Travis County Commissioners Court
May 19, 2009,
Item 22
Now let's move to something a little easier.
the compensation item.
22.
a, receive evergreen solutions, llc progress report and compensation committee recommendations and take appropriate action; and 22 b is to consider and take appropriate action on evergreen solutions, llc proposed revision to the classified pay scale to achieve market competitiveness, effective October 1, 2009.
what I remember most about our recent discussion was that everybody seemed to think that we ought to delay the market salary survey rather than proceeding.
>> correct.
>> second.
>> is that what other court members heard?
i move that we follow that advice, good or bad -- I mean follow the excellent advice.
Commissioner Eckhardt seconds the motion, discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
so we will bring that back up 2010 for 2011 or will you all just bring that back whenever you think that it's ready?
is this a year decision, one year decision or are we all pull -- will y'all pull our coat tails when it's time to put it back on.
>> I think we will probably pull your coat tails only because we will be awaiting our coat tails to be pulled by the compensation committee in terms of when they feel that the structure is ready to commence another market salary survey.
but you will hear from us in between.
>> I'm more comfortable if we set it and say we would review it again in a year.
that way if we're told it's not prepared to review, we can has that decision.
>> okay.
>> I would like it to be -- on the tickler system.
>> that's fine with me.
b?
this item had to do with a revision of the actual pay scale, it was a recommendation that was made by evergreen solutions and the proposal was to -- to make some revisions to the current pay scale.
those revisions were discussed last week and the -- the comparison of the pay scale is in your backup.
this was an item that the court discussed.
maybe more appropriate in light of the -- of the budget implications to this -- to this item.
i'm going to let linda or --
>> I think we were in agreement, sort of, consensus that it was a good idea to redo the scale because we were addressing the structure of it and so that will help in the long run.
i would move approval.
>> would you consider it friendly and -- Commissioner Gomez to say that we would adjust the pay scale to whatever agree we can afford an across the board salary increase this year?
>> well, I think as long as we have a scale that the public will fall on, right?
>> I don't think we ought to do anything this year maybe.
long term recommendations.
>> let's address the scale, first, then we will see what other --
>> the idea is if we can afford an across the board pay increase, consider elevating the scale in an equal amount, that makes sense.
>> right.
>> the problem that I had last time what we would absolutely do, I don't know that we ought to deny ourselves that flexibility.
plus I don't think we ought to make a decision today that really is more appropriately addressed during the budget process.
>> yeah.
>> for this year.
>> I agree with that.
because number one, you know, I'm still as I stated earlier I'm kind of timid seeing the preliminary budget.
>> [indiscernible] across the board period.
i'm looking at tightening up belts.
so it's not going to be as it was in the past.
we're looking at some pretty severe consequences I think out there financially.
and I don't think we are seeing relief until maybe f.y.
'11, maybe, but so I just -- I'm just going to continue to reiterate what I have been saying all along, that it's going to be a tough year.
this fiscal year.
and next year probably be just as bad or worse.
so I just think that we need to be very cautious in what we do, no funding for it.
can't do it.
that's my two cents worth.
>> I don't think we're posted to make a decision anyway.
consider and take appropriate action on evergreen solutions proposed revision to the classified pay scale to achieve market competitiveness effective October 1, 2009 and that's where the across the board should be an increase in the scale recommendation comes, right?
>> our recommendation was to increase the scale by two and a half percent.
it was the compensation committee's recommendation that any increase in scale be tied to an across the board increase for the general employees.
>> or actually may I make a stab at rephrasing that.
i think it was should we -- if we are able to afford an across the board increase, that the pay scale should be floated to whatever agree that across the board -- whatever degree that across the board salary increase was.
>> I think that's a good snare of the compensation committee's recommendation.
good summary.
>> that's what I second.
>> is that a motion?
state it again.
julie, you got that?
>> Commissioner Gomez already made a motion to approve --
>> was she recognized?
>> [laughter]
>> Commissioner Gomez may withdraw her motion or do you?
>> certainly.
>> [laughter]
>> whatever works.
>> thank you, ms.
porter.
>> so should we -- should we finds ourselves able to afford an across the board percentage increase, that we have a -- that it is our intention to also float the pay scale by whatever that percentage is.
>> the intention.
