past, kind of a big push to try to get folks to fill some of these vacancies or, you know, it just disappeared and there was always some situation where we couldn't get to those funds.
>> we will have it on the court's agenda at some point in the future.
>> we need to look at it. No doubt about it.
>> before we look at that, let's be mindful that that is a one-time --
>> that's one time. We are already told by p.b.o. That -- that this year --
>> not one time, though, if you -- I don't know -- I think it's ongoing.
>> it could be. Especially if --
>> the positions --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we have eliminated the slots --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we would just use it for this year.
>> even if the slot is left, if don't budget it --
>> yeah.
>> it's ongoing money if you generate. But that's a full discussion. If I were a department head and I had positions that I couldn't fill, I had a new need, I would appreciate the Commissioners court advising me that I could transfer that money from the position that I couldn't fill to a new one. But -- but when you chat with departments, if there's no pressure you don't get that done.
>> or existing positions to fit with the funding existing position.
>> the existing position is already funded, though.
>> but like for green circle, other things that are needed for the existing positions. It would shift from one use to another.
>> I don't think that will work because what will happen is that you will have some departments covering their market adjustments and others not. If we go that way, it will make more sense to put it in a pool than later turn around and use it county-wide. You see what I'm saying. If we're going to do a salary relief with it, I think we ought to just put it in a pool that we use to cover salary needs. But I had in mind sort of empowering the departments to creatively use money that has been budgeted for their departments already.
>> uh-huh.
>> anyway, I think we ought to put that on the agenda. On b, we discussed b. There was not a motion? There was a motion.
>> pull it down.
>> then let's just do b. Which we discussed in full I thought. B is a green circle
>> [indiscernible] any more discussion of them.
>> back into that discussion again.
>> Commissioner Davis asked what the green circle the m.a.p. Be if we applied the first.
>> would you all like to have that number?
>> I would like to have it. Do you mind walking us through it?
>> please.
>> as -- as we mentioned earlier in the discussion, the green circle amount is 628 the $91. If you turned to page two of the memo, you will see if we applied the three percent cola first, instead of being 628991 it would be 419,010 which is a savings of $210,981. Another way of looking at it is if we applied the original 628 amount, applied the 500,000 in the reserves to that amount, we need to identify another $128,991. However, if you applied the cola first, you would actually have a savings of $80,990 out of that 500,000 that's currently set aside.
>> but all -- I mean, if we do this, all that we're doing is -- is getting ours back into the same circle.
>> yeah.
>> that we got -- you know, get to next year because somebody is going to say you know what really happened to us we didn't really witness, you know, the cola. I mean it is a mathematic way to lighten the looked.
>> this year.
>> I mean this year but, I mean,, you know, whether we have the right.
>> there is not a fight.
>> whether we have the issue before us -- we ought to take care of it in the right way.
>> it's your call. You did it one way two years ago. A different way last year. This is just showing you both ways.
>> although theoretically, I'm not saying that we are there, but if we were to say that we have -- that we are going to fund market analyses to a -- to a desired 50th percentile in the market, which we're not, we are doing something below the 50th percentile. If we were to say that we are funding market analyses to the 50th percentile and each time a job family were market analyzed, that we would bring them to that 50th percentile range say a lead 670th percentile lagging to the 40th percentile by the third year out. Then theoretically, cola could be used only on those who weren't market salary surveyed to keep them in a catch up status until their market salary survey happens. Right now we are using cola to keep us from slipping further behind. It's not really a cost of living index increase. It's really just an across the board bump.
>> true.
>> irrespective to what the cost of living is in Austin.
>> no matter what you call it, right now we are at 3%.
>> right. A 3% bump across the board
>> [laughter] just for breathing. Which is -- totally understandable given that we are not funding our market salary survey.
>> one thing that I should have mentioned earlier, I'm sorry quickly, we also calculated what the average green circle increase would be, 5.8%.
>> so is the motion recognition of the green circle issue and as a matter of policy identify those adversely impacted by it? And express our relief -- our intention to cover during the budget process? Are we doing more than that?
>> well, we could do that or we could do now -- from the -- from the -- from the compensation reserve um --
>> compensation reserve of $500,000 is there.
>> that's correct.
>> it would be there unless we move it, right? So but we are still short.
>> 128,000, which is a lot easier to -- to reach.
>> the issue for us, judge, today is the court would give us direction on how you want to implement. Do you want the green circle first and then market adjustments.
>> that's what I --
>> or do you want cola and -- that would help us, aid us in terms of determining what the --
>> I would like for us to go ahead and take care of it this year. Not have it continuing, continually coming back to us.
>> although I would suggest that market -- the market adjustment conversation should occur before we decide what order we're doing these in. Because if the market adjustment is based -- it depends on what the market -- the theory on which the market adjustment is based. Under the proposal by h.r., I agreed that -- that one should put the cola on after the adjustment. But if we were going to -- if we do contemplate a market adjustment that is -- that is closer to what the unions are requesting or some hybrid between them, where the cola -- at what point in the -- in the process the cola is calculated may -- that decision may be different.
>> well, do we suspect --
>> from a policy perspective. Not just where do we save, you know, 200,000 bucks. But from a policy perspective, depending on what our market adjustment, what's underpinning our market adjustment decision.
>> okay. The revenue estimate third revenue estimate is due when?
>> Monday.
