MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AUGUST 4, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Planning and Direction for the Job Evaluation Team..
Philosophy and Goals of the Johnson County Pay Plan and External Equity Study of Comparable Entities
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:37 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Shramek replied that the members of the Job Evaluation Team (JET) are at the meeting to receive direction from the Board. She said the first item is in regards to the pay philosophy and the goals of the new County pay plan for non bargaining employees. A pay philosophy should attract, retain, and motivate good people. She said JET needs direction from the Board regarding where the Board would like to see the County relative to the market.
Shramek said there are many different options that the Board could take a look at. The Board could look at percentages, such as if the Board wanted it to be 25% of market, 50% of market, or 75% of market. The Board could direct JET to have the County lead, meet, or exceed market. The Board could say that market has nothing to do with it whatsoever, or it could be purely market based.
Shramek said another philosophy would be to look at the Iowa State Association of Counties (ISAC) population rankings. Johnson County is number four after the census, but technically number five today. Then, the Board needs to give direction on how that philosophy will fit into the County budget. She said the Board may want to pay employees by leading the market, but the question is if the County budget can afford it. She asked how benefits will factor in. She asked if the Board will be taking a look at a total compensation package or just purely for the hourly or biweekly rates. That is the first item that JET needs direction on.
Stutsman asked if JET talked about this at all. Shramek said no. She said the focus of JET has been internal equity. Stutsman said OK. Rettig asked Shramek to define the term market. Shramek said the Board would actually define what the market is. Rettig said, in the salary survey, there was a market defined as seven comparisons. Shramek said she thought there were about ten comparables. Rettig said, for the Supervisors’ own salaries, for the elected officials’ salaries, the market is defined as population. She said the County wants to pay around 4th in all the other counties for elected officials. The County has defined that in elected officials’ presentations and is a part of the discussion in the Compensation Board. She thinks the first question is what the market is. She asked if the market is counties or are there comparisons with some that are not counties, such as cities, private industries, or universities. Shramek said another option is taking a look at the six counties that are used for bargaining positions. This list includes Johnson County, so there are five other counties. These other five are Linn County, Blackhawk County, Dubuque County, Scott County, and Clinton County.
Stutsman asked Shramek if there are advantages of one system over another when going into collective bargaining. She asked if the County would be better to use the six counties and if these would give Shramek a better position when going into the bargaining table. Shramek replied that way the County would be comparing apples to apples. Stutsman said OK, because the County would be compared to other counties then. Rettig asked if the six county market is defined by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). She asked who decides if that is the market.
Shramek said the union and the County have agreed over the years of bargaining that would be considered the comparability group. Starting back in arbitrations, when there was an argument about who the union wanted included, then over the years the two groups have agreed to agree on those six counties. Rettig said there are six counties, which includes Johnson County and five others. She asked if the other counties in that list define Johnson County as in their market too. She asked if Shramek knows what those other five counties do. Shramek said they are all just a little bit different. Stutsman asked Shramek if she could list the counties again. Shramek said the five counties are Linn County, Blackhawk County, Scott County, Dubuque County, and Clinton County. Stutsman said those are all counties on the eastern part of the state. She said the County does not compare with Story County or Polk County. Shramek said yes, some are larger and some are smaller than Johnson County.
Shramek said JET has also talked about ISAC. The County could take a look at the top ten counties in ISAC. The top ten are Polk County, Linn County, Scott County, Blackhawk County, Johnson County, Woodbury County, Dubuque County, Pottawattamie County, Story County, and Dallas County. She said there is some merit with that methodology as well because JET included Dallas County with the job evaluation salary study. Dallas County has the only other county government run ambulance service in the state of Iowa. Rettig said the top ten is a population list, other than the fact that Blackhawk County and Johnson County have flipped. Shramek said as Rettig indicated, JET could take a look at the metropolitan area. This could include the City of Iowa City, the corridor, the City of Cedar Rapids, the City of Coralville, the City of North Liberty, and private industry. She said market could mean whatever the Board defines it as.
Sullivan said it is important to throw out the fact that the Board can define the term market however the Board wants. Realistically, the market is what it is when someone is being hired. It depends on the open position, who is out there and who needs jobs. That is ever changing. The County is never going to have a system that captures the moment because things change. It is important for the Board to understand that it was hard to hire Sheriff’s Deputies in 2001, and it might be really easy to hire Sheriff’s Deputies in 2020. It will be everything in between. The County cannot figure it out. Shramek said the County recruits regionally or nationally for some of the positions and others just locally. It depends on the position.
Stutsman asked if the County has had problems filling positions. She asked if the recruitment pool or hiring pool has been pretty good. She said she is asking if the County’s wages having an impact on people applying for County jobs. Shramek said the County has not had a problem recruiting for the various positions, especially in this economy. Stutsman said she will take that into consideration as the economy is down.
