Travis County Commissioners Court
August 5, 2008
Items 8 and 12
Let's call up number 8, consider and take appropriate action to set elected officials salaries for fiscal year 2009. And let's also call up number 12,, consider and take appropriate action on recommended fiscal year 2009 compensation items, a, cost of living increase, b, fiscal year 2008 market salary survey. One under b is slots below minimum of the new market competitive pay grade. E, seasonal relief temporary titles and hourly pay rates. F is non-Travis County sheriff's office peace officer pay scale. F-1, whether to establish internal equity relationship between tcso and non-tcso peace officers job classifications. F-2, add pay for park rangers who possess active emergency medical technician basic certification. G, other compensation related items. We did learn a couple of days ago that our consultant is not with us on f, so the request has been that we postpone Texas action on f until next week if we need to discuss that, discuss f as we lay this out. So be it. But the intention is that we have our consultant available on the non-sheriff's office peace officer pay scale issues next week and take action then.
>> we'll land on the elected officials salaries and also the cola, which is 12-a. We had the elected officials advertise 3 and a half percent because at the time we made that decision we were looking at a rank and file cola of three and a half percent. But we have in the preliminary budget three percent. We have announced as a policy that we try to adhere to and that we give elected officials pretty much the same cola that we gave rank and file when we do a cola. So the question is what adjustment do we make, if any?
>> down to three percent.
>> I would second that motion.
>> motion by Commissioner Gomez to do elected officials at three percent. And the implication being that's where we leave the rank and file, three percent. By law we can go down with three and a half percent, but we cannot go up.
>> correct.
>> right?
>> yes, sir.
>> discussion of that motion?
>> yes, sir.
>> I think a substitute motion that for this year elected officials in Travis County take no cola. I think if we want to try to do this thing and we want to try to find the money, I think the elected officials know what they were making when they took office, and I realize that we have to pay bills just like everybody else, but I feel strongly that this is a year and probably next year that we're going to have to look at the same thing. So my substitute motion would be that elected officials take no cola this year.
>> is there a second?
>> that is a daring motion, Commissioner. I will withdraw my motion and second yours.
>> okay. It is seconded by Commissioner eckhardt. Any discussion of that motion to -- to not give elected officials a cola basically? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Daugherty, eckhardt voting in favor. Voting against show Commissioners Gomez and judge Biscoe and Commissioner Davis. That motion dies for lack after second. There is an original motion and we lost the second for that motion. I second motion to set elected officials at three percent. Any discussion of that motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, eckhardt, Davis and judge Biscoe voting in favor. And we have legal with a question of trying to vote.
>> [ laughter ]
>> legal doesn't want to vote. Legal is okay with the three percent and would be happy with anything that you want to provide to the elected officials.
>> Commissioner Daugherty votes against that motion.
>> when you're setting elected officials salaries, it's helpful to have order doing that, and you can indicate that that order is -- oops. I sent down too many. Actually those two that have the paperclip on them were supposed to be signature copies.
>> these are what? These are the ones for signature?
>> yes. I'm sorry. I didn't intend to pass those down. I had them in my hand and I got confused.
>> so this is three percent.
>> that is three percent.
>> yep, that's three percent.
>> so that takes care of item number 8. Now, did we want to go to 12-a? Okay.
>> good morning. Alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations. On an annual basis we look at compensation in several areas. We look at a cost of living adjustment, but the possibility of the cost of living adjustment. We submit all the results on our market salary survey. We do one-third of the employee positions on an annual basis in a three-year cycle. And last year we also did the sheriff's association. That's the tcso peace officers pay scale. We have several items for you to consider today, including liveable wage and bilingual supplemental pay, seasonal and other related compensation. What we have done is prepare a book for you, and the numbers -- I want to explain a couple of thing. The numbers are still in flux by about five, $10,000, depending on what option you choose, it may change one of the other numbers. But we've prepared a booklet for you, and the booklet has a preference sheet that goes from a through f. All the supplemental information is provided also, and the page number noted on your preference sheets. So we'll go ahead and start. You had asked us for additional information. We have some of that and we'll pass it out as appropriate. We have additional examples and also just a sample option sheet. We'll go ahead and start with the cost of living. The court has considered a cost of living and in fact has provided a cost of living in numerous years. Since '05 you have been consistent about providing a cost of living adjustment. In '05 you provided four percent. In '06 three percent. In '07 four percent cola. And in '08 3.5 percent cola. We have laid out several options for you and the cost associated with those options. Under a cost of living adjustment, a three percent, 3.5 percent across the board, and in addition if the court would want to consider a one-time lump sum of one percent or two percent, one time lump sum is just a one-time payment and will not be included in the employee's salary base for the upcoming year. The cola across the board will be.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> that's correct.
>> it would be one time, not ongoing?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> so are we going to take these one at a time, judge?
>> that's fine with me. We can land on some of these. I think that on the cola we ought to go ahead and indicate where we plan to go on it. I think on the market salary survey we ought to discuss that some more and plan to have it as a bunt markup -- as a budget markup item. On the other stuff that's pretty simple, I guess we should go ahead and do it today so we know exactly where we are.
>> I move approval of 12-a-1, three percent.
>> that's across the board, is that correct?
>> right.
>> I second that.
>> that's a cola rolled into the base.
>> at three percent.
>> at three percent. That is fund understand the preliminary budget. Discussion?