>> there may be a change I guess, maybe in some numbers I really don't know exactly.
>> miracle is not happening with that.
>> [laughter]
>> I know that you are hoping for it.
>> you heard the end of that.
>> I did.
>> I said I don't know, though. I do not know. But anyway go ahead and say what you were going to say.
>> we will be making the adjustment on the star flight prior to the city's taking a vote, assuming that's going to happen, that will be in there. There are a couple of other minor adjustments, but there's nothing material going to come up. Just for your information. What we told you we were going to additionally certify was the star flight will be there. So that is some money. The -- we're not seeing anything much changing with the tax roll. There are huge, huge appeals out there. The tax assessor or appraiser is getting through them. There's still some out there. He's estimating what he thinks will be in litigation, what we might lose, we are doing the same thing. But I just don't want you to think when the next revenue estimate comes out there will be a significant difference. There will be some, but mainly the star flight that you voted for in the pilot program the other day.
>> yeah.
>> we told you that. And we are seeing a -- we are seeing a -- a decline in those things that reflect the economy. No surprise. You know, anything that -- that is lending itself to more increased buildings and permits, we're not seeing that -- they are tapering down. So that shouldn't be a surprise. So I -- just as you are doing your thinking, I don't see a windfall in this.
>> okay.
>> and let me remind you that last year y'all and the budget office with knowledge tried to eat down some of those fund balances. We did that for -- for a reason. But now they are down. So I mean we're not in a crisis. What's happened is what was kind of looked at and done through the end. Just other years we've had bigger fund balances but I mean there's not a crisis with the fund balance. Everyone felt the fund balances were too high. So we methodically took budget actions that brought that down. Now they are down. We raised, I took a very aggressive analysis on tax which before was giving us a windfall in the fund balance. I told you that. We did that. We took that but then there's no windfall in the fund balance. I don't want you to think there's going to be a lot of money. Something comes up that we haven't anticipated whether a revenue estimate is due or not I'll let you know, I will e-mail you all.
>> thank you.
>> I guess I have an issue with spending way beyond available revenue at this time. I think we ought to adopt these policies, express our intention and then spend some time trying to generate revenue to cover them. There are different ways to do it. At some point you have got to prioritize. There may be things in different department budget that's they could easily do without in the name of promoting good employee morale and trying to get our work a lot more productive. At the end of the day, the question is whether you need 100 employees to do a certain thing or can you get by with 97. It's a little tougher if you got four employees and you only do them at 3. Not that -- not that -- not to protect my court members, but I want to protect them. But the bigger the department, the more the flexibility and there are some other things, stones that we kind of need to look under. We do periodically. You know, sometimes the revenue picture is much better and we don't have to make the real tough calls. But we can probably generate eight to 10 possibilities. The only question is whether we are willing to do that and take the action. In my view it boils down to how much money do you save, what pain do you have to suffer to do it.
>> well, we have to go through this at what every cycle that the economy is down. So this is probably one of those years since our revenue is down.
>> I have a question, I don't know if there is an answer available today. But what percentage of our employees are -- are at the -- at the level 1 through 4 on the pay grade versus those who are at 4 to midpoint and those who are at midpoint and up?
>> we don't have that information available at this moment, but we could certainly pull it and provide it.
>> okay. Judge, what would the -- I don't know that there's any damage. So wait and make some of these determinations until -- until I guess what is it, the 28th, rodney, is that when the preliminary budget is a week from this coming Monday?
>> right.
>> which will be the 28th.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. So that we can -- so that we can really see where we are, I mean, because the thing that I'm the most uncomfortable with here is making decisions and really letting people know what we're going to do. I don't think that we generally, you know, go back on anything. Once we start talking about like right now. Now, not to say that some people wouldn't take us to task over that about well you have done that over years with market salary, you haven't done what you said that you were going to do. I do think that it's time for us to, you know, as a court stand, you know, come up with policy and really try to live with it. I do think that it's something that, I mean, at least for this court member that I'm willing and mean it whenever I say to p.b.o. That I want compensation to be the number one issue in our budget. And in order for that to be the number one issue in the budget, then you need to determine what process you are going to use -- I mean if we talk about rol all of the things, let's talk about it. There's nothing that build morale more than for the court to make the decisions that we know is quite frankly the right thing to do, try to follow through with them. Now that does put pressure on p.b.o. Because, you know, wish list that you get whenever you do the preliminary budget, you know, is you have got to be hard line and say that's over. I mean compensation is the number one thing that the county looks at, you know, every year because if we want productivity then I think that -- I think that we have to -- I think that we have to pay for it. That's not to say if we're not getting productivity then I'm going to ask people that really tell us that they want compensation to be that issue, that I want help if I'm not getting productivity then by gosh I want them to stand with me say you're right you're not getting productivity there. I do think that it's time for us to do that, you know, say what we mean, mean what we say. I don't think that I can -- I can do that as easily as I could until the 28th. I think this is all sending p.b.o. A pretty good message seems to me like that somebody is really wanting compensation to get back in the game a lot bigger than it is right now. Especially with the market salary surveys.