>> well, but, you know, on the other hand I thought we were -- it was being recommended that we go ahead and fix the structure and it would take 2.5% to do that.
>> that is whatevergreen believes.
>> that's what I was making a motion to approve.
is that the way this is worded?
>> I don't think we're posted to do that.
if you are saying we ought to do 2.5% during the budget process to fix the structure that's not posted.
>> correct.
>> I really -- I hear what everybody is doing, it's all well and good, I'm not knocking what you're doing.
but again I would like -- if any of this comes out, as I stated before, I would like to see this during the budget process.
i think we're too early on a lot of things, not knowing what the real numbers are going to look like as far as this is concerned
>> [multiple voices] I just think that we are being -- we are ahead of it.
i don't see any money.
>> I think that I agree with you, Commissioner.
i think then why went we just let b wait and go through the budget process.
i really would like to fix the structure.
if it takes 2.5% I think that's what we ought to do.
>> although, one consideration I believe that the compensation committee was concerned about, correct me if I'm misstating it.
if we were to correct just the structure but not fund it, then it would be a continuation of a problem that we have been suffering under for a number of years.
>> yes.
>> so we do need to fund it.
>> so --
>> the motion as I heard it starts off by saying we grant an across the board increase.
that's the compensation.
then we will consider increasing the range in a like amount is the language that I have here.
anything equivalent to that I think gets done.
i wanted us to have two -- to basically state the policy but I don't know that it's reasonable for us to say we'll follow that policy come hell or high water.
but if you give an across the board pay increase, my intention is look at the range and determine whether it outing to be increased.
right here -- ought to be increased.
right here it will consider increasing the range in a like amount.
it does say consider doesn't say would absolutely increase the range.
my concern there is that we may reach the point where our range is much higher than our competitors, we may want to retain the flexibility of not increasing the range further.
see what I'm saying?
but we make that call at that time.
i guess I'm looking at long term it could be eight, 10, 12, 14 years down the road.
but if our problem is that our range now is behind our competitors, it seems to me that our intention ought to be to catch up.
one way to catch up is when you do an across the board pay increase, increase the range in a like amount.
whether it's 2.5% and we have done 3 and 4.
have we done a 4% cola?
if you do a 4% cola this motion would be for us to consider whether we ought to increase the range 4%.
>>
>> [indiscernible] in the past.
>> there's good and bad.
the bad I'm saying consider where appropriate language like that the public gives us some flexibility.
the good is if you do a cola, look at increasing the range.
>> yes, sir.
>> which was the gist of yours.
>> yes.
>> but this does not address what we ought to do in the next budget process because I think we ought to deal with that in the budget process.
i don't know that we have told, given as a guideline pay increases.
guideline job retention so far, right?
>> exactly.
>> which in my view unless the economy improves, would be a major accomplishment based on what I am reading about other workplaces and employers.
but in fairness to our consultant and staff and the committee, this increasing the range sounds like a good recommendation to me.
if it's a problem that we need to work on fixing then putting it in a policy would be a step in the right direction.
we have heard two or three motions that we have got ms.
porter.
>> I guess, judge, what I heard when the presentation was made -- the structure needed to be fixed because we were falling behind.
>> true.
>> so -- so I guess it makes sense to me to just say we're going to do that but not have the funding.
we have -- we have run into problems --
>> my motion of funding is first of my second of your motions.
>> what I want to see achieved it for us to fix the structure and the fact that we are two and a half percent behind means that we would then have a goal maybe we won't reach it, but have a goal of providing that two and a half percent.
that would fix it for everybody.
>> I agree.
>> it also would take care of the issues of compression that were brought up before that -- that the public sometimes comes, keeps coming back to us as an issue of why the departments need to have that -- that extra money that flexible money that they can fix those issues with.
but I don't know that we really fix them permanently.
and so --
>> what do we do when we catch up?
when we have fixed the range problem what do we do?
>> well, we should fund it.
i guess you are saying that funding would then go through the budget process later.
>> what's what I am saying, yeah.
but my question goes to after four or five years of range elevations we are caught up, do we keep increasing the range when we give a cola just because it's a policy?
>> well, it sounds like you do because you don't want the structure to -- to stay behind.
you need to keep moving --
>> when we catch the structure up, as the result of a series of cola increases, then what do we do?
i'm saying we ought to leave ourselves the flexibility to stop increasing the structure.
there's other things that we could do which is why I wanted to see recommendations regarding merit pay and some other things.
which you all plan to come back to us on, right?
