Travis County Commissioners Court
August 12, 2008
Item 13
>> so do we have everybody here on the compensation item? I had suggested we take it up a little later, but on 13 if we have erchl everyone here, we can call it up. 13 is to consider and take appropriate action on recommended fiscal year 2009 compensation items for non-Travis County sheriff's office peace officer pay scale. A, whether to establish internal equity relationship between tcso and non-tcso peace officers job classifications. And b, add pay for park rangers who possess active emergency medical technician basic certification.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. Alicia perez, executive manager for executive operations. You should have with you your compensation issues fy '09 book. We have discussed a lot compensation issues over the last week, and today we're here to discuss with you the non-tcso peace officers pay scale. The court asked to us take another look at the non-tcso peace officers pay scale last year, and this includes the pay for constable, park rangers, and investigators. And we have here with us todd osborne who is with evergreen solutions. You should have received a couple of. I think there were three pages of additional backup that was sent yesterday via e-mail. If you don't have them, we can make copies for you and we will start there. Linda?
>> no, I have extra copies in case the e-mail -- did everyone get your e-mail?
>> supplemental information --
>> I think we're ready to go right into todd. The information that we have provided you in the supplemental piece responds to questions I think that had come from members of the court. So todd is prepared to move right into that response.
>> good morning, junk, good morning commission, todd oas born, evergreen solutions. The purpose of the study as alicia noted was to review the non-tcso jobs on the peace officer pay scale, paying particular attention to the pay equity relationship between these jobs and similar johns in the sheriff's office. By way of background there were some substantial pay increases give tone tcso in fy '08, particularly in the command staff, led the non-tcso officers to call for an examination of internal equity. Commissioners court called for the study of the conclusion of the last budget cycle to be present this had year. Departments affected, constables 1, 3, 4 and 5. Two is technically on the pops scale although their positions were examined as well. The park ranger jobs located within tnr and the investigator positions located in the county attorney's office, the district attorney's office and the public defender. I know we've gone through a couple of versions of this and I'll try to keep the findings at a high level. From internal equity standpoint, non-tcso law enforcement personnel have seen an erosion in their internal equity stand the over the past years, vis-a-vis similar positions within tcso. Actions taken in fy '08 actually improve the standing of the frontline sphup and fairly dra mattly reduce the command staff officers. If we do to the supplemental item that was sent yesterday, kind of to give you an overview of that, as a result of the actions taken in fy '08, the deputy constable position, which was at 87% of parity with the law enforcement deputy prior to '08, actually improve bed to 90%. The law enforcement deputy senior job went from 88 to 90. And the park ranger title went from 87 and a half to 89% of parity. And those are all at --, two of them were step 1 and one is at step 3. However, at the constable level, prior to fy '08, constable sergeants were at 83% of parity with law enforcement sergeants as a result of the actions taken in '08. That percentage reduced to 72%. And likewise with the chief park ranger position, it was at 92% of a sergeant position. It's now at 78%. And the investigators position, which was at full parity, 100% of law enforcement detective, was reduced to 85%. And the investigations lieutenant dropped from 90% to 78 and a half percent. So overall basically if you were in the frontline positions, the park rangers, the deputy constables, things actually improved some as a result of what happened in '08. If you were in the command staff there was a pretty serious reduction in the internal equity relationships. From an external equity standpoint, we did find somewhat as we kind of expected that Travis County does pay above the market for most of these positions. There were a couple of exceptions within the ranger service. The same was true for the tcso positions last year. And prior to the salary actions in fy '08, which is why the study is predom predominantly focus odd the internal relationships. We tried to break this down into classification recommendations and compensation recommendations. From a classification standpoint, we are recommending the establishment of a park ranger senior position, and this is being recommended to improve the retention within the park ranger sear and to build the career progression within that series. However, we did not recommend the establish of a park ranger cadet position, which was requested to improve the recruitment, but we felt there were better options to do that. We did not recommend the establishment of a constable corporal position. We did not find that position prevalent in the marketplace or necessary within the command structure. The constable lieutenant position, which was requested, we don't think it's needed at this time, but we think it needs to be re-examined when one of the constable's offices reach reaches 30 sworn officers. We