Rettig said she could argue a number of ways here, but this is a joint meeting, despite the fact that everyone else is in the back of the room. She is curious to know if anyone else has thoughts. She said she could argue that the Board should define market based on population, or could argue that the Board should include some cities, the University of Iowa, and a private sector entity or two. She could argue that she wants a pool of 20 possible comparables and to have at least 10 to have responded. This would give some sort of mix. There are a lot of different ways she could argue it. Part of the problem is, if cities, universities, or the private sector are included, then these entities are not going to have the same jobs as the County. So, part of that is if there is a pool. Here are 20 possible people that could be in the comparison set for this, or what the County is defining as market, and in any survey of that market, the Board wants at least over a 50% response from that pool, then the JET will get a mixture.
Rettig said JET will get a different mixture from one job over another, which is part of the problem. She said this is a rambling way of saying that she does not know where she is headed on this. She said for the sake of an example, she defines her market as the top six counties in the state. This is what is done with elected officials and pretty close to what is done with the unions. She asked how does she account for the fact that there is a difference in urban areas on what jobs are difficult to fill in a certain area and what jobs are not difficult to fill. If there is an overabundance of writers in the region, there may not be an overabundance of creative class people in other regions, so then those areas may have to pay more than Johnson County does. She does not understand how the County will mathematically compensate for that. She said she is in a quandary on the whole thing.
Shramek said back in 1999 the County was having problems with the Information Technology area. At that time, the County was not paying market wages, there was a lot of turnover, and they had trouble retaining good people. Therefore, the County did a market adjustment at that time. Stutsman said it is such a fluid system too though. There was a lot of demand then, but times have changed.
Sullivan said that is what he was getting at. He said he likes the idea of using the counties that have been agreed upon for the bargaining unit. The reason is simple. This list holds up in court. Nobody can argue that it is unfair or different than what the unionized people are dealing with already. It is established, it does include two counties bigger than Johnson County, one the exact same size, and two smaller. They are all within a drive from Johnson County. Stutsman said these all have urban areas too. She said it is not like Johnson County is comparing itself to Union County.
Rettig said the weird one in the group of six is Clinton County, which has virtually nothing in common with the other counties in the group. She said it seems like just a thrown in one. Dallas County would be a better example. Neuzil suggested Story County. Stutsman said Story County has a university. Sullivan said Story County would give Johnson County a lot of good comparisons, but the problem is that it is not in this group for the 200 people that negotiated a wage. For the sake of consistency, there is a lot to be said for just accepting the group of six as Johnson County’s comparables. Neuzil said he agrees with Sullivan but also agrees that someone should look into swapping out Clinton County for Story County consistently for everybody. Stutsman asked why the Board cannot just do that and make that the recommendation.
Rettig said Medical Examiner Administrator Mike Hensch wants to be part of the joint meeting. Hensch said a rational way to look at it would be to stay with other governmental entities. He said the pool that JET is looking at is those people that have the skill set of working in government. He said the comparability group would want to stay in the eastern part of the state and would want to stay in metropolitan-like populated areas. Of the top ten counties in the 2009 census, five are in eastern Iowa and are in similar population with a couple above and a couple below Johnson County. If JET would look at municipal governments, the two that are closest to Johnson County in size, Cedar Rapids and Davenport, are also on the east side of the state and also have similar populations. Adding these would help diversify the pool a little bit. These municipalities are geographically similarly located, have similar populations, and are also in metropolitan areas. These two cities are Cedar Rapids and Davenport.
Stutsman said she is missing the fifth county, out of the top ten, that Hensch proposed. Hensch said the counties in eastern Iowa are Linn County, Scott County, Johnson County, Blackhawk County, and Dubuque County. Stutsman said OK. Hensch said Linn County is number two in population, Scott County is number three in population, Johnson County is number four in population, Blackhawk County is number five in population, and Dubuque County is number seven. Stutsman said OK, she did not include Johnson County in that group of five.
Sullivan said the problem he has with that is that the cities are doing different jobs. The thing that the County runs into is that the job descriptions do not match. He said the police chief of the City of Dubuque does not have to operate a jail, like the County Sheriff does. This is not quite the same as bringing in the Dubuque County Sheriff because that person basically has the exact same job. Counties can be organized somewhat differently, but there are problems when the comparables go outside of County government, consistency wise. Hensch said the cities would offer fewer comparables for job descriptions, but there would be some that are very similar, such as Information Technology professionals and Building Inspectors. He said there would be some that would help diversify the range, but clearly there are going to be some that do not match up so well. He thinks JET would get a little more diversity on sums that match up. A parks department and County Conservation will probably be pretty close in job description matches, so there would be some areas that are good and obvious ones that would not fit at all.
Rettig said Johnson County even has trouble comparing itself to other counties, for example. This is because the County has an Ambulance Service. Johnson County does things that other counties in the comparison set do not even do. She said her rambling before was to say that the County would dilute the pool if the County does not have enough comparison. If there are 100 jobs that the County is looking for some sort of comparison, and the Board throws in cities, the University, or private industry, then they are only going to match up with Johnson County for 30 of those jobs. Some areas there are really good comparisons, and other areas there are weak comparisons. She asked if this would dilute the effectiveness or accuracy of the salary survey. She said she does not know the answer to that. Hensch said if counties are only chosen, then the difficulty is that there may not be enough data points to establish some good external pay equity plan without expanding the pool to get those data points from. This is one of the difficulties because of a smaller and more rural state. If they stick with just counties, the difficulty would be in finding enough comparables. Then the County might end up right where it is right now, with not enough comparables.