>> let me ask, if we're going to do the cola today, I think that that could have some impact on what we might want to do. I'm certainly interested in looking at something other than the matrix that we have, and I know that y'all are going to bring something to that. To that particular issue. I guess I would be interested in knowing how people in Travis County, the workers felt about if you were trying to get to someplace other than the -- vob obviously the unacceptable method by which we have compensated a number of people to date. I mean, I think that there are a lot of folk that think that they are not paid what they need to be paid. It would be interesting for me know if people would be willing to forego a cola if we were going to try to do something with trying to correct what I think a lot of people want us to correct in how we go about compensation.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> is whether -- you know, if we were to go to a comp to ratio circumstance, how should the step and grade system be administered.
>> administered.
>> and would it subpoena plant the cola entirely. I -- subplant the cola entirely. I think -- I think that we should charge h.r. With looking at exactly that. Replacing cola with -- whether we should replace cola with compa ratio, whether step should be changed in order to implement that?
>> alicia, this particular motion, of 3% cola, this money is already set aside in the preliminary budget. This money is already there. Since it's already been embedded in the preliminary budget of course
>> [indiscernible], was there any other -- any other aspect of this since these other things have come up, other than what we're talking about here, I second the motion, I'm going to stand behind that motion. I'm going to vote for this motion, I want to make sure what we are doing is all etched in stone, the money is there, we are ready to roll.
>> let me clarify one thing in terms of what that 3% would mean, travis can answer the question on it. On the 3% if you look at your preference sheet to the right there at the box, it says percent annual salary and flat dollar amount for employees earning less than $30,000. At 3%, $30,000, that amount is $900. This guarantees that no one will get less than $900 and it puts a threshold of a salary of 30,000. I want to make that clear. Because of that, that amount may be higher than what is in the budget.
>> that's correct. The numbers that they are looking at is about $77,000 more than what is in the preliminary budget. Let me explain the differences. About 32,000 of that is providing the extra funding for those people that make less than $30,000 full time, make sure they get at least $900, that's part of the increase. We have also adjusted the cola assuming that the court wishes to apply the cola before the green circle of market adjustments, I understand that decision hasn't been made yet, but we wanted to have that in the cola number --
>> yeah.
>> sorry.
>> applied to cola after the green circle market adjustment. That changes the number slightly. A $70,000 difference. We can find it within the existing resources if you decide to approve that now.
>> thanks for that explanation, I'm writing that amount of money down as you just I also illustrated thank.
>> to me the cola would cover 100% of the employee. The market salary survey, whatever adjustments will cover roughly one third. We have covered two-thirds of the workforce during the preceding two years. It's fine with me to work for a long-term strategy that we land on as a matter of policy and commitment to fund. That will require a whole lot more work than I think we can do in the next few days. In the meantime we've got the third year of market salary surveys that we need to treat one way or the other. I think we ought to try to be as fair as possible. We made some progress last year and probably ought to make more progress this year. I do not think we ought to take a fourth year just to do planning, though. I think we ought to keep doing the market salary survey because we are told people you are on the a three year cycle. Every third year you will get surveyed. Every third year we step back, missed a year, kind of behind the market. I would keep doing them but, you know, I spent a a little bit more time trying to work with employees, managers, asked me and others to try to put in a long-term strategy but we had this budget to deal with unfortunately. In the next part I think we ought to try to indicate where we think we may land then go on through the budget process and do it. But I would do that in addition to the cola as we did lastier and I guess we did the year before that.
>> yeah.
>> so it would be consistent with 100% of the workforce, not the best remedy. But it would be a consistent remedy. And I do think that we have been fairly consistent during the preceding two years. And so -- so that's my thinking on that. There's a motion on the cola, 3%, rank and file, rolled into the base. Any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, that did include that flat dollar amount not less than 900.
>> right.
>> yeah, right.
>> when we -- if we start on Thursday, this will give p.b.o. An opportunity to come up with precise figures on what we take action on, right if.
>> will do.
>> all right.
>> probably --
>> I'm sorry.
>> probably the thornyist issue for us today is b 1 and 2.
>> right.
>> do you want to do that next.
>> can I ask a question first, judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> on the sheet that was handed out, the major items unfunded.
>> I have it right in front of me.
>> the market adjustments $518,000. What is that?
>> I'm sorry?
>> what is that? That -- --
>> that's the little percentage, if you move up one -- h.r. Can do --
>> [multiple voices]
>> two pay grades one and a half percent.
>> one, one and a half, two, two and a half, three, three and a half percent.
>> look at page six of your backup.
>> that's a strategy that the court approved last year as a way to address compression issues and actually you went back and approved -- added that, approved that, those increases for the job last year and actually went back and applied those same percentages to the previous years. So the '06 and '07 were taken care of last year with the market adjustment. That's $518,000 is to treat the people in this year's study the same way as the previous two studies.
>> that is correct. If you look at page 6 in your backup, it's column a. It's using that same formula. If you move up one pay grade you will get one percent add dig. Move up two, it's 1.5, 3, 2%, et cetera. Column b is another option that increases the amount that you would get with every grade that you move up. And then c would be the comp ratio.
>> but -- but the market adjustments pertains to a.
>> yes.
>> that figure.