>> Gerald, Commissioner, I didn't mean to call you Gerald. Commissioner, I hear what you're saying. I have heard what folks have been saying. I know that compensation is a big thing around here. I try to look for as many ways to accommodate compensation issues the best way I can. I think I have a strong reputation of doing those kind of things. But it's kind of hard to -- to do some things until you see exactly what the departments are requesting. Now, h.r. Has come up with a series of things that we have asked them to do. Of course, they have brought -- forecast and money attributes looking at the particular job families green circle folks,
>> [indiscernible] just -- just a whole bunch of things here that they have actually looked at. And suggested that we do certain things to accommodate them. So of course I think departments are just as responsible for looking at ways to help us deal with the compensation issues. So I think not having the preliminary budgets before me at this time, in my mind it's kind of premature to land on something until I'm able to see what departments are actually requesting. There maybe some things the departments are requesting that's in this preliminary budget that may not, you know, may not be able to -- to override compensation issues. Because it is a -- it is a big deal Gerald. It is top priority. I think basically all of us to some degree. It's kind of hard to again to try to forecast a lot of things without having all of the things put before you. Remember what I asked p.b.o. To do earlier, go back and look at what's in the preliminary budget itself. And as far as compensation package. How can we make those adjustments. That's just one particular situation we're dealing with. We still got maintenance and trade skills and just a whole array. Career ladders, a whole bunch of things that we still need to look at. I think the judge brought up a good point, this has been discussed before, I remember begging leroy nellis saying look how many vacancies do this particular department have within it. He's produced numbers over the years, but I think, the judge brought up a good point of some of these vacancies outstanding maybe, maybe another way to -- to -- for us to deal with some of these things. I think it's still a lot of moving parts in here but it is going to take an effort from all of us to make this come to reality as far as dealing with some of the high profile compensation issues that we have to deal with today. And judge I'm just not ready to take any action today. I think maybe just to look at these plans but then trying to find as you suggested earlier, if you try to -- if you try to find a way to fund them during the budget cycle. I -- I just don't know any other way to go other than what you are suggesting.
>> I tell you what then, I'm not sure I know what I'm suggesting. But I do think that we ought to work our way through this, make sure that we land on what the number would be. File the recommendation. I have no problem with getting with p.b.o. Between now and is it the 29th we're talking about coming back?
>> 29th.
>> 28th?
>> 28th is the budget --
>> 28th?
>> all right.
>> coming wack to court on the 29th -- back to court on the 29th with a long list of what I call tough revenue options for us. And between now and then, hopefully, we will be able to get with the departments and ask what if we do this and see what the departments say. There will be nine or 10 on there. I don't know that any of them will kill us, but they may make us do things a little differently. In the end hopefully we will have enough revenue there to deal with compensation issues and maybe others. If you are a big budget department, we would expect you to do a little bit more than the smaller ones. But I have no problem with doing that. When you look at a list of nine or 10, some of them we may conclude after discussion don't make sense to do. Others make all of the sense in the world. But I don't know -- I don't know that we can do more than that. You are talking about that, the revenue projection that comes from the auditor, us looking at the tax rate and determining where we think that we will land. Right now the tax rate is even, 2.5 cents would generate $41 average taxpayer hit. Our residents are used to us saying 12, 13, $14. One year we even said minus one which was good that year. I don't know two or three years later. But those are the three things that I think looking at what we can do creatively. Sort of praying for a better revenue projection. And then looking at the -- at the tax rate and asking ourselves what are we willing to do in terms of maximum.
>> well, that sounds all right to me. I mean I guess we can -- on the 29th we can weigh all of the requests that have been submitted. We can evaluate those along with this -- this priority. But no matter where we wind up, can we say at least to employees you can count on cola?
>> for my vote you can.
>> I think that would help so that, you know, if we don't have enough revenue to do other things, we can at least be able to say you can stay afloat somewhat until we get in a better economic situation.
>> although cola isn't specifically addressed by the a through f. I'm not really -- I'm a firm believer in cola. Absolutely something that is on my plate. But I'm not ready to commit to say that every single employee, whether they were market analyzed or not should get cola this year because I don't yet know what we're going to do on market adjustment.
>> okay. Thank god we are not posted for that today and don't have to vote.
>> right.
>> however it would help us I think. We know what the cost impact of b would be. What if we at least go through the rest of these so we leave today fully apprised of the fiscal impact of each of these.
>> I think it's on page 2, judge.
>> okay.
>> I was hoping for a little discussion so our residents would see us agonize over these numbers as well as other employees. When you add all of these up it's a pretty long list. Pretty big total down there
>> [laughter]
>> it's a big one.
>> can we do that kind of quickly go through that.
>> yes.
>> okay. The next item c is general market adjustments and I would like to direct that to the supplement that was provided yesterday. For the courtment and talk about general market adjustment implementation methods. That's really what we are talking about. In the past what we have done, when we do our market salary survey, our first priority has been green circle, get people to at least the minimum of their new pay grade because that's what the market says at minimum they should be earning for that particular job. Last year it was the first year, not the first year we introduced it, but the first year that the court approved a -- using a matrix, implementation tool to provide a market adjustment. One of the things that we kept hearing from the departments is you are bringing people to minimum and they are all clustered. They are all at membership. We don't have -- they are at minimum. We don't have money to move them up in accordance with their particular experience and tenure. So this was a baby step, small step towards bringing a market adjustment. What you have, what we had last year, for every up ward pay grade movement there would be 1% for 21.5. Again that was developed more in accordance with affordability that what the market adjustment would take. That is where we are at. It's really not about compensation. Right now we are presenting you options in term of affordability. You have heard the term --
>> that option would cost how much.