think that is the threshold at which a lieutenant position is probably warranted. From a compensation standpoint, we are recommending that the job matrix that's found in table 4-1 in our report and be also in the backup be adopted. And once adopted that these relationships become permanent so that internal equity relationships become more stable. We arrived at these relationships by examining job duties, responsibilities, qualifications for positions, matching them to a similar tcso job where possible. After this was done, we examined three primary factors to get a percentage of that salary. These were the market comparisons of these jobs that law enforcement pays. So in other words, what our other jurisdiction -- what are other jurisdictions doing when they are comparing their non-sheriff's positions to their sheriff's positions. We're also looking at the historical equity relationships that have been in place and some of these relationships go all the way back to 1994. Some of the jobs don't go back that far. We took them back as far as we could take them. Also a pay grade differential. Serb essentially what this is is if the county had a point factor system, how would these jobs have fared in comparison to the other jobs in the Travis County sheriff's office? Our second compensation recommendation is to establish 125-dollar add pay for employees in the park ranger series that have received emt-b certification. And we would ask that you allow tnr to waive the requirement for first-year park rangers to have that certification coming in with the understanding that the rangers that do not have that certification with one year would face termination. As we are come to go the recommendation for the emt-b certification, we pro dominantly at this from a recruiting approach and we asked ourselves what types of job be skills would somebody have to possess in order to go into park ranger service? And really there were three predominant. They need to have an interest in park. Need to have an interest in law enforcement and go through the certification. And you need have an interest in first response and general emt skills. Although we don't have -- we don't have documentation, we suspect that it's a relatively small set of people within the area that possess all three of these skill sets. And we asked ourselves where would these people go? And predominantly they would be looking at the city of Austin, they would be looking at the lower colorado river authority, and they would be looking at Travis County. And if you were interested in a job in one of those three locations, the city of Austin has the add pay, lcra has the add pay, Travis County doesn't. So we believe that puts the county within a -- in a detrimental recruiting position. And that's the reason that we recommended the add pay for the emt-b certification.
>> and just to point out that add pay totals $24,000, and that is noted in your ballot as separate, $24,000 for add pay.
>> what's the vacancy rate for the park rangers?
>> vacancy rate, last I checked there were two vacancies that had been fairly ongoing. It lasted for over two years. There are approximately -- I think there's about 19 people total within the division. I could be wrong on that.
>> we have the manager sitting to the left over there. Is that true?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> so is our consultant, do you consider that a recruitment and reissue?
>> I consider it a recruitment issue. I don't necessarily believe it's a retention issue, but I do believe it's a recruitment issue when you have vacancies open for over two years.
>> I spoke personally with the last departure and it was purely salary. She went with tcso. Salary makes a difference.
>> thank you for those exit interviews. They provide very valuable information to us regarding our recruitment and retention issues.
>> joe?
>> remind me of how important the ect certification is.
>> well, I think in this case we do respond to emergencies in the park just by the nature of the business. People are going out there, they're getting hurt, and our folks respond to those right on the scene. Whether it's a swimming incident or hiking incident, they're just likely to have a medical emergency that requires some kind of response.
>> do you think they're required to use the skills on a pretty regular basis?
>> absolutely.
>> now, how many questions was this -- how many would this affect if the court decides to support this particular recommendation? What's the overall number of --
>> well, we have 19 in our group of park rangers, including supervisors.
>> 19?
>> right.
>> okay.
>> 19 budgeted, 16 filled.
>> that's right.
>> okay, thank you, joe.
>> you included the 19 in your 24,000 figure?
>> I actually have it here. Hold on.
>> I was trying to confirm that the 19 are a part of the cost that you have at 24,000.
>> essentially every position that is allocated was included in the 24,000-dollar figure.
>> all right, thank you.
>> speaking of costs, the total cost of the proposed actions is $939,000. That includes salaries, benefits and the cost of emt-b certification pay. We did develop three different costing scenarios, a one-year option, two year option and a three year option. The one year option would call the internal equity the fastest, but it's certainly the most expensive and would take the county above narkt at a much quicker rate. The third option is the longest. And the two year option is a mid range solution for the county in case it doesn't want to go with the one or the three-year options.