Harney asked if JET put any consideration or thought into comparing the County to the University of Iowa. The University has a larger pool, but at the same time, there is the same cost of living in this area. Hensch said, without thinking about the question a lot, the only difficulty he sees is that some of the State of Iowa and University pay ranges are so broad which would almost add no value to the study. Their pay ranges sometimes look like 50% and 60%. He said he is not sure what to do with that information. The same job goes from very low to very high. He said he does not know that that adds much. It is certainly something that the JET would need to look at and analyze. This is the difficulty that JET saw for some of the data submitted from the State and from the University.
Stutsman asked if Shramek has anything to add to that response. Shramek said some of the salaries were actually doubled at the University. She said the ten entities that were used for the initial study included Blackhawk County, Clinton County, Dallas County, Linn County, Scott County, Story County, the City of Cedar Rapids, the City of Coralville, the City of Iowa City, and the State of Iowa.
Sullivan said there is another piece that is worth mentioning. The State of Iowa is having a lot of difficulty in balancing their budget. Some of the cities are having difficulty in balancing their budget. He said Polk County has had a very difficult time balancing their budget. He asked if the Board wants to compare the County to entities that cannot balance their budgets. Harney said when he mentioned the University of Iowa, he was not necessarily talking about the State of Iowa. He said that could mean anywhere in the state. Sullivan said no, but it is something the Board needs to consider. Stutsman said the Board also needs to consider the benefit packages. University of Iowa employees pay a whole lot more for insurance than what the County employees pay. She said there is a higher expense for parking also at the University of Iowa. She said not everybody will pay for parking, but there are other things to take into consideration. There is no perfect solution; there is no perfect way. A person could knock holes in any comparability group. The Board is going to have to go with what the Board thinks is going to provide the best information.
Neuzil said adding the counties that are currently used for collective bargaining makes sense. Adding some additional cities should be reviewed, in part, because of that situation. It may be done on a particular per department basis. If the County cannot find a certain comparability or compatibility with those six different county entities, then the list will have to be expanded a little bit. That may be an approach to consider. Rettig said this is why she said there is a pool, the list the Board wants to use, and in order to consider the data, there must be a certain amount of comparisons from the list. That is one way to do it. There will never be comparisons from the entire list, but the Board can require at least a certain number of comparables from the list.
Sullivan said the problem with that is that the employees will cherry pick the six highest. Neuzil said the solution is to have a base first. In other words, there are the six counties, and if a comparable cannot be found in the six, then there would be the following options for other entities, such as the City of Iowa City. Sullivan said yes, he could be up for something like that. The Board should focus on that. He said that is what is done for union negotiations as well. Neuzil asked Shramek if other entities are added during union negotiations if there is no comparable. Shramek said the negotiations generally do not get that far.
Harney said if these were negotiated, then the Board is obligated to look at those specific counties that Human Resources has already agreed with unions to make comparables with. He thinks the biggest question for the Board is looking at those and figuring out where the Board wants the County to fall in comparison with those counties as a whole. He asked if the Board wants the County to be in the upper portion, the top, somewhere in the middle, or above the middle. Sullivan said first the Board needs to decide what the comparable group is, and then where the Board wants the County to fall in it.
Stutsman said she is okay with the six counties that are used for the union negotiations. She said she is kind of lukewarm about the idea of including cities for some and not for others. She said she thinks the Board needs to be as consistent as possible when comparing. If it is limited to the six counties, then the comparables are pretty consistent. She said she thinks job comparables will be found in those six. Neuzil asked if Stutsman would be amenable to the idea of adding additional counties if those six are not eligible for a position. Maybe there is a pool of two or three other counties to draw in to. Stutsman said right, as an alternative. Harney said that Dallas County was mentioned.
Rettig asked Hensch how many counties have a medical examiner office. Hensch said every county has a medical examiners department, but the ones that are full time are Polk County and Johnson County. Muscatine County and Dubuque County might have full time or part time. Rettig said if the Board went with the list of six, then there would really not be a comparison. Hensch replied that the true comparable for medical examiner by volume and caseload is Polk County, so there would not be a comparable with the six. Sullivan said the Board expects there will be a couple things that do not quite match up, as is with union negotiations. The important thing is that it does match up on 90% of it.
Stutsman asked if the Board is in agreement. Harney said there was a question about whether Clinton County should be replaced with something like Dallas County. He asked what basis the Board has for suggesting Dallas County and how they fit into the southeast Iowa levels. Hensch said Dallas County is number ten in population, and Clinton County is not even in the top ten. Rettig said Dallas County or Story County. Harney said cost of living has nothing to do with it. Shramek said Dallas County continues to grow. Stutsman said Dallas County has a lot of the same issues that Johnson County has.