>> okay. I'll go ahead and start at the beginning on the market salary survey. The first item that we have there is we call green circle positions. Those are positions that after the market salary survey is conducted, the person's actual pay falls below the minimum of their new pay grade. And traditionally the court has funded those and bring -- that's bringing people to minimum of a new pay grade and that is $660,000 and we have how many --
>> 256
>> [indiscernible] on page 3 of your backup, it shows the green circle impact is 256 slots. General fund with benefits 660,076, other funds and then the total.
>> what I would add to the green circle, too, there's 500,000 as you may recall in the compensation reserve for the market study, if that 500,000 was applied to the green circle costs of 660,000, the net increase would just be $160,000.
>> so just -- the 100 how much?
>> okay. The green circle cost is roughly 660,000. There's 500,000 that we set aside as compensation reserve for the market study. If we applied that 500,000 towards that cost, the incremental increase should be 160,000 above what's in the preliminary budget.
>> [multiple voices]
>> other funds, wouldn't you? You would add that to the other funds, the 160 to the 141?
>> well the general fund typically would take care of the general fund costs. The other funds would pay for the increase in those funds.
>> so we would be short, if we would just apply the -- the $500,000 that's in reserve, and we apply this to the $660,076. Subtract that out, back that out. So we have a, we would be short of 160,076. Is that correct?
>> that's correct. So we would have to look at the funding to offset that. This would be -- well, but anyway that's the difference right there as far as being short.
>> that's correct. As far as tax rate increases, roughly one/100th of a penny, the smallest that we can go because the tax rate we use has four decimal places, generates about $92,000.
>> 1/100th of a penny.
>> yeah.
>> so 160 roughly would be 2/100ths of a penny. In roughly numbers about 42 cents to the average homestead.
>> these -- the purpose of the green circle is 256 slots; is that correct.
>> yes.
>> and it actually just brings these persons up to minimum, is that correct.
>> yes.
>> that's correct.
>> yes.
>> right now they are below minimum I think what we have tried to do in the past was to bring these persons up to minimum at least. Right now they are working less than minimum requirements. So I have no problem with this. But my colleagues may want to make further comments.
>> do we want to do this at markup.
>> I think we should lay the options out, if we have a position on them, state that position. I'm sure that greg and others may want to give brief comments on that. You know, we have looked at this comp ratio over the last 30 days and to be honest the more that I have learned about it, the less sense it makes, nobody is doing it, which nobody in Texas. That we have been able to find out. There are some facts that I think we should share with others, especially those who have been sending the e-mails. The other thing is this notice of entitlement is defined in different ways. I think we ought to be adding fair compensation and deliver on it, at the same time, though, we have to look at available revenue. Also look at what we have done for employees historically. I don't know that we have to stick to last year's adjustments. I think if we can increase those, it makes a lot more sense to me. It does not make sense to go to comparatio, one is that we cannot afford it, two is I don't know how you justify the difference between the ranges and the steps, et cetera. When I look at the impact for specific positions, what happens is that the -- that the those who are best compensated make the most money are the ones who benefit most. I don't have an inherent problem with that, when you look at what we're trying to do with compensation, I think that runs against the grain for me. You can take my own view is that comparatio makes no sense. I don't supported it now unless there are other facts later on. I think there -- we should dig up more funds to be a bit more generous with the adjustments that we have made. Since I'm talking here, I asked -- I asked human resources to see what the other jurisdictions do on the comparatio, they checked with the city of Austin, Williamson county, city of Round Rock, bexar county, dallas county, harris county, tarrant county, city of fort worth, city of houston, city of san antonio, lcra, state of Texas, university of Texas, not a single one uses the comparatio. But they all do some sort of adjustment. If you study it, you may as well figure out what the other jurisdictions do in terms of adjustments. My guess is some are good, some not so good, some are probably very good. We ought to decide where to land on it as a matter of policy. As greg will tell you, during every budget process so far we have come up discussing pretty much the same thing. But we put a policy in place, we keep doing the annual surveys and we implement the policy. Which means that we generate funding to do it. That means up front that we have to make some determination about affordability. Of -- of whatever policy we put in place.
>> judge, could I make a quick comment on the comparatio numbers. H.r. Did quick equalations, included the nobody of what it would cost to do it this year, 4.5 million. What would it be like if we went back and did the comparatio and tried to make those people whole from the last two job studies. That number is about $11.3 million, as rodney mentioned this morning, rollback would be about 10.7 million to spend, so the comparatio costs for this year, if went back to last year would actually be above the rollback above your available resources.
>> okay. We won't have to go back and pick up previous years. In fairness --
>> that number available if you needed.
>> you could argue it wouldn't be fair to those two groups if we do it for the third year. I don't know --
>> going to get it for the next two --, right?
>> well, if I were -- if I received my compensation last year or the year before, I don't know that I would be happy to wait until the next one. I would wonder why I wasn't treated the same way.