>> that option 544,674 if we use the current matrix. Which only allows 1% for one pay grade, 1.5 for two and et cetera.
>> okay.
>> coupled with green circles it would be 1,148.
>> yes.
>> okay. There is another option for implementation. Comp ratio is ratio of an actual pay rate to the mid point of expected pay grade. Simply put, and including the levels. The levels that we provide in the pay scale didn't exactly match someone's salary. Sometimes they are $10 off, $100 off at the most. To do a true comp ratio you would have to analyze each person's ratio to the midpoint. But again simply put just maintaining that level. Maintaining your pay for performance, your years of experience and tenure in Travis County. There is an example for you. There is in the backup, the same employee, pay grade 14, their current salary would be 34403. Their new pay grade would be a grade, pay grade 16, their salary would go up to 39374.40. Which would be maintaining their level. The cost for that individual would be about 4900. If you use the current method of implementation, look at table 2, the costs for that would be you start at the same point, 34-4, new pay grade, move them up to green circle. Then you would use the matrix two pay grades of 1.5 increase. The new salary would be 36 and the cost for that would be 2,259 for that same employee. So the difference would be between 2,259 and 4,971.
>> if I could just clarify one point on that second example. If you will notice that the current pay grade is at a pay grade 14 level 3. Then if you move to e of that same table, the adjustment that we are speaking of based on the matrix that we applied would bring that level to be between minimum and level one. And that's a part of the concern that the departments had raised when they were losing our placement when we are not moving from level -- like a level 3 to a level 3, that they are progressing towards the lower end of that no pay scale.
>> so the comp ratio is basically you would get your new grade plus you would get the three or -- carry forward the same steps.
>> yes.
>> so 13 step 6, you became a 15, you would become a 15 step 6.
>> that's correct.
>> that would cost more than the adjustment that we did last time which probably were money driven more than anything else.
>> yes.
>> that is good. That he is the point. That's the reason that everybody that you compare has no, no, no, no, no, no because it's all driven by dollars.
>> affordability. I think that we need to get beyond that if we're really trying to make this thing work. The only person in the room that has the expertise to tell us that I'm looking at right now that doesn't really have a vested interest. Todd you have got to say something to get paid
>> [laughter] if -- if price were not a consideration, is comp a ratio I'm going to -- I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is it a better way to compensate people than the matrix if price were not of consideration?
>> price not a consideration, comp a ratio is a very good approach to compensation yes, sir.
>> well then why don't we at least work towards that's where -- that's where we want to head? I mean if that's where we want to head and determine, you know, with p.b.o. Say this is where we want to go with compensation for this county. If that's the only thing that you put in the p.b.o. Or in the preliminary budget well then so be it. You know obviously they are going to be more than that, but you really have to justify what in the world you need of course unless you don't care what the you set the tax rate at. I think we have all got to watch that. That's the deal that I'm looking for. What is the more right thing to do so that we don't have to go through this brain damage every year.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> is it accurate to say because 69% of those slots are being recommended for market adjustment, does that mean 69% of the slots that were analyzed are below market minimum currently? Atmosphere their current pay rate?
>> no.
>> for 248 would be those that are below the market, the new market minimum.
>> 22% are below Margaret minimum, I'm trying to understand since there are 1074 of those slots being recommended for upgreat, but only 756 of the upgraded slots are being recommended are being recommended for market adjustment, is that what that means?
>> yes, we have two caps, one at midpoint. Your slot would be above mid point or vacant slot is not being counted. That's why there's not a thousand slots being recommended for the market adjustment.
>> if you are already at midpoint of your current.
>> current salary is above the new pay grade midpoint, you are not receiving a market adjustment.
>> okay.
>> if it's a vacant position, it's not being included.
>> so why -- why is -- why is.
>> that's why it's 756 and not --
>> that's correct, sir.
>> the market adjustment is applied Commissioner eckhardt to the example that we used earlier that it prevents some of the clustering along minimum of that new pay grade level. And the acknowledgment of years of experience the -- the different skill sets as well as the cost of living adjustments and other pay progressions, salary adjustments that that employee should have received. If you move from a pay grade 14 level 5, uh-huh.
>> up three pay grades to level 17, since you are already making 36296 roughly, well let's take a different one.
>> yeah, let's -- all right. Let's say that you are moving up two spots. To 16. So you have got a level 5 at 14 at 36296, you move up two slots to a minimum -- you have a minimum pay grade there at 36121 which is plow what you are currently being paid, but the next level is above what you are currently being paid. So you don't get green circled in that circumstance, you get market adjustment.
>> that's correct.
>> if you are already at minimum or above.
>> you still get your market adjustment.
>> market adjustment.
>> and for two or moving two slots that would be a 1.5% on your current salary.
>> exactly.
>> so at 1.5% of 36,296, that's about -- about $400. That's going to put you between level 1 and level 2.
>> uh-huh.
>> when you were previously at a level v. Let me ask you philosophically, from minimum to what level is considered -- if you were to say we've a minimum range where someone who is growing into the job, you know, working with them what is that? If you have got three scales, a minimum range, a midpoint range and a maximum range is the minimum range for those who are just brought on and the manager is working with them, growing them in the job. Mid range people meeting expectations, the maximum range people who are exceeding expectations, is that the -- is that the philosophy behind our step system?