Rettig said she thinks the six is a really limited list. She said the County did not get enough responses out of the comparables that included the City of Coralville, the City of Cedar Rapids, the City of Iowa City, and the State of Iowa. She said the six is pretty limited. There has got to be a better way. Neuzil said it calls to question on what direction the Board wants to give.
Stutsman said Sullivan and her are pretty much in agreement with the six comparables. Sullivan said he would like to use those six and then, in the very rare occasion when there is no comparable, then something else needs to be done. Harney said he would like to add Dallas County. Stutsman asked if Harney wants to add it in addition to the other six or instead of Clinton County. Harney said either way. Neuzil said he is comfortable with the position of Stutsman and Sullivan. If the comparability is kept with the six, and if there is a particular area where information cannot be drawn from the six, then maybe the JET could bring some recommendation if another comparable needs to be added. Stutsman said it sounds like the majority of the Board agrees with that. She asked if any other comments or discussions need to be made about that.
Sullivan said he thinks there is another related piece that Harney brought up. There is a group, where does the County fall within the group. He asked if the County is going to lead it, be at the end of it, or be in the middle. Neuzil asked what is done with the unions right now. Shramek said it varies. Generally, the County likes to be in the upper half, which is first, second, or third. Stutsman said that sounds good. Neuzil said it seems reasonable to him. By looking at the list of six, the County is in the top three. Sullivan said it is also consistent with what is done with all employees in the County. He said that is what Human Resources staff is shooting for with the union contracts, it makes sense to shoot for it with the salary survey.
Information Technology Director Jean Schultz asked if the Board wants to consider the fact or wants to say that the Board does think about the fact that the cost of living is higher. She said she did send the Board some data which shows that. Sullivan said, speaking only for himself, that to him the cost of living does not matter at all. His reason is that people make choices. People make choices on where they are going to live and where they are going to work. Yes, housing costs more in Johnson County, but look at some of the things that a person gets in the County. There are six of the ten best school districts in the county. There is the University of Iowa, where there is access to cultural stuff and the University Hospital. There is the Veterans Administration Hospital. There are Hawkeye athletics that people love. A resident pays to be here, but gets a lot for living here too. So, he has always felt like the County is not going to make anyone take a job because it is their option to work wherever they want. It is worth it to live here, which is why Sullivan makes that choice. He said he feels like everybody has a similar choice that they make or do not make.
Stutsman said the Board has never taken the cost of living range, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) range, when doing negotiations. She said the County has always been way above that. Now, there is literally no inflation. Inflation could be at 1.8%, but the County is still at 2.5% or 2.75% for wage increases. It is the opposite too. She said Schultz is talking about living expenses in Johnson County, not so much the cost of living. Shramek said according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Schultz said she was just saying that the Board might want to consider that when deciding whether the Board wants the County to be first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth. Stutsman said that upper half reflects that. Sheriff’s Major Steve Dolezal said one of the discussions that JET had was when people would come in and discuss cost of living, then should the group take into account the fact that the employee lives in Ainsworth and discredit their cost of living. To go along with Sullivan, that was not going be taken as a consideration in the group. Part of the thinking was to look at where the employee lives. The cost of living in Ainsworth is less than living in North Liberty or Iowa City. Schultz said she thinks a lot of times it balances out because people have the expense of gas plus their time. So, the decision is probably a good one.
Rettig asked Shramek, when the consultants were hired and the contract was written, if the Board asked the consultants to consider the cost of living. When the gentleman made his report at the Health and Human Services Building, he said he had built that into his analysis. Shramek replied that she would have to go back and reread the request for proposal (RFP). She said she was not on that committee. She asked if Human Resources Coordinator Vanessa Wierman recalls the answer. Wierman said she believes that the consultant said they would look at the wages in this area. She said she did not know what their exact phrase was. She said she really could not tell the Board without looking at the contract.
Rettig said she has to disagree. She thinks the cost of living in Johnson County does matter. It does not matter whether a person chooses to live in Johnson County or not, a person should be paid a salary that means that person can live here. People make another choice to live in Bettendorf, Iowa and give up two hours of their day and quality of life to drive back and forth, then that is their choice. It is important for the County to be competitive in hiring and keeping good employees and that they are paid fairly based on what it costs to live in Johnson County. She said the County does not have to say that an employee does not get something because they live in Washington County, but people should be paid according to the market here. The market in Johnson County is much different than the market in any of the other counties, because this is the home of the University of Iowa. Whether that is good, bad, or indifferent, then she does not want to make it where people have to make a choice about where they want to work because the County is not paying fairly according to the market set. Harney said that is one of the things that he was going to ask for. When a recommendation or study was done about the comparables, he would like to have a breakdown of the cost of living in these comparables counties and surrounding counties and cities. Then, the Board should make a decision about where the County should fall within that.