>> that means that you would have to do everybody all in one year to satisfy everybody. Whether I'm going to make somebody mad this year if you were to go to comparatio over the last year, I mean I would at least think -- to me the most important thing is I agree with you, judge, let's come up with something that we think that we can look everybody in the eye and say that's the best that we can do and by god do it. I mean, because market salary surveys do us no good except to get people jazzed about look what my market salary surveys says that I should be getting, we are not getting it. We try to monkey around with something, we are going to move you here, here, guess what, I didn't get anything for that. So I don't really care if I'm, you know, if I'm getting some sort of a title or movement. I think we're headed in the right direction and the reason that I was -- the only reason that I was asking about 3% is because I do have interest in trying to get -- yes I know that comparatio blows us out of the water y'all. Everybody in this room would like to have it, but we might as well live with the fact that is not something we can get to. But we have to get somewhere where people think that they are being dealt fairly with, but they know that it's policy that we are going to comply with it and do it and people can leave the room thinking I think they are really serious about it this year and of course if we give it this year, well then we really are pretty much mandated or I would think that we are going to do it the next two years. But going back and picking up, you know, the last two years for what we're going -- what we may end up doing now is going to put us, you know, in just as big of a bind.
>> I have a policy question regarding that. If we're doing this in three year cycles are we attempting to treat all job families in that three year cycle the same? For that three year cycle? Or are we doing -- I mean I think that's a fundamental question here.
>> you are doing a third of the workforce each year, I would think for consistency's sake you would try to do the same thing.
>> right, that's what I'm saying. Do we have a policy and I think that we have in the last has it been seven years that we have been doing this cyclical, a policy of retroactively treating the previous job families in that same cycle the same way?
>> that has been basically the practice
>> [indiscernible] last year, you actually went back and picked up '06 and '07 to create equity in what you did.
>> with the market adjustment matrix.
>> for that year. So the general intent from your policy action has been to -- to maintain consistency among all job families within that three year cycle. Of course as you well know this is the last year in the three year cycle for this particular group.
>> so if we were to make a quantum change in our compensation policy, we would either want to do it this year and apply it retroactively to the prior two jobs. Actually this isn't the question. This is a statement from me. I would suggest that any kind of change in compensation policy that we apply to this -- these job families in front of us today for this budget cycle would be applied retroactively. If it's something that we can't do retroactively, then it's a policy that we want to implement that we should look to implementing it for the next cycle and figuring out how to fund it for the next cycle.
>> that's one of the reasons that -- that numbers were presented to you for '06 and '07, you know the group to apply it if you make a decision other than what you did last year. On this job family. The cost is available to you to do exactly what you are saying. Go back retroactively and pick up the others.
>> but I would suggest if we do look at some -- if we do look at a major change such as comparatio or moving away from our combo cola market adjustment strategy, which is what we have been employing for the last seven years, that we also look at the overall percentage of county budget that we are spending on both salary and benefits. Right now of all of the funds it represents about 44% of our overall funds. That's what I received yesterday from I believe it was from p.b.o. It's remained fairly stable between 42 and 45%. I think that we should continue to strive for that sort of stability in our overhead.
>> what we did last year was the market salary survey, then we picked up green circles, then we did an adjustment, then we did a cola on top of that.
>> yes.
>> if we look at the last four years, we have done just in what I consider to be base compensation more than 21%. We have averaged more than five a year. Some of those years was like a 3% cola and a 1.75 pbp an 2% pbp. But if you got a market salary survey adjustment it was on top of these amounts.
>> yes.
>> so I mean in my view we keep doing that, we stay close to market, and we try to get to market and what we need to do I try to figure out what we say market what do we mean. And I can agree to spend as much time on that as we need to. We do have votes on budget coming up real soon.
>> I think the rope that we went to -- the reason we went to the three year plan was because staff needed to have the time to do, you know, a third and a third and a third and in an appropriate manner and not try to take shortcuts. So that was their explanation to us. That was why we decided to go on that three year plan. The other thing that we do need to prepare for, every time that we do a third of the workforce, we need to be able to come up with the money to fund all of those studies, you know, so that no one has to be rolled over for another time to be brought up to market. So -- but I think that would help a lot as well.
>> that is the policy that the court adopted. There are numerous pays, again I don't want to take up too much of your time because I think this merits another work session. There are numerous way of both implementing market salary survey and conducting one. You don't have to do a third of the workforce every year. You could do it only in terms of the particular needs, the turnover rates or the -- or the movement in market and then go back to reclassification as we have done before. So there's alternatives for you. That's why we were asking for this fourth year. We know that we have to do the road maintenance and the trade family but that we have a year that we can come back and work on pay scales, ranges, and philosophy again with the court. It's been 10 years since we have looked at all of those issues. It may be time again once a decade.
>> I would like to have that work session after budget for mopup, also for consideration of -- I think that it's -- as Commissioner Gomez very eloquently put it. I think that it's important to apply the policies that we had in place the previous two years with this job family with tweaking within that policy. But I think that it is time for us to have a work session as soon after the budget as possible to look at any possible policy changes and how we conduct our market adjustments. How we conduct our market surveys, what we intend to do with them after we've conducted them, what is our goal and further from a policy perspective, do we want to move our compensation strategies to a more performance based strategy. A cola and straight market adjustment has no -- very little performance elements contained in it. It is a civil service structure, which is one way to do it. Just a question of do we want to do a civil service structure or do we want to do more of a performance element in our compensation strategy.
>> this is fascinating isn't it? Seems to me that I don't know that there's enough out there to study month after month after month. Seems to me that at the beginning of the fiscal year, we set aside four to six weeks, we know what the issues are, and I don't know that we will come up with a thousand recommendations, seems to me that we can come up with alternative recommendations or options and we choose one and we basically do it. But I don't -- I think we ought to keep on this one third of the workforce strategy and keep doing it if we can. Now, what's your recommendation that he had -- if you have one on the -- on b? Have we heard what you have basically?