>> the -- well, the philosophy on the minimum is that they meet minimum qualifications. That could be 10 years of experience, it could be two years of experience. But they meet the minimum qualifications for that particular job. Market says you should pay them at minimum vat. In development of a workforce --
>> you pay a minimum range or pay the minimum?
>> minimum. Minimum.
>> you have got someone, say an engineer, straight out of college and the -- the job requirements were a -- a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and --
>> meeting expectations is at the minimum of the market salary pay range.
>> meeting minimum qualifications. On a job description.
>> so are we saying that our county policy is to compensation people at minimum of the market? Because what I'm struggling with is I'm thinking -- at least it feels that our policy is if one meets expectations in their job they are at least at midpoint in the market.
>> no.
>> we are mixing --
>> I think we are mixing discussion on performance. Meeting expectations versus what are the minimum qualifications for a position. Our policy itself allows for individuals to be hired up to 10% above midpoint. So anywhere between minimum and 10% above midpoint, the departments have the -- the flexibility to bring individuals in at whatever levels between those two points.
>> depending on their qualifications.
>> depending on the qualifications. Many times it's influenced by the difficulty in recruiting. A shortage of a particular skill may drive that and occasionally, very seldom, will you get requests that are above the 10%, you know, leading more towards the maximum. That's a very unusual situation.
>> but that's just in terms of hiring. What I'm really more interested in after hire, after somebody is here, when we are looking at when management is looking at their workforce, what is the philosophy on where management is to tag an employee based on their performance? If they are meeting expectations, if you are growing them in the physician or if they are meeting expectations or if they are exceeding expectations.
>> well, generally I mean with the rules that we had this year, they varied from year to year. Do you have the information on the
>> [indiscernible] 1.5.
>> so it's 1.5% for exceeding performance. Expectations.
>> but what I'm trying to get it at is do the levels the steps have --
>> no.
>> have any relationship --
>> no inside the grade.
>> no.
>> I think they might. Here's why
>> [laughter] depends on what department you are speaking with, right. But, you know, like you have got say a range 20. Say that's a financial analyst. I don't know what it is, but let's say it's a 20. Their minimum qualifications for that. You are recruiting a new person for that. Someone comes in, meets those minimum qualifications in terms of experience and everything, you probably hire them at that level or maybe one or two up depending on what the market is. How do you know what the market is? You are interviewing, 20 people, and they are at like step 2. You know then that's the market. That's an easy way to know that's about what the market is. Then let's say, you hire another person, they meet those qualifications, but they also have 10 more years of relevant experience. Things that you want are extra skills, a lot more computer skills. You want those. You might bring them in admit point. You have done -- at mid point. Someone at entry, someone at midpoint. Let's say this is a year that the Commissioners court gives money for performance pay. What you would do is look at those people, the performance expectations will be probably somewhat different, you will evaluate them and let's say that this person meets expectations. Your newer person. You are not going to move. If the other one exceeds it, then they will move up in the step, so they will be higher. Let's say one of these people now goes out and gets a master's degree. You think this has a lot of value to their job. You might count that in and you may move them even higher. The controversy that everyone talks about is this: here you have people that are like this. On a grade. When you say they are two pay periods are, if you are on a comp a ratio each grade is 7%. Theoretically if they went up two grades both would get 14%, if they went up one grade they would each get 7. When you use green circle what you do is you say this: this perp because of where they are, you have to give this much money to get up to the new entry.
>> that person gets a little bump.
>> what have you done? You have done is you have taken away in terms of compensation the differential in experience, qualifications and performance. That mitigates it.
>> I totally get it. What I'm driving at is if somebody is above a level 4 say. Is it safe to assume that a person who is above level 4 on their grade is above level 4 because they are exceeding expectations in their job?
>> no. Not always.
>> no, no, no.
>> you have cola, pbp, market adjustments.
>> someone could be below -- could be failing to meet expectations in their job and still be at a level 4.
>> uh-huh.
>> mud point.
>> > shouldn't be.
>> and be failing to meet expectations?
>> they could. And what would drive that has been the cola then because even if they're at minimum or at entry and colas have been consistently applied they are moving along that pay range.
>> plus you have human subjectivity.
>> all of that.
>> supervisors with different standards.
>> all of that factors into it.
>> that's why the court did performance pay long ago and talked about policy and strategy what we said is if you meet expectations you are not entitled to performance pay. You have to exceed expectations. When we say cola we mean across the board whether you are performing well or not. But we expect other things to be in place to take care of low performing employees, training, cross training, supervisory oversight. Pip. Going to different things that help the employees improve. The problem is those decisions don't get to the court level. What gets to us is the money.
>> that's correct.
>> which is where we are today. What we try to do is put enough money to place to compensate one all employees and another pot for those who really perform above and beyond the call of duty. High performing employees. But in terms of identifying high performing employees other than the ones that work directly for the court or a member of the court the say-so is somebody else's. Some other appointed, elected official or supervisory personnel. Now we have discussed c. What about d? We need to get through f before we leave today, don't we?
>> I have gotten lost.
>> d is non-tcso pop scale. I'm going to turn it over owe.
>> he judge, Commissioner, todd osborne, ever green solutions. I know that we had an opportunity to talk about this during the work session so I'm going to try to keep this brief.
>> thank you.