Stutsman asked what the cost of living is going to be based on. She asked if it is going to be based on the ability to pay $1,500 a month for rent or on the ability to shop at Von Maur instead of Target. Rettig said the Federal government has a mathematical figure on their website that shows the cost of living percentage wise, where the County would rank in their urban population, compared to other urban populations across Iowa. Stutsman said she feels that is addressed by saying that the Board wants the County to be in the upper half of the six comparables. Neuzil said that is how he sees it too. As long as the County is striving to be in the top three, then it addresses that. If the Board is going to take into account the cost of living, then the Board has to make the requirement that the employees must live in Johnson County. Harney said he is not looking at what it costs to go to the theater or to do something else, but the cost to buy a loaf of bread or groceries here compared to the surrounding counties.
Schultz said she did send out a spreadsheet on August 3, 2010. She said she had looked up on the web and found the cost of living comparison and buying power. There were two worksheets. One said that if a person made $50,000 in Johnson County, what that person would need to make in the other top ten counties. Likewise, if a person made a certain amount in those counties, what that person would need to make in the City of Iowa City.
Stutsman said she agrees with Neuzil. If the County is going to pay top dollar based on cost of living, then that employee needs to live in Johnson County. Sullivan said the cost of living matters when talking about how far a social security check will go or how far minimum wage will go. He said the County average hourly wage is $25 per hour. He said a person could live in any of these counties for $25 an hour. The lowest the County pays anyone is $13 per hour, not counting poll workers. He said his point is that this is a legitimate argument at the lowest end of the economic spectrum. The County does not have a single employee at the lowest end of the economic spectrum, which he is proud of. He said he does not want the County to have that. He said, to him, it is not an argument. He said the people that are being talked about are professionals, and are making a decent living, and have choices.
Stutsman said it sounds like there are three Board members that are OK with the six and the top half. Rettig said she is not one of them. Stutsman said she knew that and Harney is not either. Harney said Stutsman said top half. He said she was talking about the top three, which would be the top quarter. He said he still would like to see what it is going to cost to buy groceries in Johnson County, as compared to elsewhere. He said he is not saying he would want to judge by or justify that, but he wants to see it when he makes the decision.
Shramek said the problem is that there are not comparisons between counties, but comparisons between cities. There are many cities within the county. She said they could use the county seat or largest city. It gets kind of difficult to get into those comparisons. Rettig said that is why she is opposed to the six counties. She said she does not think Johnson County has anything in common with five of the counties, other than Linn County. Scott County could be argued, but there are significant amounts of rundown economy in Scott County. She finds the list to be disingenuous about where Johnson County is in a growing county.
Sullivan said this list is already being used every single year. Rettig said she thinks it is the wrong list to use. Sullivan asked Rettig how the County should negotiate the other wages then. Rettig said by using something that is more reflective of what the market actually is here. Sullivan said the County is not losing people. The County does not have people quitting to take other jobs. When a job is advertised, the County gets 70 qualified applicants. He said he is not sure what the market is that Rettig is referring to. Stutsman said okay. Sullivan said the Board could argue this forever. Stutsman said right now there are three Board members that want to go ahead.
Shramek asked if there are a minimum number of comparables for each position, such as whether the Board wants a minimum of at least two or at least three when the Board was looking outside of the six, in the alternate pool. Sullivan asked what Shramek does with the union employees. Shramek said if there are not enough, then it is based on the internal comparison. Sullivan asked what enough is for the union. Shramek said Human Resources staff tries to go for two comparables. Sullivan said if there are two out of the six, then it is considered to be enough. Rettig said it is not two out of six, because there are only five. Sullivan said Shramek considers two out of five as enough. Rettig said the Board already knows they are not going to get that minimum. This is because Johnson County has jobs the other counties do not have. Shramek said right, so the County would need the alternate possibility on some of them. Neuzil said it comes back to what the alternate should be. He said he is hearing that at least three of the Board members suggested that the alternates should be county governments, not necessarily adding cities to the list. Stutsman said it seems like Dallas County is one. Neuzil said Dallas County and Story County seemed to be two.
Sullivan said it makes a lot of sense that if the rule of having two comparables is used for the bargaining units, then the County should use the rule of having two for the non-bargaining. Stutsman said she would agree with that too. Rettig said that neither Dallas County, nor Story County helps with the problems of the Medical Examiner Department. It did help the Ambulance problem because Dallas County runs an ambulance service. Shramek said there is Dubuque County for a medical examiner but the preference would be Polk County.
Neuzil said there are going to be certain situations where Johnson County has chosen to be a leader in the state of creating a position that maybe other counties have not yet caught up with Johnson County yet. He said Johnson County is unique in having a Medical Examiner Administrator. Johnson County is really lucky to have Hensch. Stutsman agreed.
Sullivan said he would like to throw out one thing that was mentioned earlier. He said the Board just buzzed by it, but he likes the idea. He said he worked for the State of Iowa for awhile. Every year the employees got a document that showed their compensation. It was about double of what he was paid. This document had a figure of his total compensation, and then broke it down into health insurance, life insurance, and took all of that out of the total pay. He said he thinks doing something like that for County employees would be very beneficial because it would show what it actually costs to have a County employee. Stutsman said the County did that. She said she does not know why the County still is not doing that.