>> correct.
>> at some point.
when I walked in the office this morning, my goal was to cease work on the market salary survey, one recommendation, and delay action on all of the others until we can see all of them at one time.
i didn't like the wording that I saw or heard on Thursday.
so my third position was that if we act on that, I think it ought to be something that gives us at least some flexibility, but commits us to -- to do the across the board pay increases in the form of range elevations until we caught up.
>> may I -- in terms of the motion that's on the floor, perhaps it could be altered, similarly to the moratorium on the market salary survey.
to say at least for the next budget, this coming budget year, budget consideration, if we find we can afford an across the board salary increase, that we float -- that we consider floating the pay scale to that same degree.
in recognition, I agree with the judge, that -- that an across the board salary increase by cola is -- is at some point it would catch us up to market but it's a rather blunt instrument in that appears to be the compensation committee's charge to find some more sensitive instruments for keeping us up to date than across the board salary increases.
that looks more like a step and grade system, which I don't sense we want to -- civil service system, which I don't sense we want to emulate.
>> but normally you wouldn't do a policy just to cover what would happen two or three months later: what about this language -- if the court grants an across the board pay increase in 2010, Commissioner Gomez, or thereafter, which gives us a long-term implication that I think we ought to look for in a policy, it will consider increasing the range in a like amount.
>> I consider that very friendly.
>> the more I think about it, the more I like it myself
>> [laughter]
>> well, it sounds okay.
but I guess I'm still kind of hung on the fact that it looks like already we're two and a half percent behind our competitors.
and so -- so it kind of leaves me wondering what happens with that and, you know, and maybe that's the part that needs to go through the budget process.
somehow it doesn't -- you know, it doesn't click for me, it doesn't come together for me.
i can sort of, you know, sounds reasonable what you have said.
but I'm still remembering the presentation that we were two and a half percent behind our competitors.
so -- so if we don't do anything during the budget process, then we're going to get a little further behind.
>> the motion that -- that I think --
>> right.
>> the motion that the judge mentioned is pretty much -- pretty much a -- a pretty good summary of very healthy discussion that the committee had.
regarding the issue.
and as mr.
collins said last week the committee was responding to evergreen's recommendation on the two and a half and because of the recommendations coming forward at the time that they were coming forward that's -- that's not speaking for the whole committee but that was my interpretation of why the committee recommendations took place.
one of the things that I just wanted to clarify for -- for the court and Commissioner Davis touched on the -- on the -- the budget perspective, the difficulties that we face in 2010, I would submit we are going to have even more difficult times in 2011.
that's why the committee made the recommendation, if funding were available as part of the recommendation from the committee that we do these things.
>> let me ask this question.
when will we have something bona fide as far as where we are in the preliminary budget.
when will that basically be ready for me and everybody else to look at to see the -- the -- the whole nine yards.
who --
>> the first part of June
>> [multiple voices]
>> right around the corner.
>> just right around the corner.
i would like to have an opportunity to look at that budget real close.
but there's no doubt in my mind what's coming down the road.
this type of scrutiny that took probably
>> [indiscernible] as you suggested.
i don't think the employees of Travis County are going to be upset at Commissioner Davis because of Commissioner Davis' position.
i have been very, very I think care taking as far as the needs of the employees of Travis County for a number of years.
but every once in a while you have to look at your budget and where you are.
i'm not comfortable on where we are right now.
that's why I would like to know when that budget is coming out, see what's what.
as of today I can't go along with it.
>> our attempt was to kind of give the court a briefing in conjunction with the auditor's office report on the revenue estimate.
so that will occur first part of June.
>> okay.
well, some numbers will be coming in.
you know --
>> we will have a much longer list of needs than we do list of --
>> [multiple voices]
>> the other thing is that typically we see a series of revenue projections between June and when we start markup in mid August.
so the June is that the first official revenue or second, have we gotten one already.