>> the origin of the project was in response to salary increases that were generally given out in the sheriff's office in the last fiscal year. Commissioners court asked human resources to come back and look at the non-shares people on the pop scale. In fy '08 this is the result of this. The up shot of our analysis was that we did show that the non-tcso pops people had very substantial slippage compared to the sheriff's office over time which was particularly accelerated in the command structure ranks during fy '08. From a market standpoint as historically measured these jobs are not below market with the expect of two jobs within the park ranger service which is the chief park ranger and a parkager supervisor. Essentially what happened is these positions which historically have been above market are for the most part still above market as historically defined but slipping against the internal market as established by the sheriff's office. And what happened there in the previous couple of years. The heart of our recommendations really is to install the -- the relationship matrix which is on page 123 in your backup -- page 13 in your backup briefing. Essentially this matrix shows our recommendations for the classifications that are non-tcso and how they would align to the sheriff's office and with each other and in addition to adopting the -- the recommendations as put forth here we ask that the Commissioners court consider keeping these relationships on a permanent basis. In other words that they make a commitment that these relationships will stay in place beyond the immediate year. During the course of the studies we are asked to review a number of new titles. There were 4. We recommend the establishment of the park ranger senior position as a career ladder type of position or a career progression type of thing. As a park ranger can go from a park ranger to a park ranger or excuse me a park ranger senior to a supervisor, et cetera. We do not recommend the establishment of a cadet position. It was brought forward as a recruiting mechanism. We did not recommend the constable corporal or lieutenant positions we don't foliage that they are positions that are currently found in the marketplace or needed in the command structure. We do recommend the establishment of $125 monthly add pay for emtb certification. For those employees within the park ranger senior service that's consistent with what's going on locally in terms of the market. We do recommend that you waive the emtb certification for the first year employee but they do be required to have it at the end of the first year. The next recommendation deals with constable 2's office, I know they are not currently on pop scales. Basically we are recommending if they do come back to the pop scale that the corporal position are a senior deputy, the -- we are not recommend thank the lieutenant and corporal jobs be included on the pops scale, they would have to fall somewhere, these are the most likely spots. Those are the heart of the recommend days. The costs as we have calculated is $939,279. That includes salary benefits and emtb certification. We presented you with three different implementation scenarios to do it in one year, two years, do it over three years. Ever green does not have a particular favorite or a particular recommendation whether it be done in one two or three years. We understand that's predominantly a budget concern. I will say that if you do it in one year, obviously you drive the internal equity relationships very quickly to where we think they need to be. However, the down side of that is that there is a -- there is a succinct cost implication to that. And you also put yourself farther above market than you currently are. Whereas if you do it over three years the cost is less. It takes you longer to get to the internal equity place that you want to be. However, you are not removing yourself further and further from the market as you go. Essentially the market is moving with you, you continue to grow with it. Whether you do it in two years, that's pretty much a compromise scenario which has the advantages and disadvantages of both. And -- and tried to keep it as short as I could.
>> todd, would you mind just sharing the actual recommendations for the percentage increases, with each position connected with p.b.o. To get it on the record. In other words dependable constable would be --
>> it's in the backup also. Page 13.
>> we are recommending deputy constable be slotted at
>> [indiscernible], senior deputy constable at 95% of senior law enforcement deputy at tcso. Constable sergeant at 95% of law enforcement sergeant. Chief deputy constable at 90% of law enforcement lieutenant. Chief deputy constable ... 1 through four. Park ranger 95% of law enforcement deputy. Park ranger senior 95% ... Park -- chief park ranger 95% of law enforcement sergeant. Park ranger supervisor 85% of chief park ranger. Investigator at 100% of law enforcement detective at tcso and investigations lieutenant at 90% of law enforcement lieutenant at tcso.
>> thank you. Total cost again.
>> 939,279. That includes salary benefits and the emtb add pay for the park ranger.
>> several issues in here, recommendations that are not cost related for example. Number 2 and 3 which are not to establish a -- a constable corporal on pops and not to establish a lieutenant pop or not necessarily the cost.
>> okay.
>> e.
>> we have a number of temporary seasonal positions that consists of park t.e.c., school crossing guards, election workers and interpreters. We did look at the mark and worked with the departments and trying to analyze their positions in relationship to their -- they really are having some recruitment difficulties. So looking at that we are recommending increases in their hourly rates. So for the park techs we are recommending the park tech 1 increase from $10 to $13. The park tech 2 from $11 to $14. And then on the school crossing guards, we are recommending a consolidation of one -- we currently have two titles and consolidate that into one title. That would result with an hourly rate of $13. So the individuals that are in the currently one level would be moved to that consolidated level and all go to $13.
>> based on the market?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. One thing that I might add that currently t.n.r. Does have school crossing guards for preschools, two school districts, where they are paid $13 right now.
>> correct.
>> it's very possible that the court decided to pay all school crossing guards $13. We would lose that revenue from the school districts and that we would have to increase the costs about $11,670.
>> okay, that's the total cost to --
>> additional. The total cost of e is 338,766.
>> I think it's 383.
>> I'm sorry.
>> last time when we met we had needed to reconcile with p.b.o. And we provided that information to p.b.o. And p.b.o. Worked with the departments and reconciled that number.
>> what about election workers?
>> election workers we have over 12 titles. Here we need to have an edge increase between $1 and $2 and respectfully that's on page 14. And then on the interpreters, if you can turn quickly to page 16 of your backup, this outlines the -- the titles here. We needed to increase the number of titles take we had here due to the legislation changes in the actual minimum qualifications. There's new -- different levels that we added to accommodate. That's the reason for the new level. But there's significant demand for these positions in the market and so you can see, you know, on $2, $3 respective request for the court these hourly rates.