>> just for the public's sake, could you tell me what the amount of money is for the one year and also the two year option?
>> let me go ahead and do that since we broke it down a little bit definitely than what he had on his report. And again, if you have your compensation issues booklet, it's on the preference sheet. But for the one-year option, it is 915,279. And then that includes also the 24,000. For the two-year option it's 5,586. That's one that we used most often in the option sheet that we had shared. And then the three year is 396,818. And again we split out that 24,000.
>> in the two-year option, what would give me -- give me an example of what somebody could make in increase in one year?
>> are you talking about a dollar percentage or a percentage?
>> yeah.
>> do you want to pick a title?
>> just give me one. Give me the highest.
>> okay.
>> the highest that I have on my sheet would be approximately $12,000 in a given year.
>> and what percentage of increase would that be?
>> about 16 percent.
>> there is no question that there is an internal equity deal here. And we knew it was going to be an internal equity deal, especially after last year. I will tell you that this public understand nor are they interested in people getting -- even though you may deserve it from an internal equity standpoint -- those kind of increases in salaries. As a matter of fact, what I'm getting over e-mail is why aren't you decreasing, why aren't you asking for some people to give money back? That's probably not the rank and file that they're asking that for. They're probably asking for people that make the higher salaries in government. That's where they're really headed. We do know that we have got to keep these internal equity within check. If we're always going to chase a.p.d., then we are building ourselves into a situation where that's all we'll need to do with budget. You can just tell pbo that's all you do because that's all the money you're going to have unless you're going to raise taxes in this community to the point where people are just going to explode. We've somehow as a court, I think, got to find a way to get to this equity and then keep an eye on what are we going to do whenever we are making these decisions to take and move one group to one spot, knowing that the other group is going to come in and say, what about us? Because that's really what's happened to us, you know, with this deal.
>> well, included in the recommendations is the recommendation to want these relationship -- once these relationships are established to keep them in place. In other words, you won't have one group chasing the other one because when one moves, they all move.
>> and that's probably the place that you need to go. And that will certainly have some effect on how much we're willing to move whenever you do move. Because it will be a much larger number moving everybody along, but at least you don't go through this internal equity deal.
>> you wouldn't have to come back to this issue again, that's correct.
>> and by that you mean recommended placement column, and that establishes a relationship just like we established it for the judicial jobs that we have. We've got the jp, the county court at law, and district judges. And there's a relationship between them all. So we're basically talking about establishing the same relationship so that hopefully we won't get out of with these jobs. And so otherwise we keep getting further and further behind. And the number is bigger as we -- if we don't have something like this established. I don't know that I get the e-mails about giving money back, but I do get the e-mails about the services that our employees provide to the public. And that's why I've kind of always said that, you know, we're to serve the public. We all have constituents, especially if we're elected, and people want to know that they can approach an elected official and employees and get a answer, a very courteous, straight answer. And I think that I would be comfortable voting on something if I know that that relationship or that connection with the public is there. And I think it goes for most of us to have the time, to make the time to deal with the public in a courteous, straightforward manner. And so they need services. The services that we provide.
>> I would like to ask a question about the charts contained in the evergreen report, the 3-2 and the 3-3. You alluded to it a moment ago in regard to your analysis of the market minimums and market maximums. We are above the minimum in the category of being reviewed that's at issue here, and we're above the max be muslim for every cat -- the maximum for every category except the park ranger categories, correct?
>> that's correct.
>> so -- then on the charts, the 3-3 and the 3-4 charts regarding the sheriff's title, they're above the minimum and the maximum in every category, except this looks like it might be a typo. Law enforcement detective appears to be below the maximum. Is that correct? Or was that a typo.
>> that situation has really been in place for quite some time within the county. Travis County has been a leader in law enforcement pay throughout the state for a number of years. And I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that there was a deliberate decision to provide the best law enforcement that we can provide to the county.
