Diddler_44 said:
Mr. Yancy,
How do you respond to the assertion above that Fire/PD received less col raise than other city employees. Is this accurate, and if so, Why?
All employees at the city get "across the board increase" which is essentially COLA. That number varies by year but this year it's 3%.
The second number (this year it's 1%) is what we term as "merit pay" which is for good performance. So when you hear "this year the compensation adjustment is "3+1" that's what is being referred to.
Public safety does not receive that 1%, but instead receive increases based on their "steps."
Steps are achieved based on an individual achieving a new certification, or reaching a "time in service" milestone. When those "steps" are achieved, an increase in pay happens for that person.
Public safety personnel can also achieve a raise in compensation for outstanding performance, which is a result of the evaluation process on their work anniversary, but technically it's not included in the 1%, which is for non-sworn personnel.
College Station's approach historically has been for Council to not "get in the weeds" on personnel matters and that includes compensation. We have a Compensation & Benefits Committee consisting of 3 council-members and staff and some detail is shared there, but the overarching objective of that committee is to ratify the "x + x" number that rolls into the budget, once decided upon.
With that as background I'll try to answer your question and that of the others on this topic (including the guy that said I give "non-answers" which I've never once been accused of, until now):
It's not so much the "Across the board + merit" pay increases that need attention. That system seems to work. It's the base compensation itself that I will suggest needs adjustment.
If we were a sleepy little town with average base compensation that'd be one thing- but we are not. We are a very dynamic and challenging community from a public safety perspective and growing more so. High rise buildings to fire protect and to police, entertainment districts to police, mass tourism events, tens of thousands of young people stepping out of their parent's house for the first time, increasing population density and a whole lot more.
We've also created an ecosystem of world class public safety here. With Brayton and TTF-1, accredited departments, and more accolades than you can count- departments all over Texas look to us for training and research, best practices, etc-
Our base compensation needs adjustment to match that reputation and for us to emerge as a "destination employer."
Now- to the guy that said "whatever that is," allow me to explain.
A destination employer is a place people want to be. It's a place that people would be crazy to leave. It's a place that's harder to get into. It's a place that doesn't have trouble attracting and retaining the absolute best. It's the place that public safety peers from other communities ask our guys and gals: "Wow! How'd you get in there?"
Being a destination employer isn't just about money. It's about reputation, esprit d corps, training, quality management and work life balance. But compensation is a necessary bedrock component of achieving it. You can't be a "destination employer" without it.
I would like us to be a "destination employer" for public safety, utility linemen, public works and all departments, at the rank-and-file level, the way we've done so among the executive corps. There's room in the budget without breaking the bank, in my opinion, to achieve that- or at least come a lot closer than where we are currently.
I believe this based on the research I have conducted, not from the information provided to me by any one group.
That's my best attempt at answering all of these questions in one response.
Respectfully
Yancy '95 Place 5