>> okay.
>> and then again that cost was reconciled with the department and p.b.o.
>> travis say one more time what you said about the losing money from the district --
>> probably do a better job explaining this
>> [multiple voices]
>> two school districts pay supplement the salaries of school crossing gutierrez at their districts because currently we pay $10. It was agreed these school crossing guards for these particular schools were paid $13. The thinking is the only reason they did that bass our maximum was $10. If we raised the bar for all school crossing guards to be $13, it's very possible that the schools may say, since you are going to pay $13 we are going to take that funding away from you. We don't know that for sure but that's a possibility.
>> like what?!! What does that mean?!!
>> it means at the current salary that the county pays we can't recruit in certain school districts. We just -- nobody is showing up.
>> I agree.
>> to fix the problem the school districts say we will supplement the salary to get somebody to service our schools.
>> right.
>> when the county, if the county agrees to pay $13 across the board to all school crossing guards, that will become our pay for school crossing guards. Presumably we will continue to be able to recruit at $13. So there's no need for the school to supplement the salary. That's what's going on. The only reason the school districts are paying right now is because we can't hire anybody at our current salary. If we raise our salaries then we can.
>> but if we raise it then we lose their participation?
>> understand the only reason that they are doing it is because we can't. They are jumping in to solve the problem.
>> severe internal equity.
>> certain schools, particularly in western Travis County, because of this time schedule you have split shift early in the morning, late in the afternoon, very difficult to get someone to show up to be a school crossing guard at 12 bucks an hour.
>> let's say we had to pay somebody $14 an hour to get somebody out there to do the job. If we said y'all keep the skin in the game that you got, we will cover the difference. We are being paid by the state, school safety child safety program. We are being paid by the state there's a fund. There's a transfer from the state to the county to help pay for this, to pay for the whole thing. Because of our salary structure we can only pay 12 bucks an hour, 10 bucks.
>> in effect what the market says should be paying, there's no need at that point for the school district do supplement.
>> what --
>> [multiple voices]
>> the day may come when 13 is not enough. The school district may jump in again and supplement our pay.
>> the other school districts willing to -- to put up the difference in the other parts of the county for the crossing guards.
>> there actually hasn't been a recruiting problem.
>> haven't had a recruiting problem.
>> no.
>> people have been -- have been coming and -- and filling the jobs that -- at our pay scale. County pay scale.
>> how much were they?
>> no. Make sure that I know where we are.
>> thank you, joe.
>> we don't have a number for a.
>> that's correct.
>> okay. But what we -- what we need then -- okay we have $5.7 million for compensation in the draft preliminary budget.
>> that's correct.
>> but we do not have -- okay we have 500,000 for the green circle.
>> well, we have 500 -- 500,000 for the market salary survey in general. Since -- whenever we mentioned that -- that the green circle is roughly 628 or 29,000, I just applied that 500 though that thinking that may be the first priority. But you can deal with that.
>> deal with the 500,000 as you wish.
>> 5 numbers.
>> one, two, three four five. Beginning with b through e. I can add those up, subtract $500,000, that's what we need.
>> that's $22,690. 2,502,690 less the 500,000, again is 2,609,000.
>> if we add the comp and ratio we have to add back in --
>> gr green circle? If you do the comp ratio 7,477,920. There's currently if we take out the -- the green -- if we take out the green circle amount in the market adjustment, just switch those two numbers out, the total is going -- hang on one sending. The total for everything less the 500,000 bear with me. I believe it's 8,806,945. If we take out the 500,000 from that it would be 8,306,945. Let me add that one more time just to make sure. That I've got that.
>> again these are all --
>> let me take a little pressure off of you.
>> okay.
>> get us that information in writing within the next two days, okay.
>> I will do it today. My calculator works.
>> so I understand from the court that when I work with planning and budget, our mission impossible -- our mission
>> [laughter] is to try to come back with about $8 million to cover comp issues. Options that will add up to that if we take them.
>> judge, that's roughly a little bit under a penny on the tax rate if you chose to go that route.
>> pen knee gives you about --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> what would be the average taxpayer increase if we do that?
>> mr. P.b.o.
>> who is it, leroy?
>> what.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> are you counting --
>> 21921 plus 41.
>> sir.
>> $70.
>> you are counting a 3% cola in that number?
>> yeah.
>> let's see, .4125 plus --
>> 3.5%.
>> uh-huh.
>> no?
>> 5% above the effective tax rate?
>> it would roughly bring the general fund spending to what? What would that bring to the general fund spending to?
>> about $8 million to the number that you have been working with, right?
>> well, personally I would like for you to try to get there, but that's the reason that I asked the question earlier this morning. Have you ever reworked the preliminary budget. And go in I mean as opposed to sticking it on top. I mean go back and find us, you know, $8 million out of the preliminary budget. I mean then you really have done compensation and above everything else.
>> we have two whole weeks to try to do it.
>> okay.
>> that will be our number one goal.
>> then we will take our auditor to lunch. Maybe even twice.
>> [laughter] maybe even twice.
>> you may have to throw dinner in there. Lunch is not going to get it. Going to take lunch and dinner.