Shramek said the County used to have County benefits statements that included the value of all of those benefits, in addition to the compensation. She said Human Resources has actually put in a work order and is working with Information Technology to get that up and running in the Government Employees Management System (GEMS). Stutsman said this was eye opening for some people. She said there were people that complained about their salary, but then they looked at their health insurance package. Sullivan said it helps elected officials and department heads in terms of planning when they want to add a new employee. They say that they want to add a clerk and that it will be $30,000, but it is not actually $30,000 but it is $48,000.
Stutsman asked Shramek if she is working on getting that in place again. Shramek said that she has just calculated the value of the County benefits for Iowa Counties Public Health Association (ICPHA) Executive Director Graham Dameron. The percentage is a lot higher than people realize.
Schultz said that the process has been started, but the group is going to need more guidance, as far as exactly what it needs to look like. She said they are kind of on hold at this point. Stutsman asked if there is anything else to include with the health insurance and the life insurance. Shramek said she has provided a list with a whole laundry list of items.
Shramek asked if the Board wants to talk about the merit scale in relation to the longevity bonus at this time. Neuzil said he would like to know what the status is on that. He asked if the County will be adding additional employees to the system. He said the Board had talked a little bit about some of the other departments. He asked if they need to be incorporated into the study. Shramek said she presented it to some of the elected officials. She said they wanted to see it up and running first.
Shramek said Harney had some concerns about the longevity bonus. Harney said he was going to bring it up. When this was first discussed, the Board told everyone that their longevity was going to be moved into their base pay. In that case, nobody would be losing anything. In this instance, the Board is taking it away and not replacing it with anything. Yet, some of the departments are continuing longevity. He said he wants to be fair to everybody. If the Board is going to do merit, then he would like to hold the Board’s word and add the longevity into their base pay.
Neuzil said he is of the opinion that the Board is phasing out longevity and replacing it with merit. The County is not going to have the situation where individuals get both. He asked if there are situations now where an employee can get both a merit increase and longevity. If there are, then the Board needs to address those first. Shramek said that is how the current system is built. There are both. The Board would need to formally vote to eliminate the longevity bonus structure. Neuzil said the Board has not funded it. Shramek said that is effective of July 1, 2010. Sullivan said not everyone is a member of the pay plan. He said Sheriff still has it, for example. Neuzil said the Sheriff’s Office does not have a merit system that also has longevity. He said it seems to him that there should be one or the other but not both. Stutsman said yes. Shramek said the Sheriff’s Office has its own pay plan.
Rettig asked if the Board would vote to get rid of longevity, then what offices would still be using both or would be using longevity. She asked if this would be all of the elected officials’ offices. Neuzil said it would be the administrative deputies. Shramek said everyone that is non-bargaining, except for part of the County Attorney’s Office, would still by under this plan. Sullivan said and the Board’s Office. Rettig said the non-bargaining of the County Attorney’s Office would follow the new pay plan, but the County Sheriff, County Treasurer, County Recorder, and County Auditor would not. Neuzil said just their administrative deputies. Sullivan said everyone else in their offices would be in the bargaining unit. Neuzil said the only non bargaining employees receiving longevity would be administrative deputies and the Sheriff’s Office personnel. He asked if everyone else is covered.
Shramek said County Attorney Janet Lyness could have her own pay plan if she wanted to. Stutsman asked what Conservation and Public Health would be. Neuzil said there were issues with administrative deputies and the Board’s legal capabilities. He said that needs to be researched a little bit. The Board fought really hard to get them longevity pay. He said he does not want to take that away if the Board cannot give them the ability to have merit. The same thing goes with the Sheriff’s Office. There needs to be some direction from County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek in regards to what kind of direction he would like to see. He said Dolezal can comment on that question.
Dolezal said the problem is that, by code, the Sheriff’s Office administrative deputies are pushed up against a ceiling to the Sheriff. He said the administrative deputies can be within a 15% margin of the Sheriff. By code, the pay can be no closer. If the County goes to a merit based system, then that is not allowed by code. He said longevity pay is allowed by code. If longevity pay is taken away and replaced with merit, then the Sheriff’s Office administrative deputies cannot accept it because it violates the code. He said they can accept longevity pay, which is written into the code. Neuzil said that might be something the Board needs to communicate if the Board wants some legislative changes on either side of it, if that is an issue the Board wants to pursue or if that is an issue the Sheriff’s Office wants the Board to pursue.
Dolezal said one issue that has been discussed in the past and has always been an issue amongst elected officials, is that the deputies can only get so close to the elected official by code. That ceiling is always pushed there. He said there is a continued compression from below that pushes up. One example is that when the elected officials had a 1.5% increase and the unions had a 2.75% increase, then the union employees salaries push up closer to the sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. Neuzil said he knows that the Sheriff’s Office has been consistently at number six as far as the Sheriff’s pay. Dolezal said that is outside the Board. That is the responsibility of the Compensation Board. Neuzil said but that compacts everything too.