>> on b, judge, what we have provided, we have -- we have strongly recommended that you adopt this green circle and bring people at least to the minimum of a pay grade. You have done that consistently over the last six or -- years or so. We would like to continue to -- to see that. On market adjustment options what we have provided is options, they are all valid solid compensation. On options it really is a matter of money. If you go through those, the 518,443 is adopting this same methodology and implementation that you did in fy '06. B 1 takes an increase to the percentage per pay grade and again on page 6 that would be alternative matrix 2 where it just increases it from one percent per pay grade to 2 percent, 1.5 to 3, so it's a doubling really of the -- of the percentage. It gets you closer to that comparatio but moves people when they go up a pay grade by a percentage. That amount is a little bit over a million dollars. Because this is a third year of a two year study, we do recommend that any change in implementation would -- that you would consider just like you did last year, again we to come our lead from you in terms of what was done last year, that you include fy '06 and families in fy '07, those numbers are there, that's about almost a million dollars more. It's 475,428 for fy '06 and '07 would be 505347. So our --
>> you are looking at $2 million?
>> yes.
>> if we follow that recommendation.
>> you heard the number on the comparatio. The comparatio number for '08 is about
>> [indiscernible] we would have the same recommendation for b and c on 2 is that if you did anything different this year, that you would go back and pick up families in fy '06 and fy '07. So the total for that would be around $11,249,000. And the reason again is that consistency. Sometimes when -- if you -- if you don't have consistency, we can really cause job satisfaction by paying some people more and others will believe, it's just human nature and studies are proving that other people will believe that somehow they got short changed. And so when you have a whole group like this, it's really better to be consistent with the implementation of any methodology that you have followed in the past.
>> [indiscernible]
>> judge, in terms of item b , I would like to if we can do b 1 today because I think green circle, what we do today on green circles will be subsumed ultimately by what we do on b 2 the market adjustment? Am I right about that, any green circle funding would -- is the subset of what the total market adjustment would be?
>> correct.
>> that is correct, it is a subset of what the full market --
>> it's saying we are at least doing green circled and the jury is still out on what we're going to do on market adjustment.
>> yes.
>>
>> [indiscernible] always done anyway, right?
>> even though we know that number will change depending -- for example if you want to comparatio you wouldn't need green circle because nobody would be green circled.
>> > this takes the 500,000, compensation reserve, roughly another 160,000. We can say you decided to set aside $660,000. For green circle you can do something else.
>> I would move that we -- that we go ahead and approve the green circle 660,076.
>> I thought we wanted to do it at markup.
>> I don't think the green circle is the markup item but I mean if you want to do it all at markup
>> [multiple voices]
>> still got earlier
>> [multiple voices]
>> $160,076 we talked about earlier.
>> that's correct.
>> the other being the
>> [indiscernible] reserve.
>> yes, sir.
>> we are not commenting on when this applies. The green circle -- we are saying when we start markup, we would have set aside $660,000 to take care of green circle employees. Covered by the general public.
>> all that does it bring them up to the minimum.
>> not anything else.
>> whatever else we do.
>> going up.
>> it sets the floor of what we're willing to do on market adjustment, that's all.
>> wally just b 1.
>> I have mentioned the 500,000. If you decide to vote on green circle, if you could include in your motion that you wish to use that 500,000 in the compensation reserve and direct it towards that.
>> thank you, travis, that's included in the motion.
>> discussion? All in favor? That carries unanimously.
>> good.
>> did you want to address us on the market adjustment, right? Let's give mr. Powell one of those chairs.
>> judge, greg powell with asme local. I want to preface my remarks with comments. I assure you this is the last time I'm ever going to say these words to you because I have repeated them so often.
>> will you be her shoe if --
>> [laughter]
>> but there was a --
>> shoes
>> [laughter]
>> stop it.
>> how much were those shoes?
>> there was a comment made in previous Commissioners court session about compensation and morale, that it's important for us to do this to maintain good employee morale. Indeed that's true. But I think this is more a matter of business. Because that's what we're here to take care of business. Adequate compensation is a function of being able to do good business, right? You cannot attract and retain good employees to do that business unless they are adequately compensated. You cannot run a business just like a lot of these elected officials and some of your department directors cannot run their departments when they are experiencing 20 and 25% turnover rates. It's just -- it does not work. You are counseling the state of retraining new people, losing your best and brightest because they can pick up a couple of bucks an hour. Elsewhere easily. And it's bad business. So we want to fix this thing so we can get to the business of delivering public service. That's what we're all here for. All of these employees, you, are in the business of delivering services for the citizens of Travis County. Bottom line of everything that we say and do. That's the impetus that we are using to approach this compensation matter. Now, we know that there's an existing structure in place. And it calls for certain givens like when you move up a pay grade there should be a 7% increase. I didn't invent that. That's your pay schedule. That was driven by market studies that had been done in the past. And we all know that that's been ignored for the last 10 years. Largely for budgetary purposes. We understand that also. I want to suggest to you, instead of that compensation schedule is out of whack and perhaps it is, it hasn't been looked at in god knows how many years, so be it. Part of the work that needs to be done after we get through this budget session is to look at all of these items. You know, even if it comes back and it says, you know, between each pay grade actually it should only be 4% or 5%, whatever that may be, fine and dandy. As long as employees can be assured when they move from one pay grade to another that they are going to see that proper adjustment in their pay, right is that like Commissioner Daugherty said it does no good to say here's your market adjustment, you ain't going to get a dime behind it. This business of fully funding market studies is -- it hasn't been applied much, but it has in two major areas much one was last year. With the Travis County sheriff's officers. You fully funded that market and then some. You established a precedent that all of us here today want to see continue. We don't think that you did a bad thing.