>> we gave you a really brief overview at the beginning of the year so you could set budget parameters.
but the first one for the general fund, general fund only will be this one coming out in June, we have that ready.
and, you know, this is a year that's very difficult to predict.
there's so many things to consider about the tax revenue, the revenue.
can you -- as we get closer, as we get better information that will be tighter.
i hope that we're concerned at the beginning and it will come up, there really is no guarantee of that.
we just need to see if we had -- if we had some really serious layoffs that -- that evaluation of the property --
>> don't say layoffs.
don't say it.
>> our concern -- the after appraised value of the property taxes with the county, that is taken care of with the effective tax rate.
whether values go up or down don't really affect the revenue that we get.
what does affect the revenue is if people do not pay their taxes and new construction.
so the value in the new construction will make a difference, we have an estimate already from the chief appraiser.
and then his what do we think in terms of people who will not pay their taxes?
you know, I --
>> probably not able to pay them.
>> what impacts that, which is why I said if we had a couple of major employers that have major layoffs, then I would say more people won't pay their taxes, I don't know that.
so it is a very complex one this year.
you know, we're not going to see a bunch of money floating in.
i mean that's a fact.
but we will have that out in June, that will be the first one that you look at, then there will be one more for the primary budget and what I'm hoping is, you know, that we always get better information as we're going on.
june 1st is the deadline for appeals.
we will know how many people appealed their taxes what that looks like.
then we will get reports from the appraisal district how many are settled out.
but we just don't have all of that information right now and this is the year unlike anything that we have ever seen before.
>> > susan, back to what you said, I'm not going to belabor the points, I'm getting a lot of input from folks in my precinct that are having to maybe getting to this -- though these programs that a tax collector have where you can pay off in time.
because there's big a big spike in a lot of folks property values.
of course the tax increase.
they are really -- really at the mercy of -- of probably programs such as the tax assessor has made available.
so I'm talking what I'm hearing out there.
>> that's right.
>> may i?
may I make one more pitch, however.
i could be tilting at windmills here, but I would like to see us -- I have a preference for establishing policy before we get into the heat of budget.
based on -- based on -- a sound principle before we actually see how much money we have or don't have.
and so -- so the motion on the floor is contingent upon affordability.
it's not blind to affordability.
it only comes into play if we can afford an increase.
i think that we all are realistic in this room that an increase in salary is highly improbable this year.
but let's don't set a policy when we do across the board increases that we adjust the pay scale or at least consider adjusting the pay scale according as a tool.
>> now was that -- was that pertaining to my motion.
>> yes.
>> [laughter]
>> can -- did I get a second?
the motion before us then is if the court grants an across the board pay increase in 2010 or thereafter, it will consider increasing the range in a like amount.
is it the range or pay range.
>> pay scale.
>> pay scale.
>> well --
>> is that okay.
>> going to set the policy and then later we'll see if it's affordable.
>> right.
>> okay.
this also convinces us each year to kind of look at it.
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> variable.
>> > any more discussion of this motion?
procedurally, are we on good terms, ms.
porter?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, goals, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> thank you.
>> now, we will have additional recommendations coming about policies soon.
when to do increases and other things.
now, let me ask a question.
when we discussed pay increases, we get complaints from those who have been green circled and those who have been red lined.
so is the committee looking at the red line issue?
>> yes.
that would be part of what we would be -- discussing in terms of just the whole structure.
i think if you indeed expand the range, as recommended.
part of the recommendation is not only to move it 2.5%, it was also to expand certain pay ranges.
so I think that the public may address some of the -- some of the issues --
>> red line issues.
>> okay.
red line people typically are the one who's have been here a long time and have maxed out grade and step wise.
>> that's correct.
>> so they are kind of out there stuck and any increase they get is limp sum rather than rolled into the base, that's what they complained about.
>> yes, uh-huh.
>> okay.
so if we increase the range for them, that means they will have more steps or more money in the steps.
>> that's correct.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> if possible that they would, of course, reduce the number of red lined employees.
with the range increase.
>> okay.
>> well, we were working on reducing the number of green circle employees and have been pretty effective.
>> yes, absolutely.
>> but have we been similarly effective in reducing the number of employees red lined.
>> we have.
because as we have brought market recommendations in to you, we have found that those positions have moved up in pay grade, which was eliminated through red line status.
>> okay.
>> so the range, I have pay grade 33 and 34.
what is the salary for a pay grade 33 and 34?
we don't have anybody in the county that's in pay grade 33 and 34 because it doesn't exist.
so what would be the pay for the pay grade 33 and 34 if we were to go ahead and approve this?