Stutsman said she wishes the County could move to a system where there are no more administrative deputies. She said it is an archaic system. Dolezal said part of the issue with the Sheriff’s Office is that it affects retirement benefits because these employees are under the designation of deputies and sheriffs in Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS). In theory, the Sheriff could say that he is going to make a deputy into a civilian employee. Then, that person falls out of the category titled deputies and sheriffs in IPERS and into the regular class. Sullivan said he recalls that the person that serves as Jail Administrator in Polk County makes more than the Polk County Sheriff. He asked if that’s right. Dolezal said there are situations where those positions are not sworn personnel. Sullivan said yes.
Stutsman asked if the Board wants to make any changes to longevity than what the Board has already moved towards. Neuzil asked if the Board has funded enough longevity. Johnson said the Board has not voted on longevity yet. Stutsman said okay. Neuzil said he thinks the Board funded longevity for the administrative deputies and Sheriff’s Office. Shramek said and for everyone else one last time. She said this will be their final payment. Neuzil said yes, they fall off starting January 1, 2011. Sullivan said that was his understanding. There was a final payment and the County is moving to merit. Neuzil said that he kind of thought that too. Shramek said the Board needs to vote on that in a Formal Meeting.
Rettig said she was not on the Board when that decision was made, but she was in the audience. She said she does recall a conversation about how longevity would be built into their salary scale because there were some Board members who wanted to make a merit increase have more in the pot, others who wanted 5% instead of 3%, and others who said no. She said when it was decided that it would not have more in the pot, then it was decided to roll-in the longevity into the salary scale so that it would stay at that height. Sullivan said the problem with that was when the Board got the salary scale, there was some debate about whether it was included or not. The big difference is if a person is a 37 year employee, then their longevity did not get reflected. If a person is a one year employee, then it is better than what that person would have had. He said it is somewhere in the middle. He said he does not know exactly where. The Board could not actually get data that showed where it is. There are going to be winners and losers when making the move. Neuzil asked if this is added to the salary, if it would have an impact on where everyone falls, such as the red circled or green circled employees. Shramek said it would make everyone who is eligible that much higher.
Stutsman said she thought part of the reason for the salary survey was to get salaries with comparability where it needed to be increased, and that was going to take care of the longevity. Then, the County would no longer need longevity because salaries were going to be very comparable. Longevity was adopted 20 or more years ago because County salaries were very low. That was a way for the Board to compensate employees for being long term. She said there was not even a salary survey, pay scale, or pay range at that time. There was nothing like that. So, that was one way the Board could compensate people. She said the County has moved way beyond that, in her opinion, as it should be. She said the County has a good salary system in place. Longevity has run its course. It should no longer be considered as a part of the compensation.
Neuzil said the majority of the Board made the decision that this is the last year of longevity pay. The question is, is this included in their salary or not. Harney said he agreed to do away with longevity, provided that it was being rolled back into their salaries. If an employee is getting $500 a year and it goes into his salary, then that person retires in a couple years, it is gone. The other people may be getting lesser, are going to have room to build up in their pay range, but at the same time those people are not losing anything in their pay scale. Stutsman said she thought the County was switching over to merit. She said that is where it was going to show.
Sullivan said the County cannot do it. He said most of the Environmental Health Specialists have been employed at the County for less than seven years, but one person has been there for almost 35 years. He said there is no way that the Board can roll longevity into that position, where everyone is treated the same. They cannot be. One person has to be a loser there. Rettig said, if the tape was rolled back to the discussion about this during the fall of 2009, then the Board will find that it was said that longevity will be rolled in. Sullivan said it is rolled in, but it affects different people differently. He said it cannot be rolled in on an individual basis, but it has to be rolled in on a collective basis.
Shramek asked if the Board would want to roll it into the position or the individual employee. She said if the Board wanted, wherever everyone is at right now can be added to their base salary. This is going to cost the Board a lot more in the long run, than just the one time payment every year. Stutsman said yes, because it is going to cumulative. Sullivan said every raise that person gets then includes that amount. Shramek said it is important to note that, out of the six in the comparability group, half have longevity and the other half do not. The trend is to get away from longevity.
Neuzil asked what the direction is. Stutsman said she is OK with what the Board had agreed on, which is doing away with longevity, keeping the salary survey, and moving from there by putting in a merit-based system. Shramek said the topic needs to be put on the agenda for a Formal Meeting then.
Rettig said Stutsman said increasing the merit, but the Board is not increasing the merit pool at all. Stutsman asked if the Board raised it. Shramek said it is at 3% and it was at 3%. Sullivan said that is the same as it was. Rettig said, during that meeting, Stutsman argued to increase it, but was outvoted. Stutsman said right, but she still says that it should be higher. Sullivan said he is comfortable with this being the last longevity and leaving it at that. It should be merit after that.
Neuzil said there is the question of putting it into the salaries though. He asked where the Board is with that. Sullivan said that has been done to some extent. Harney said the Board cannot say it has been done because some employees are being redlined. Sullivan said he picks on Environmental Health because it is a good example. There is one person who is maxing out their longevity. There is no way that one long term Environmental Health Specialist employee can be made whole when the Board considers that the other Environmental Health Specialists have only been there a short time. The job is looked at as a position and not individually. Harney said that is already being done with a redlined employee. They cannot get a merit raise.