>> [ applause ] you did the right thing, we want you to do right by the rest of your workforce. Another time we did a fully funded market study, I was a part of it. It had to do with your salaries, elected officials salaries. I sat on that committee and have for the last seven, eight years that the committee has been in existence. I sat on it for a reason. I wanted to establish something that says here's how we're going to do it. We are going to take the politics out of your salaries because there's all kinds of politics, arbitrariness that had been thrown into that mix. I said you know what we're going to come up with the methodology, we did with during spring from st. Edward's, a lot of work went into this. We pegged your salaries based on equivalent counties and population and the budgets that they manage. All of these things so I can look anybody in the eye and said I am making this recommendation, we did, I think it included in some cases $12,000 increases in elected officials salaries. I knew that I was going to be controversial. I said that's the way it is. That's what the market said. We are not inventing this, we can stand by it and support it. If you don't like it take it up with the market that's what it says. You are all enjoying the benefits of the well thought out fully funded market study. When you took office, that salary got established from the work that we did years ago. I'm asking you to extend --
>> we did not fund that.
>> pardon me?
>> we did not fund those recommendations.
>> those recommendations have been funded over the last eight years, sam.
>> that's not true. We may have funded it for other elected officials but not for this court. For this court the only thing that we did we started the practice of if we give employees a 3% cola, we give all elected officials including ourselves the same coal l.a. We didn't fund the recommendation from the committee. Don't leave employees with that impression.
>> let me understand this. When a Commissioner's spot vacated that salary got established based on the market.
>> no, sir, that's not true.
>> well, then you are the exception to all of the other elected officials. The point of this was Sam was to come up with the methodology that would bear up to any examination and said this is what the market says those salaries should be, that's what we established them at. That's all that we are asking for the employees that you use the same kind of methodology and stick with it and fund it. That's what this is all about.
>> what you are asking to be done really Travis County has never done. Based on the research that I have done over the last 30 days and research that I have asked human resources to do, no other governmental entity in Texas has done it either.
>> I would like to address that.
>> please do.
>> no governmental entity in Texas calls it comparatio. No governmental entity in Texas takes an employee at a level 6 and keeps level 6 in whatever pay grade they go to. They achieve the same thing however, I will use the city of Austin as a sterling example when. They hire somebody, when they promote somebody, do market studies on any individual reclassifications, whatever that is, the market says you put them in this pay grade whatever that pay grade may be. That's what they do.
>> but what step do they put them in?
>> here's how they do that sam, they zone them. The step they put them in in the city of Austin you will go into pay zone 1, 2, 3, 4, based on your years of relevant experience, certifications, licensings, all of the things that says you know what there's a difference between someone walk in this the door with no experience and someone that's walking in with a certification and a license and 20 years of experience you are not going to pay them the same. So how do you determine how you are going to pay them? You apply a methodology. You have that methodology. It's called the Travis County wage determination guide. The city of Austin does the same process. Gets the same result.
>> but it's not comparatio and I called -- do not call it that because they are not the same. I have no problem with the zoning approach once I understand it. It may be when we do our work maybe we will take a close look at that. But your example is new employees, what about employees that get elevated in Travis County, we don't know how they got to different steps. Some seniority, some performance, many other things, that's the problem.
>> I hear you, sam.
>> you had a grade and a step 5 then you get elevated to another grade, if we follow the 7% rule, step 5, you get an additional 35%. That's five times seven.
>> if you moved up five pay grades; is that what you are saying?
>> steps, isn't it.
>> pay grades are different than steps .but if you did move up five pay grades and used your current methodology, they would get a 35% increase. I'm not advocating that. I told you these are words that I'm not going to ever say again and comparatio is one of them. But what I am saying to you is whatever the market or that position dictates in terms of the pay grade that they move into, then you do your Travis County wage determination guide to determine where in that pay grade they rightfully fit. I don't care if it's at minimum or 10% above the mid. Whatever that determination tells you, that's all that I'm asking.
>> we're together on that, I have no problem with it either.
>> in a wage determination guideline for where one should be placed along the continuum in the pay grade, would you agree that would replace cola?
