In a complicated budget year, county commissioners hear advice on employee pay

On Feb. 27, the Travis County Commissioners Court convened for a marathon nine-hour voting session. The agenda was packed with diverse motions, but dollars loomed especially large on the docket.

Shortly before hearing the Travis County Planning and Budget Office’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget recommendations, the court heard a presentation from the Travis County Compensation Committee offering its recommendations for managing internal pay for the same fiscal year.

In the current era of high inflation, the county is adjusting to its new aggressive telework policy, and county departments are digesting the results of a top-to-bottom strategic review of internal compensation practices conducted by human resources consulting firm Segal – which was not without hiccups. Given that, and given other challenging spending items before the court that day, Compensation Committee Chair Victoria Ramirez walked the court through their recommendations with delicate footing.

The committee divided their recommendations into two parts. “Part A” entailed a recommendation for across-the-board cost-of-living pay increases, as well as implementation of the Segal study’s strategic recommendations, all of which the Compensation Committee supported – “for example, the market salary survey, and expansion of career ladders into on more job families.”

While Ramirez acknowledged some internal reticence on certain recommendations of the study – “Jobs and job families within the offices and departments they represent” – they emphasize that the project is ongoing, and that they wholeheartedly support implementing Segal’s recommendations.

Commissioners questioned whether implementing universal pay increases and the consulting group’s recommendations might conflict, receiving a confused response.

On March 5, Hector Nieto, county public information director, confirmed that no county employee would take a pay cut as a result of the Segal study, though adjustment of pay ranges for job classes may affect hiring in the future.

In “Part B” of their recommendations, the committee recommended taking action on five items beyond the scope of the Segal study, focusing on three chosen by ranked choice vote.

The committee’s primary directive under Part B was to increase the flat rate of longevity pay to ensure that tenured employees within lower pay grades receive a meaningful and comparative increase.

Second was instituting a permanent leave buyback program for all classified employees, which would be capped at 40 hours per year. The committee ensured the court that they did not intend to dissuade vacation.

Third, the committee picked up the initiative to consider incentives for employees ineligible for telework, considering both the comparative hidden costs of these roles and recent difficulties recruiting and retaining for these positions. Commissioners were especially supportive of this effort.

“It is one of the things that we asked our consultant Deloitte to look at,” said Commissioner Brigid Shea, “and I don’t recall that we got clear recommendations back.”

Commissioner Jeff Travillion encouraged the committee to consider the importance of forms of compensation beyond wages.

“You know when we talk about compensation, we are usually talking about dollars. But (as) somebody who worked up from an intern to a director, (it) was really important to be able to know the type of training that was going to make me good at what I did – was going to prepare me for what is next. You know, as a front-line employee, what certifications do I need, what education do I need, what experience do I need? And then, what gets me to a more senior level? What are the levels of supervision that are necessary?

“Sometimes I think when we only address compensation, we miss real opportunities to grow our staff and grow our organization. So I’m wondering whether you feel that we have incorporated that in enough, or should we look to include some of that type of discussion as we move forward?”

Photo by Larry D. Moore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.