Raises are still undecided

Will Jay County employees get raises next year? If so, how large will they be?

Those questions remain unanswered.

The county’s personnel committee discussed possibilities for raises at length Wednesday evening before asking county auditor Anna Culy for more information and scheduling another meeting for 5:30 p.m. Aug. 24.

Wednesday’s meeting followed a joint session of Jay County commissioners and council in which the groups received a salary analysis from Addie Rooker of management consulting firm Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele and Associates.

The personnel committee’s discussion on raises stemmed from the fact that the salary analysis shows Jay County employees, in general, make less than those in the same positions in communities of similar sizes, and also that those in certain job classifications are much further below the “external midpoint” than others. (The study is based on salaries for employees of Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Fulton, Grant, Huntington, Randolph, Wabash and Wells counties and the cities of Portland and Winchester.)

The committee, made up of commissioner Chuck Huffman and council members Jeanne Houchins and Ted Champ, set to work on a goal of providing more financial help to employees classified as civilian protective occupations and law enforcement (mostly jail workers, dispatchers, EMTs and paramedics) — they lag furthest behind, needing the largest raise (18 percent) to reach the external midpoint — in an effort to create more balance across the wage scale.

“I know it seems like giving across-the-board pay raises treats everybody equally, but when you have some categories where we’re behind, we’re not correcting problems,” council member Mike Rockwell said during the joint session.

The personnel committee discussion was wide-ranging, with the group at one point considering giving civilian protective occupations and law enforcement employees a 5-percent raise while giving no raises to employees in other job classifications.

In the long run, the committee asked Culy to run numbers on two scenarios:

•A 1-percent raise across the board with an additional 0.5-percent raise for employees classified labor trades and crafts and computer, office machine, technician and an additional 2-percent raise for employees classified civilian protective occupations and law enforcement.

•A 2-percent raise across the board with an additional 0.5-percent raise for employees classified labor trades and crafts and computer, office machine, technician and an additional 2-percent raise for employees classified civilian protective occupations and law enforcement.

The labor trades and crafts (mostly cooks/housekeepers, heavy equipment operators and truck drivers) and labor trades and crafts and computer, office machine, technician (mostly secretaries, second deputies and administrative assistants) employees are the next furthest away from the external midpoint, both in need of raises of more than 11 percent to get there.

Culy had provided county council with projections for what it would cost for 1-, 2- and 3-percent raises across the board at its July meeting, with each percent coming in at about $33,000. Now she’ll figure the new possibilities proposed by the personnel committee and determine the impact those would have on each county fund.

The personnel committee plans to discuss the options for raises further at its Aug. 24 meeting and make a recommendation to county council, which has the final say on the matter. A budget review is slated for Sept. 6, with the first reading of the budget on Sept. 20.

When council commissioned the Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele study in March, it was not expected to be complete until September. Asked if that timing was problematic because of the budget schedule, council members said they could make changes on job classifications this year and leave the effort to make salary adjustments for next year. But they changed course at their July meeting, at that time asking Culy to inquire as to whether salary information could be made available sooner.

Rooker provided the available information in Wednesday’s joint session, reporting that the study shows it would cost the county more than half a million dollars to bring all employees up to the external midpoint salaries of similar communities.

The situation is similar to what the county faced when Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele first performed a wage study in 2011. At that time, the firm said it would take about $280,000 just to bring the county up to a recommended minimum pay. County council responded by boosting the pay of county employees by nearly $500,000 for 2012. But with several years of no raises since then, Jay County wages have again fallen behind.

Several council members wondered if Jay County is in better financial shape that other communities of its size because it has been more conservative when it comes to wages.

“Obviously other counties are paying more money than we are, but some of these counties are in big financial trouble too,” said Rockwell.

Council members have previously expressed a desire to give raises to county employees for 2018, but to not overspend on increases this year and be in a position of not being able to give them in the future. The group ran into that problem recently, giving no raises for 2016 and ’17 because of a lack of funds. The last raise for county employees was 2 percent in 2015.

Champ repeatedly indicated that he’d like to look at more than just salaries and consider “the whole package,” including health insurance, retirement plans and other benefits, when making recommendations on raises. Council member Bob Vance responded that in order to do so, council must have those discussions earlier in the year rather than waiting until later in the budget process.

The personnel committee also made recommendations on a series of requests for new positions and job reclassifications after taking into consideration the findings from Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele.

Recommended for approval was moving the health department’s immunization clerk up a classification because of new job requirements. The committee also recommended converting one of the county dispatch positions to assistant Indiana Data and Communications System coordinator/trainer as mandated by the state.

The committee came down against reclassifying the sheriff’s office secretary and the retirement home superintendent and assistant superintendent positions to job classifications with higher pay rates, following Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele’s advice on the request.

Huffman, Houchins and Champ also recommended that changes not be made to create a new position of head cook for the jail and a new rank structure for Jay Emergency Medical Service. For the former, they said they’d like more information about changes to the duties of the matron, for whom the new head cook would be taking over several responsibilities. For the latter, they said they’d prefer to see what JEMS revenue looks like for a year under its new outsourced billing system before making changes.

The personnel committee also asked Culy to look into an additional issue raised by county surveyor Brad Daniels during the joint session.

Daniels, as he has for several years, made the request that a change be made to the way his salary is figured for calculating the wage of his first deputy. (All first deputy salaries are based on those of their respective elected officials.) He asked that the additional money he receives for ditch miles and cornerstone compensation be considered part of his base salary when determining that of his first deputy.

Currently, the first deputy surveyor makes just under $29,000, which is the lowest of all county first deputies. If Daniels’ request was followed, it would bring her salary up to about $32,360.

Personnel committee members indicated that if such a change is permissible by state code, they would be open to it.