>> those are two separate issues, but I'm going to speak to that. It was in my notes, you brought that up. I would say this, I think that you have nailed me once before on this, sarah. Commissioner eckhardt, I'm sorry. That is would we forego colas in -- and get our markets fully funded? I will state here, I will say on the microphone in front of everybody, personally, I would. I know colas are important to everybody, it's still good business to do them because it keeps people moving in between the market studies, so when you get around to doing them in three years you are not so far behind, right? You have been moving them 3 percent each year, downtown have to make a huge leap to make a market adjustment. I know that dollars are finite. I will argue to you, anybody else here, that we have full -- that we fully fund our market studies first. That's called what Commissioner Gomez says making employees whole. First. You get that part right, and then we can talk about everything from colas to performance based pay to all of the other things, but until we get there, we are just -- we are just chunking money at the problem and hoping something sticks to it. That's parts of what I'm urging of -- of us today is to focus on how we're going to do this. There's a proposal before you. I know that we are not going to get the 7% for each pay grade increase that we have always advocated, that your salary schedule dictates. What I'm going to ask you today in looking at the numbers is to consider again not getting too arbitrary, saying let's take 1.5 here, a half for this pay grade. Let's grab a solid number, I'm going to say 2% that's been put out there, and you apply it to everybody who has moved up a pay grade. For every pay grade that you move up, you get a 2% increase. Not the 7% that Travis County salary schedule dictates. Just 2. But everybody gets it. We apply it retroactively to every market -- to the previously funded groups. Now, it's not a big jump for you because they already did some of that, right? They applied last year's 1.5%. All that we're talking about is an additional half percent for somebody that was previously studied. It's about a million dollar proposal that I'm putting out on this table. It's clean, it's fair, it follows some guidelines, right that says for every pay grade we get a percentage increase. It fits within this budget I do believe. The second thing that I'm really advocating for is that you adopt a policy. Or just give direction that says that when we do future market studies we are going to move people into their proper pay grades, we are going to peg them to their proper pay level. You fill that into your preliminary budget departments, we know that we are studying you, you know what the cost of it can be now. That's number one item if it's compensation number one priority, that gets put in there first then you build the rest of your budgets around there. That becomes the given. The employees deserve that consideration and that priority after 10 years of waiting and for us to get this thing right. So let's get it right. I will advocate against any discretionary money being applied this year. Any performance based pay or any -- we have seep it done in the past. You have given it in the past. They are supposed to apply it to address their internal equity problems, it never gets fixed. I don't know how it gets applied. Some use it for this, for that, we still keep coming to you with the same problem, don't we? I think it's money not well spent. Let's take that 2% discretionary money put it into adequately funding the compensation program.
>> but then there's no performance element in our compensation.
>> that's right.
>> that is correct. Nor should there be until we get our compensation system fixed first. We can come back to pay for performance, I'm not going to sit here and give you a litany of reasons why pay performance is not a good method particularly at this time for addressing our compensation. It's an important function and I want to work on that with you. And take the flaws out of that system. But for right now can't be done, that is critical.
>> what you are proposing is under b the alternate matrix? You are proposing for each one of those steps 2%.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> so instead of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, you are proposing 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10.
>> that is correct.
>> that will cost 2.5 to $3 million, though, not one million.
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> 3.2 million. I can give you the numbers.
>> that's what I was going to ask him as a follow-up.
>> how much additional.
>> that would be 3.2 million.
>> it would be for fy '08 13 will 3566. We would recommend again because this would be a change to what you have done in the past, that you pick up years fy '07 and '06, '07 would be 872,455. Fy '06 would be 961,140. The total of that would be 3.2 million.
>> what is that in -- how much additional then does that require over and above your proposal? I think the proposal is for 1 point --
>> 518.
>> that's the one and a half and the half and the half.
>> current.
>> I'm talking about the 2, 1, 1, 1 that was --
>> that's where I think
>> [multiple voices]
>> I think we need to get together. The budget hearing is still scheduled for Thursday and what we can do is -- to work with h.r. And come up with some options. Now that the -- that the green circle has been dealt with, we can put that on the checklist as something resolved, then we can just put those pending items still in front of you.
>> 75% of the employees that I have chatted with about compensation would choose the cola over performance pay.
>> over performance? Absolutely. They would.
>> those who get performance pay think that it's wonderful. But I get more complaints from employees who either get the standard or get 0 and they think that this is the worst atrocity in the world.
>> that's why I'm advocating against discretionary money for funding that. Put it into the colas, put it into the market studies, don't put it into paid performance at this time. Lastly, if you do have, as I have heard here, some one-time money that is available to employees, that that would not -- could not be used to help offset these other costs because they have the carryovers on them. Then certainly I would like to see that used for employees, whether it's one percent, two percent, those kind of things can amount to 3 or $400, $500 for an employee. Certainly helps offset the increased fuel costs, everything else that's been going up. Some can be applied towards the end of the year, christmas time, November, December. So which helps through the holidays. If that money is available, let's put it in the employees' pockets as opposed to anyplace else.
>> [ applause ] those are my remarks. I hope they make some sense. The proposal for 2% is less -- the reason that I'm making it, it's way too arbitrary to say we are going to take one and a half year, then half and half. It has no relation to anything other than as alicia said the affordability of it. What I'm saying is I know that you can't do the 7%, let's at least do the two and apply it across the board for this group and going back to the last two groups so we can walk away from this thing saying we kept, if nothing else, we kept things equal among these employees, adopt a policy for the future and let's go to work. Thank you very much.
>> [ applause ]
>> thank you.
>> anything else under b?
>> yes. What I would like to do is just get clarification. What we will -- the next step will be developing options for the court to consider, which will give you the bottom line. How much additional money do you need to add to the budget. So we would like to include or suggest a, which is the current implementation as one option and then I understand, I hear that comparatio is off the table. So we would not include that as an option for you to consider. And would you like to have us do the option of the 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or keep b 1 as it is with the .5 doubling what you did this year?
>> 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, if I'm not mistaken, looking at the item no. 9 handout, that would add .03 cents to the tax rate.
>> ance to your question -- in answer to your question, I would put the option as c, we would have a and b and 2, 4, 6 --
>> okay. Got it.