>> I think that -- I think that Travis County has also made at least tacit decision to establish something that projection mates collective bargaining for all of its employees by establishing a matrix and a system through which we have internal equity. While I think -- and I confess to having voted against the pay raise last time, I think in order for us to have -- to projection that -- to approximate that kind of collective bargaining for all our employees, we do need to establish those internal equity matrixes so we know the full effect of our compensation decisions. We knew in last year that the full effect was going to be delayed until this year as we looked at taking these positions to one another. I think it's appropriate to peg them, I do believe that we must continue to look at the sustainability of our policy of keeping these positions at the very leading edge of the market. Which is where we're putting them. Not to say that folks don't deserve that money. It's that it's a question of fiscal sustainability. Regarding the internal ripple effect. It's absolutely necessary to establishing and maintaining what approximates collective bargaining for all of our job families.
>> for the record, I've always considered our relationship to be closer to a meet and confer. Not collective bargaining.
>> since we can't have it under statute anyway.
>> , we have dealt with the -- it seems like every category of employees has a union of some sort, and I think we have been fair in trying to deal with them as well as managers. But it's really been more akin to a meet and confer than collective bargaining.
>> and I think a lot of jurisdictions are looking at this issue of law enforcement pay. I know as I've been following the media that the city of Austin is definitely taking a very serious look at this and it's recently undergone a study about the impact of law enforcement pay in the city budget. And I'm sure that that is going to continue over the course of the next year. So Travis County will not be alone in taking a very hard look at this issue.
>> there cannot be a fire wall between our compensation strategy of law enforcement versus the rank and file. It's a matter of establishing -- and also the non-tcso, pops folks. Frankly, everyone needs to be -- it's a web. We're all connected. We need to perhaps look to hr. And I hate to keep loading hr up with these projects, but the necessary and appropriate ripple effect on our compensation, because there is one and we need to recognize that.
>> if we look at your recommended pay grade differential or relationship and compare your recommendations to the differential that exists in other urban counties in Texas, are we looking at pretty much the same relationship? So specific amounts aside, if we look at the deputy constable relationship to the law enforcement deposit any in say dallas, tarrant county, bexar, would the pay grade differential be roughly five percent?
>> approximately. In the marketplace right now on average -- and almost a daily -- it is collected and then averaged. A deputy constable is going to earn about 93% of what a law enforcement deputy is going to earn in those jurisdictions. Within the county the historical average here has been 95%. And typically this is about a one pay grade differential, which we typically would figure to be about five percent, so our recommendation came in at 95% rather than the 93%. We're kind of looking at all three factors in the place nlt. So I guess the short answer to your question is yes, it's about percent.
>> that is found on the first page of the supplemental information that -- the table where it says market comparison to law enforcement. That is what the market, the survey of other counties is. And then historical is what it has been in Travis County. And then the recommended.
>> so if we go on down the list, we think that the recommendation regarding pay grade differential for Travis County would be close to the differential in other counties for all of these jobs, like the investigators would make roughly the same thing that the law enforcement detective --
>> in the marketplace they make approximately 90% of what a detective would earn. This is actually a job that when you compare the duties and the responsibilities, there almost is virtually identical match. So historically prior to fy '08, those jobs were matched at 100%.
>> at Travis County.
>> at district, correct. -- at Travis County, correct. It's not to say the investigators did not get an increase last year, because they certainly did, but the detectives received a much larger one in the sheriff's office. So they were at 100% before. They're at 85% now. And it's just the fact of the differential increases that took place between tcso and the non-tcso officers on the pops scale.
>> judge, the obvious question that we've got to get to, and I'm to move approval of a. I do think that we have got to move towards the internal equity position. Now what we are up against is how do we bite that off? Do we bite it off in two years or do we bite it off in three years? But we deserve -- the people deserve to get to where they -- you've stated on this page. We know that we need to get the folks there. Fr now it's on to how are we going to compensate you? Are we going to do it in two years or three years? And you know what we're dealing with in budget. We have about 600 things coming at us and every thing has an amount of dollars attached to it.
>> okay. A is basically to establish the recommended relationship, right?
>> yes.
>> any discussion of that motion? I do think we ought to hold off on pay we do it for a budget markup issue be.
>> then we would have all three options listed on the preference sheet. And then in the meantime I think you need to kind of -- if we're going to include the second and third options, then tell us the bottom line, how much of a differential that is in terms of taxes.