>> do we have that?
>> yes, in the pay grade 33, Commissioner, the minimum pay would be 117,000
>> [indiscernible]
>> what's the max.
>> the max would be 198,963.
and --
>> 34.
>> pay grade 34, the minimum would be 125,230.
>> what's the maximum.
>> the max would be 212,000.
>> 212,000?
>> yes.
>> okay.
so in the classified we have the one rank and file, we have no one right now in the classified that would make that kind of money in Travis County; is that correct.
>> two people that make more than that
>> [multiple voices]
>> doctors --
>> [laughter]
>> [multiple voices]
>> medical examiner's.
>> we are not talking about folks like that.
i'm talking the regular folk.
>> so the ones that make more than that, are not assigned a particular pay grade?
>> they are under 98.
>> what are they.
>> 98 category.
those that are making salaries that are beyond the class forked pay scale, appointed officials and not considered a part of the classified scale.
it's a 9800 series of category that they are placed within.
>> my question was, these two positions, these grades didn't exist before.
so that's why -- why I made the comment since they don't owe do not exist on the classified pay scale, how can anybody be making any -- those salaries --
>> speak to that.
>> they don't exist.
>> that was my point.
>> it doesn't exist.
so how can anybody make the assumption that it doesn't exist?
>> if the analysis of the existing pay scale, there was an
>> [indiscernible] current scale relative to the market to determine if it was current with the competitive market.
whatevergreen found was
>> [indiscernible] and a pay grade 32 were bumping up against the ceiling, if you will, for being able to remain competitive as we complete the market study.
so his recommendation based on the comparisons in the marketplace and where we are in terms of our current scale is take we need to lift the ceiling on the existing pay scale in order to accommodate the -- not to accommodate but also to be competitive as well as to continue to allow room to grow.
>> I guess I'm going to revert back to what I said earlier before.
wait until the budget process.
abstaining on this other one, not going to vote for this one either.
i would like to see what the money look like, where it is as far as spending is concerned.
i would like to look at that during the budget process in my opinion
>> [multiple voices]
>> may I ask a question about the structure.
adding the two levels on top doesn't only affect individuals at the high ends of our grades.
i provides room for the whole thing to move when you have somebody in the 16 after market salary survey they consider they need to be reclassed as an 18, gives you room for all of that shifting
>> [multiple voices] throughout the --
>> that is a very common occurrence with the way the county is currently conducting market studies.
it's reviewing classifications that every three years and what happens is county falls behind the market fairly substantially in that period of time, it results in fairly significant increases to the pay grades for a certain -- for certain classifications.
it's not uncommon to see classifications going up two pay grades after a market study.
as that happens, you are going to keep bumping people up through that pay scale and eventually you are going to bump up to the top very quickly.
i think that's what's going on now.
>> by adding the room at the top you are preventing crowding in the middle is that a fair statement.
>> yes.
>> I think that's a fair statement.
>> yes.
>> would it be valuable for the compensation committee to look at overall spread?
i think currently I think the -- comparing the bottom to the top I think it's about 14 times.
i think it's a factor of 14 or so.
is that something that we want to keep stable?
i guess what I'm saying is whether you say there's 38 grades but you don't use the first four or what, the real equity question in that is -- is how much of a spread is there.
is that an appropriate thing to look at?
>> it's an appropriate thing to look at.
but typically what that's going to result in is usually carving out the top of the pay scale into the separate scale is typically what happens.
i don't know if the county is ready to do that just yet.
>> not, any issues that we need to discuss today or should we await the next report?
>> I think we can wait for the next report.
it is important to note there was another recommendation by the compensation committee that was short term.
and given the discussion on budget I would like to just state that.
the compensation committee said make every effort to preserve department's currenting fund levels, no budget cuts before funding any addition to compensation.
>> okay.
we understand the spirit of that.
>> okay.
>> now, anybody here on this item who would like to briefly address the court at this time on compensation related issues?
Commissioner Eckhardt says under line briefly.
if so please come forward.
thank you all very much.
let us know when to put it back?
>> yes, sir.
>> I would recommend you put that last recommendation at the top of the list.
>> okay.
>> okay.
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, May 19, 2009 2:00 PM