>> we would ask that we also be able to -- to work on these numbers to make sure that we are all on the same page. Travis make sure you send hrmd your summary and review those and if there are discrepancies let us know. We're thinking around $8 million. If it's closer to nine, the sooner we know the better. Mr. Rhoades? Work with Travis County.
>> thank you, sir. Welcome to Travis County.
>> thank you, sir
>> [laughter]
>> collin county is looking better all the time.
>> uh-huh.
>> [laughter]
>> we've got one last item, judge on here. F. 6. Bilingual supplemental pay program proposal. I'm going to turn it over to valdez to talk about that.
>> h.r. Is proposing a creation of a -- of a bilingual supplemental pay program for the classified workforce. As you know we already have one in place for the peace officer pay scale employees. We are recommending a monthly supplement of $75 per month for -- for up to a maximum of two f.t.e.'s per department that in the course of their business in other words based on business needs have regular needs in the course of their duties for translation or excuse me -- oral translation of spanish, whether it would be for customers and clients or for the workforce that they work with themselves. To do this we would recommend that each employee who is eligible pass an oral proficiency skills test, we already have one in place for the peace officers, we are recommending that the county fund the $65 per employee for that cost of $5,980. We are recommending that the department fund internally the $75 per month, monthly supplement for the employees.
>> remind me of how we quantify the need for this person to use the second language?
>> in the course of the business needs the formal assignment of job duties on a regular basis, I know that's not completely quantitative. But it's kind of a start in terms of regular business need on a daily basis to use their spanish translation whether it be for clients or for internal workforce or both.
>> it could be, judge, in any office adding to what carlotta mentioned. One is a customer service position where we have clients who will come in who speak perhaps spanish only. I know in h.r. We have that need where we have applicants coming in who speak spanish only. We currently are fortunate enough in the department to have some individual who have used and applied that skill to meet our business need. So the way of determining who would be eligible for it would be strictly from a management standpoint based on that employees level of interaction with non-english speaking or spanish speaking only clients who act our services. Who access our service the. We are proposing as carlotta mentioned two f.t.e.'s per department to be aware that there obviously may be departments who have a higher demand to compensate for, to offer that supplemental pay if it's created by the court. To start the program this would basically be a pilot program for fy '09. The request here is based on 46 departments and at that point testing fee for two f.t.e. Per department.
>> okay. Is that just as a point of information, our comparable metropolitan areas such as city of Austin, dallas, houston, san antonio, so forth, already have such a program in place and local areas such as georgetown, Lakeway, Pflugerville are initiating these or already have these in place, too.
>> I guess my thinking was that some smaller departments probably need only one, some larger may need more than two.
>> that's correct.
>> but I would -- if we need you to use your language, to carry out your duties and responsibilities at Travis County, then you are entitled to compensation for it. The supplemental pay makes all of the sense in the world but I think that we should make sure that we try to document that somehow.
>> exactly.
>> judge. If indeed for example in this one if the court were to approve the -- the -- the policy or give us direction that we do want to go in this way, we probably have developed a form that would have justification.
>> yeah.
>> for each of the departments and that would be assigning an individual in the department as opposed to me for example using my ability to speak spanish for the court I wouldn't necessarily get the pay, I would only the get the pay if the court designated alicia perez to do the oral translations for the court.
>> what's the cost of that one?
>> 5,980.
>> with the department picking up the supplemental cost internally for fy '09 too that the cost --
>> testing fee. It's the testing fee. It's not the supplemental payment itself.
>> we could bring back, though, we could cost that for the employees as we did today, today and bring you a -- a number back on what that cost, if you were to choose the -- to fund that from a central fund and as the -- as the approval of the need comes in, then that money would go to the department. That's another way to do it. Okay, right now it's in the departments, though.
>> no. Internal funded in the department the pay is.
>> debbie wright, sheriff's office. I would ask that do you have a similar program in place for officers, our officers use it in a daily basis, in the jail, on the streets, we have civilians that also use it right beside those officers every day whether they're in the jail or dispatchers use is on a daily basis. Our office staff use it when -- when -- whether it's a victim that comes into the office to meet with the detectives. So they are working side by side with officers that receive 125 a month: I would ask you to take into consideration parity with the program we already have in place. At the 125. We don't pay for officers testing. They pay for it themselves. And then once the test is passed, it's may 1st that goes into effect. Every year. I would ask you to consider equal pay for the equal task.
>> it's how much, 125?
>> 125 a month.
>> where did we get our number?
>> we actually based our number on the market for civilian employees. I think that it's houston, I don't have that sheet in front of me, but houston, Round Rock and some of the other civilian employers, not civilian employers but employees of civilian employees of those jurisdictions to average between 50 a month and 75 a month. So we landed on the 75 per month.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] there's a higher level of exam you must pass.
>> proficiency. They pay you for proficiency, whether you can speak it and write it.
>> so it varies. It varies. But for generally the fluency exam was determined to be at the $50 level in most of the markets that we looked at, which is why we chose 75.
>> okay.
>> organizations ten to separate the two programs in terms of the compensation. In terms of the peace officers versus the civilian classified staff.
>> let's get a policy in place and then ten years from now let's let the other court think it over too. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> before we close, it's going to take a lot of cooperation from a lot of folks to let them help us assist them in meeting these compensation needs. So departments, be on the lookout because it's going to take all of us to work together. 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:
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:51 PM