>> sure. And I have that information now if you would like it or we can wait.
>> we can wait.
>> we won't know the percentage of what it's going to take taxwise because you have to wait until you do the budget to if you've got the dollars.
>> that's why we need to wait.
>> and will all the variables -- I guess we're discussing several variables included in this, and hopefully some of this may be all inclusive, but then again maybe not all inclusive. I really would like to make sure that we have the ballot sheet that's made available to us so we can make a decision on some of these things we discussed here. I don't know if pbo can generate that accordingly because we're going to have to make some tough decisions here one way or the other. And it would be very -- I guess to the point where it's detailed enough, but then not overly detailed enough to know exactly what some of these variables are. And I don't know if pbo will -- it's a lot to look at. So I'm just wanting to make sure that that is the case.
>> this is something we need to hear before we vote?
>> the tax rate implication?
>> budget markup.
>> would you consider it friendly to the motion to set a trigger for revisiting the calibration for constable lieutenant on pops? I understood that the evergreen recommendation was that constable lieutenant, the creation of the constable lieutenant position wasn't appropriate at this time, but it right for revisiting once the scope of -- the command scope increased.
>> I don't have an issue with that.
>> and I think the command scope -- what was the average at this point? The command scope was like 15 or something?
>> it was approximately 15 I think in precinct 1 through 4. And then in precinct 5 it was -- I want to say it was approximately 26 or 25, 26.
>> it was 27.
>> it's at 30 right now.
>> but we had fixed it by tweaking theirs, right? The constable 5 tweaked to acknowledge that?
>> no, it wasn't tweaked, per se. If they get to -- if they get to 30 sworn officers, the position of the constable lieutenant should be added to the pay scale.
>> okay. Is that part of the -- is that part of the recommendation?
>> it is part of the recommendation, but it's there.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> and does the motion include that?
>> yes.
>> hold on. Had let me make sure I understand. Motion was to approve the recommend relationships, pay grade differentials. Now we're clarifying what now?
>> that once the command scope for the constable sergeant -- was it constable sergeant command scope reaches 30, then that would trigger revisiting of whether or not to establish a constable position.
>> the command scope is for the chief deputy constable, but essentially when you hit 30 sworn officers, the position of lieutenant be established and added into the pops pay scale.
>> we would be -- the friendly amendment is to revisit that issue when we get to that threshold of 30 sworn officers. Ms. Porter, are you on board? It's the county judge that misses the point. Any more discussion of the motion?
>> it been seconded?
>> yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And we'll look at the how-to as part of the budget mark. B is add pay for park rangers with the emt-basic certification. Joe, when we hire in park rangers, some have the certification, some do not?
>> well, it's a requirement for the job. I don't know if they're given a certain amount of time to --
>> you don't get hired unless you have it.
>> but the issue is recruitment. The issue is whether can hire them in without it and give them a year to get it.
>> that's correct. But they must get it.
>> move approval of b.
>> second.
>> on b, I just would like for you to note on page 12 that you have 10 recommendations, and with b you should consider recommendation number 8. B is recommendation number 7, Commissioners court should establish the $125 monthly at pay. 8 is Commissioners court should waive the emt-b certification for prospective employees with the park rangers series. Employees within the park rangers series should be given one year to attain the emt-b certification.
>> if they don't do it what happens?
>> those employees are terminated.
>> they're terminated. Going to be explained to them when you hire them on what the conditions are.
>> yes, sir.
>> we believe that we can alert them of that requirement during the hiring process and enforce it ourselves one year later?
>> that's correct. We haven't had to do that yet.
>> do we have that on record, ms. Porter?
>> all right. Any more discussion? The motion would include the various aspects that ms. Perez just remined us of -- reminded us of.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. So we will call up the compensation issues early in budget markup. That is all we have posted in 13 today. Thank y'all very much.
>> thank y'all.
>> who do we need to 26? The matter involving the health care district? Do we have who we need? Is stacy headed this way? Are we ready to take up executive session? The only other issues, unfortunately, I think some of the others asked for this afternoon and they are not nearby, I assuming they're out on airport. Dana and her item and also the sheriff's people on 25.
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 12, 2008 1:37 PM