Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County supervisors set new comp-time carryover caps, vote 4-1 to change wording to "120 and 80"
Summary
The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to amend proposed language on compensatory time carryover limits, changing the two numeric caps in staff recommendations to "120 and 80" while deferring formal policy adoption for later review.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted Thursday to change two numeric caps in a proposed compensatory-time policy to “120 and 80,” a change board members said was intended to encourage employees to take leave while limiting the county’s long-term payout liability.
The motion to change the numbers was made during discussion of draft policy language; the board approved the wording change by voice vote, 4-1. Board members emphasized that the vote altered the wording only and that the full updated policy had not yet been formally adopted.
The change was part of a broader discussion about managing accrued comp time and reducing large year-end payouts. Staff described tracking that showed a small number of employees with large balances. “There are 1,234,” Jenny, a county staff member supporting the policy review, said when asked whether anyone currently exceeded the lower threshold; she later identified four employees with current balances of “130.5, 260, 318 and 356” hours.
Why it matters: The county pays out accrued compensatory time when limits are exceeded or when employees separate, creating an expense that supervisors said they want to limit while still preserving employees’ earned compensation. Board members and staff discussed alternate caps referenced by neighboring jurisdictions — including 240 hours for some agencies — and the practical effect on both general government employees and public-safety staff.
Board members and staff stressed that managers retain discretion to deny leave requests based on operational needs. “Just because you have it doesn’t mean you get approved to utilize it,” one staff member said, describing managerial authority over leave approvals.
Opponents warned of unintended consequences. One supervisor said cutting carryover could reduce employees’ flexibility and downtime and noted potential tax differences between comp time and paid overtime. Supporters said the change was not intended to “take anything away” but to prompt earlier use of leave and reduce burnout.
The board directed staff to incorporate feedback and to return with policy language that included clearer managerial parameters for approving leave and options to prevent an employee from taking an entire large banked balance in a single chunk.
Ending: The board's language change replaces earlier draft numeric language (referred to in the meeting as “112 and 80”) with “120 and 80.” Supervisors asked staff to return with a revised, consolidated policy for formal adoption and to review the caps again in one year.
