Travis County Commissioners Court
August 30, 2005
Item 30
Now, I do see the fire marshal, number 30 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding the fire marshal's office fy '05 budget adjustment and fy '06 budget request. And there's a new backup dated August 26th, right?
>> that's correct.
>> afternoon, judge, Commissioners. For the record my name is simon broussard and I知 the fire marshal for Travis County. Very briefly, in the memorandum that was sent to the court, we're requesting an adjustment in the fy '05 budget, which is transferring budget salary from f.t.e. Slot 39 to raise a solid f.t.e. Slot 21, the midpoint, and then fill that existing vacancy in this fy '05. And secondly, the fy '06 budget request, the fire marshal's office is requesting that funds be earmarked in fy '06. Allocated reserves for the analyzed f.t.e. Slot 39, salary and benefit cost in the amount of $55,709. In midyear fy '06, the fire marshal's office will request the Commissioners court fill the remaining vacancy of f.t.e. Slot 39 at midpoint. This phase approach is consistent with original business plans we presented to the court. This will accommodate pbo's recommendation that more time be allocated to assess the staffing levels and the program, and by midyear '06 the code could exist for one full year and we should have more data to present to you at that time.
>> here is my perplexed. Why does there seem to be an insistence that these slots have to be filled at midpoint? Because I can guarantee you that I think it's -- I think it is actually equally unrealistic to say that everything has to be done at beginning salary because then that's just -- that sometimes takes a lot of good people out of there. But this insistence on the midpoint then creates compression issues within the department, which then creates more compression issues of, well, we can't have that hire so close to the supervisor. And it creates this humble effect of, wait a minute, we want to get good people in here. And I agree with you, beginning point salary isn't enough. But I do have to wonder why is it that you would be offering midpoint to new employees when you've got people in the department already hired who are either at that salary level or too darn close to it that would then say, well, you can't pay a brand new person the same thing you're paying me who has been here longer and has more experience, and it creates compression? I just -- I feel like we're setting up these unrealistic expectations. There are good people out there, but we're not telling people here's the salary we can offer and who wants to work for this salary as opposed to you leave people with the impression that we're offering some ridiculous salary and you don't have the funds to match it. Help me out. Why does it have to be midpoint and then why does that trigger in terms of everybody else?
>> well, it doesn't have to be midpoint, per se, it could have been some cases maybe over that. And the problem is finding persons who are qualified who can do the job and who can step in this new program we started in February and make it work. And we knew there would be issues with that, and the current staff is willing to deal with those issues until we can resolve the other compensation issues because in order to be effective and do the job and make the fire code effective for the citizens of Travis County, we have to have people qualified and certified to be able to do the plan reviews, to be able to do the inspections, to be able to do all the work that's coming in and hit the ground running. And we just -- because we're a small agency, it come packets the issue. And in talking with hr and pbo, they all understand that. They all empathize with us, but the individual policies conflict with our agency's needs basically. And we've tried ways to get around it, there is just not any way that we can be able to get people who are qualified, who can hit the ground running and do the job professionally at a lower salary. Because unfortunately the people who can do the job, because we're getting people from other agencies. We have people from Cedar Park, up in lufkin, they were doing that job somewhere else. They understand the national fire code, they've been enforcing it. They're making that salary in other places. So to get them to come to Travis County to do the same job in a bigger -- in a county-wide as opposed to a city, which in the case of everybody we've hired have been from smaller cities, bigger, more work load, more work for them, they have to have a salary that's compatible because one guy came over as a lateral and sometimes they want the work for our counties as opposed to a city. City, county, state, federal type thing.
>> but you can hire people in Austin, Texas, because people just want to come to Austin, Texas to live. What's happened is you can't just come to Austin, Texas because you want to come to Austin, Texas to live because you may find yourself living in seguin and working in Austin. And god help us if we ever pass anything that ever says, here's what street you have to live on and how long you have to live there in order to have a job. But I understand the con none drum that we have here. It's real simple. Unfortunately, you're right, Commissioner, what is going to trief this thing is if you want me -- drive this thing is if you want necessity to have the competent people to on do the job you want me to do with the international fire code, I致e got to have the ability to fire people where they are willing to come to work for here, and it has to be amount of pay. Now, it does present a problem for me inside because there are people who will be looking over there at me going, well, chief, so where does this leave us? And as a court, we do put ourselves in a spot where at some point in time you either bite the bullet and you pay people whatever you pay them to get them here, if that's what you want to do, or you say, this is as much of this job as we can do with the workforce that we have. And that's -- as far as I知 concerned, that's the job of the Commissioners court to say, when somebody says, you know, you can't really cover your area. I say, no, I can't cover my area given the dollars, the resources that the court has. It's a lot to -- it's fire prevention and all the things that you've got to do. So I get it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of jobs as we are finding with hr that if you're going to have them, you've just got to pay people more money.
>> so what is the midpoint salary.
>> $57,470.
>> and are we going to have anybody -- I mean, I can go here if I do not hear the next words of, well, you just create a compression and you now automatically have to give raises to three or four other people because you just make the salaries way too close together. I知 just not going there. I知 not going there. So if this is -- this is what we need to hire and we're not going to create compression -- we're going to create compression issues, but we're not going to complain about it and say somebody doesn't get an automatic ratchet up, I can go there, but unfortunately I have not heard those words of, well, that creates a ratchet and you can't have somebody as a supervisor making the same amount or blah, blah, blah, and people think that automatically they get an increase because somebody else has to be brought in at a higher salary.
>> where are you going? Going there? I understand, I知 not making light of it --
>> let's hear what he says. Would it create a compression issue for you?
>> it will, but I知 willing to deal with that situation at a later date or as we get the money to deal with it. And my staff has said they will do that.
>> so this job has been posted at the current salary and you've not been able to fill it.
>> we've had applicants who meet qualifications, but you -- the court has not yet authorized me to fill that slot.
>> you have not been able to fill the slot at the posted salary. You could.
>> yes, we can. We can fill it at midpoint or at the midpoint, which is the top end of the range.
>> you've not been able to fill the position with the money that you have.
>> correct.
>> we may not agree with you during the budget process to put this to earmark this money for next year on the next job. We may not agree with you six months down the road that even if we earmarked it, we ought to authorize creation of another position. You're willing to deal with that today.
>> yes, sir.
>> you want your '05 -- you want authorization to fill the slot with '05 money in your budget already and you will take your chances with us during the budget process and six months from now.
>> yes, sir.
>> that's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> we got you on record now, fire marshal.
>> I understand, judge [ laughter ]
>> y'all, I can go here because up until today in court right here on the record we have not heard the words, and you're going to have to fix the compression issues too. So with that off the table, I can go there.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous court with Commissioner Davis temporarily off the dais. Thank you very much. Good luck.
>> thank you, judge. Thank you, Commissioners.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:10 PM