>> then you need to have a and b with that going back. You know, one was just this year, picking them up in the next two years.
>> I'm sorry, .003.
>> b and c would pick up.
>> yes.
>> okay. Wait.
>> were you asking what would the cost be if we added $3 million.
>> we haven't verified the numbers yet or anything, but roughly $3 million would somewhere right around there it's about 8 -- a little over an $8 impact to the homeowner for $3 million.
>> that's right. It's a third of 23 -- is that right. Those numbers haven't been verified. We would need to -- to look at them.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> anything else under b?
>> no, sir.
>> c is liveable wage increase from $10 to $11 per hour;
>> yes, that is the increase in liveable wage we have had at $10 for a couple of years now, we see some of the other entityies increase their liveable --
>> which ones.
>> city of Austin and u.t. Specifically have increased their liveable wage rate to $11 per hour.
>> I move approval of that increase, judge.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 4. Bilingual supplemental pay;
>> under bilingual supplemental pay, this is a pilot program introducing the pay for bilingual skills. It is -- this only pays for the testing, the actual pay that -- that we are recommending is $75 per month. And this was costed just on two people per department that would get supplemental pay. That is just to develop a baseline. For example, tax office will need more than that compared to say one of the precincts smaller offices. So it is to establish the testing and the pay for the testing fee, any pay for -- for those particular skills, bilingual skills, would have to be funded by the departmental budgets for the first year.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> so we are paying for the tests but the departments are supposed to pick up the actual costs.
>> that's right.
>> first year.
>> to develop a baseline and then we would have a better idea what was the funding would be for the fy 10.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. These are seasonal and relief temporary titles. If you look attachment b, in your booklet, they are
>> [indiscernible] techs going from 10 to $13, part tech two going from 11 to $14, school crossing guards, going to create one level, an hourly wage of $13. A lot of election workers increasing their hourly rate. And then a special project temp and then your last category, one where we saw significant increases were the interpreters. Deaf interpreters.
>> this is -- this is in -- in a conflict with the memo that we received pursuant to number 9 regarding not increasing part tech 1 and 2 from 13 and $14 respectively because it means they will be making more than the park maintenance workers doing the same work, correct?
>> in our proposal
>> [indiscernible] 10 collars to $11 for tech one, 1 one dollar to $12 for tech two. These are basically summer jobs. We really haven't had any trouble recruiting for the park techs. And probably getting up to $13,
>> [indiscernible] conflict with permanent workers. We think that we can continue to hire adequately, over the summer months after we -- at the $11, $12 rate. The savings is roughly about $125,000.
>> crossing guards?
>> no, that's not -- no crossing guards. We are with h.r. On that one. Go ahead and take that. Recruiting school crossing guards has been a problem in the past. We are adequately staffing that at $13 because the school districts are supplementing to get there. So if our pay goes up to $13, we should be okay.
>> the numbers again, joe, what did you say from 10 --
>> tech one
>> [multiple voices]
>> recommending $11.
>> gieselman. I think they want you on microphone.
>> t.n.r. Would propose that the pay go from the currently from $10 to 1 one dollar for -- $11 for park tech 1s. From 11 to $12 for park tech 2's, that would net a savings of roughly $125,000 over the recommendation of --
>> what
>> [indiscernible] two or three agendas ago there was an item that dealt with I think they called it child safety.
>> that has to do with the school crossing guards.
>> this doesn't have any relationship with that at all.
>> no. We are talking about park techs right now. This is the same category, does cover school crossing guards.
>> right.
>> we are in agreement with h.r. That -- should go up to $13 and $14.
>> all right.
>> yes. To create one level as opposed to the two levels that we now have.
>> okay. All right.
>> that makes sense.
>> thanks for pointing that out. That's exactly the kind of shared sacrifice and responsibility that I'm looking for from our entire workforce and looking at internal equity and efficiencies. I really appreciate that.
>> move approval with the changes.
>> second.
>> hrmd got those changes.
>> yes.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. On the election clerks, we have discussed those with the department.
>> they are in agreement. Yes.
>> okay. We may as well note the budget impacts. Election workers, if we approve that what's the cost? I don't see it here on page --
>> it's all parted of that $383,000 number.
>> [multiple voices]
>> one answer at a time, please. It is included in the 383,000 --
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> that we have before you. We will make the adjustments and bring you back that number given the change in the park tech.
>> move approval of that election workers.
>> is that the last group?
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything else today?
>> yes, judge. We have a g, other related compensation issues. There has been some discussions about performance based pay. The -- we have costed it at 1.5%. One in terms of pure pbp, the other in terms of pbp salary adjustment and departmental flexibility which is what you did this year with about 2%. At 1.5% that number would be approximately 2.3 million, would you like us to include that as an option in your option slips?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> put it on. Anything else? We need a summary of fiscal impact of our actions today?
>> yes, sir.
>> sure do.
>> we realize that we left the biggest one hanging. So we need to land on that during markup.
>> what I can do is just work together, come up with the options. Highlight those actions that you have already taken, what the impact is then the pending options for you, what the impact would be should you choose it.
>> just one piece of clarification. There is some good news. In the preliminary budget in keeping with our 3% cola for -- for rank and file, we also budgeted 3% cola for retirees.
>> oh, good.
>> > I'm glad that you brought that up. We will be getting calls what about us, good point.
>> move recess to 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 5:31 PM