Rettig said she is not arguing Stutsman’s point of view, but Rettig remembers what Stutsman said. She said that is the exact reason that Stutsman argued to take the longevity pay and merit pay together. Then, the percentage of merit pay is raised that a person could possibly get. This was proposed because then nothing was actually being cut, it was being moved from one pot to increase the other pot, in order to offset it. Stutsman said people would not be compensated for how long they worked for the County, but for the job that they do at the County.
Neuzil said the Board also anticipated that the current merit that is budgeted for, around $85,000, may need to be bumped up. He thinks that possibility is in the back of the Board members’ heads. He is not interested in making one the same as the other, and has not from the beginning. Sullivan said these decisions have huge budgetary impacts. He said this is not just a little issue of giving him this or her that. The chicken will come home to roost in November 2010, when the Board is looking at what is available to fill positions. Stutsman said she thought that was what this whole process was about. For the Board to do the salary survey at the same time and acknowledge that there was going to be some changes to longevity pay, but the Board was going to make sure that County salaries were comparable and find where changes were needed.
Mental Health/Disability Services Financial and Statistical Advisor Deb Guard said she would like to play devil’s advocate for a bit on this longevity issue. There are still bargaining units that are getting their longevity for at least the next couple years. Then, there are other people that are on the non-bargaining pay play and not getting their longevity. Now, the salary total package amounts are crawling up on people who are being supervised. So, there are supervisors whose amounts are compressing down and not really up. They are not making a wide enough bridge on the difference in total compensation.
Guard said the other thing to consider is that she personally thinks merit would be a more expensive way of acknowledging this because the amount of merit is compounded every year. The cost of living adjustment (COLA) is going to back up on that, where it would not with longevity. For example, there is a certain amount of time period where the Board will pay $500 solid for longevity, but if it is rolled into salary, then it will be compounded with the 2.75% salary increase, a 1% or 5% COLA, plus their merit.
Sullivan said Guard is right. The Board had that discussion, but decided that it was better to spend more money that way. It was clear that this system was not going to save money, but the Board is trying to approach a system that is based on merit versus longevity, because it is important to acknowledge the people that have exceeded expectations. Guard said she does not disagree with that. Going back to earlier parts of the conversation, when talking about consistency with bargaining units, then it is counteractive to that consistency. Neuzil said he does not agree. Stutsman said she thinks the Board has given direction to the bargaining units that the Board wants to move to reducing longevity. Neuzil said right now, those who will be receiving longevity are not eligible for merit. Union employees are not eligible for merit. That is the whole premise. Eventually, it would be nice to be able to negotiate and get rid of longevity, but doing that would result in a big price tag that would be coming down the pike.
Shramek asked what the calculation of longevity was. She asked if it was 2%. She said that was discussed in the previous meeting as well. Rettig said that is how it got to 5%, if it was rolled in. It was just under 2%. Neuzil said the County compensation, workplace, and benefits offered to employees make up a really great program. If the Board wanted to give extra money out, then he would rather see people earn it.
Harney said he has seen it both ways. He said he could argue the other side too, where merit is not fair. He said he has seen it abused so many times, where people’s favorites were getting pay raises when others did not. It could go both directions. He said he has seen that happen. Neuzil said it is the job of the Board to see that it does not happen in the departments that the Board has oversight on. Stutsman said people do a pretty good job of acknowledging those people that do a job beyond expectations, as it should be. Guard said she was just giving the other side of the story. She said she is not agreeing one way or the other. Sullivan said it is an important point to make because it does have a big budgetary impact over years.
Neuzil asked if the Board has figured out if longevity calculates into this final decision or not. He said he does not think it does. Stutsman said no, there are three Board members that do not want longevity. Neuzil said he thinks that it is now reduced to looking at having to redo the red circled and green circled employees if longevity is not included. Sullivan said he is comfortable with what Stutsman had said.
Stutsman asked if there are any other expectations. Shramek said she does not have any. Stutsman said to stay at the 3%. Wierman said to stay at the 3%. Neuzil said that is the top.
Sullivan asked Shramek to give the Board an update. He said the Board had created a second window for people to appeal. He asked Shramek to update the Board on that. Shramek said there were 12 individuals that had their pay grade lowered from their initial projection. Those individuals were given a second window to appeal their job evaluation weighting. This window closes on August 9, 2010. JET has received a few appeals already and a couple more are on the way. She said the JET will evaluate those and bring a recommendation to the Board which will be retroactive to July 1, 2010.
Neuzil said he wanted to add something, if there is no one else that wants to speak. He asked when the next update is scheduled. He asked if the JET needs any direction from the Board before that. He said he remembers that something is going to happen on January 1, 2011. Rettig said that date is about comparing the external factors. Stutsman said OK. Neuzil said that was still kind of resolved a bit. Sullivan said the timeframe is to have it done by then, but the Board had to tell Shramek who to compare to first.
Adjourned at 2:41 p.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary