 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The Santa Rosa City Council approved $2.1 million in concessions from its employees Tuesday, including a divisive deal that gives firefighters 6 percent raises but requires them to contribute most of that increase over the next two years toward the cost of their pensions.
Supporters characterized the changes as a major short-term money saver for the city and a key move toward long-term pension reform.
“It’s very important that we look at this contract for what it is, and it’s a step in the right direction,” said Councilman Jake Ours.
But critics blasted it as a short-sighted move that locks the city into a bad contract for another year and unfairly doles out raises to a group that has already enjoyed nearly 20 percent increases over their six-year contract.
Dennis Morris, a retired Santa Rosa resident who served as human resources director for the city of Vallejo before it went bankrupt in 2008, said the one-year contact extension and the decision to grant firefighters raises while other employees are taking pay cuts reminds him of the policies of his former city.
“What it reminded me of, to my shock, were the very things that staff was advising the Vallejo City Council not to do before they went bankrupt,” said Morris
Morris, 64, said the fact that most of the 6 percent raise will be used to offset the city’s pension costs ignores the ripple effect on everything from pension costs to disability insurance to vacation payouts.
He also argued that extending the contract another year, instead of allowing it to expire next year when all other city contracts will be open, gives away some of the city’s only leverage.
Paying firefighters more when hundreds of people apply for every opening “makes no sense,” he added.
But the council majority strongly refuted any suggestion that the city is on a path to insolvency.
“We are not Vallejo. We are not Oakland. We are not on the brink of bankruptcy by any means,” Councilman Scott Bartley said.
City Manager Kathy Millison said the deal was good for the city because it accomplished three goals that have been key in its concession negotiations with employee groups: wage concessions, pension reform and health plan cost containment.
Firefighters are in the final year of a six-year contract. They have twice deferred raises due under that contract, one for 3.5 percent, another for 2.5 percent. If the council rejected the compromise, the city would be required to pay the 6 percent this year, at a cost of $1.2 million.
Chris Sliz, the city’s employee relations manager, reminded the council the city has no choice in the matter because “this is a legal and binding contract.”
Instead of sticking to that contract, however, the firefighters agreed to negotiate changes the city says will save it $944,000 next year.
Firefighters will take their 3.5 percent raise this fiscal year, which began July 1, but 3 percent will go to reduce the city’s share of their pension costs, which have been soaring in recent years. The following year, they would get 2.5 percent raises, with 2 percent going for the same purpose. Next year’s savings is pegged at $1.2 million.
In future years, the savings from having firefighters pay 5 percent toward the city’s pension costs will save about $700,000 annually.
In addition, they have agreed to open discussions about a two-tiered pension system that offers less generous pension benefits for future firefighters, another long-term goal of the city.
Councilman Gary Wysocky wondered why the firefighters wouldn’t just start paying their own share of their pension costs, instead of picking up 5 percent of the city’s share.
Currently, the city picks up the 9 percent that firefighters are supposed to pay toward their pensions, known as Employee Paid Member Contributions.
Years ago, firefighters gave up raises in exchange for the city picking up their share, and they’re philosophically opposed to reversing course on that, Sliz said.
Morris, the retired Vallejo official, said he thinks he knows another reason. There are significant pension overhaul efforts underway in the state, including preventing cities from paying the employees’ share of pension costs.
“They want another year of a shield to try to avoid those things,” Morris said.
In the event that does happen, the city has agreed to give firefighters a 4.5 percent raise to help cover those costs. It also has agreed that 4.5 percent of the 5 percent they will be contributing to the city’s pension costs next year will be shifted to cover the remainder of the 9 percent, Sliz explained.
But Wysocky, a CPA who said he must frequently advise clients to adapt to changing financial circumstances, urged his colleagues to let the contract expire next year.
“When you have a bad deal, the best thing you need to do is to get out of it,” he said.
That view was echoed by Bob Williamson, a member of the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association, who urged the council to “bite the bullet” and look for more cost savings from firefighters next year.
Mayor Ernesto Olivares said he understands the frustration at the slow progress in reining in employee costs. But the process is complicated and there are no shortcuts, he said.
“It took many years for us to get to the position that we are in and yet we continue to look for overnight fixes,” Olivares said.
The deal passed 4-2, with Olivares, Ours, Bartley and John Sawyer in favor and Wysocky and Marsha Vas Dupre against. Councilwoman Susan Gorin was absent.
Most of the other concession deals passed with little debate. Four of the five involved mostly changes to health care plans and extension of furloughs for another year. Those agreements all passed 6-0.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
“Dennis Morris, a retired Santa Rosa resident who served as human resources director for the city of Vallejo before it went bankrupt in 2008, said the one-year contact extension and the decision to grant firefighters raises while other employees are taking pay cuts reminds him of the policies of his former city.”
Interesting, since a Dennis Morris is listed under Calpers retirees for Vallejo as making 9457.65 a month or $113491.80 annually. Guess when you got yours you neglect to mention it, especially if it makes you look like a fool.
Most of you are probably unaware that judges in CA get the 3% @ 50 retirement… Who you gonna call?
@Lets be Reasonable – Sorry should have been more specific. I too agree with most of what you have said. My only point of disagreement is I do think the City would like the public to believe that this deal is part of their pension reform efforts. Saying it is so does not mean it really is.
@Common Sense – What exactly don’t you agree with? I agree with most of what you said. The only thing that I said different was that there was no talk of pension reform in this budget, and the council was not calling this pension reform. They agreed to discuss a two-tier pension in the future, and that would be reform if it were to happen. I think Fire made a big political blunder by taking the two half percent raises instead of converting all 6% into employee pension payments. They are probably hoping that the economy will be better two years out, and that the public will have forgotten all about this.
Cut the number of positions equal to this giveaway at the Fire Department.
Stunning how other departments have cut while Public Safety in Santa Rosa, (unlike some other Cities), goes merrily along munching up even more budget dollars.
Our City Leaders are not up for the job of fiscal austerity in these times.
“when pension reform hits the ballots” – and it’ll be a resounding defeat for public employee unions, BUT the proposition will be overturned by liberal judges and we’ll just be back where we started.
Will the last taxpayer leaving the state please turn out the light at the end of the tunnel.
@Lets be Reasonable – Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your logic. I understand that the firefighters had an existing contract and as such held all the cards. I also expect them to consider the public interest and common good above their own financial interest. Check out the Mercury Times website where employees/salaries are listed for all cities and counties in the bay area. Many in the $100K+ club are police and firefighters. Their retirement benefits, 3% @ 50 are overly generous and unsustainable. They may have won this round of talks, but long term have further damaged the public’s perception of them. I see a pension reform voter initiate in our future… and I see alot of public support for it when it hits the ballot.
I would re-structure the fire department, eliminate the current “department” and bring in new recruits- and 1/4 the pay. Many volunteers would staff the stations.
Then go to 8 hour shifts (much cheaper). Most of the time they are in the station, washing firetrucks, or watching tv or cooking. Why do we have so much waste.
We don’t need firefighters sleeping all over the WHOLE city. Just put 3-4 in each of the four corners of the city and we are all set. Come on !!! Get real
Well said Jon Bixler!
I need to move somewhere where the city’s citizens are not a bunch of pot smoking disrespectful morons. Firefighting is easy? How about you kids shuffle on down to NYC and tell that to the FDNY? Or wait, let’s hold off until it’s your damn house on fire, or your elderly parents having a heart attack, or your emergency, then see what you think about how much money they ought to make. These men & women put their lives on the line to save the sorry ungrateful asses in this city. My God. I am so happy to say…You can take the girl out of NY but you cannot take the NY out of the girl. What a disgrace. God Bless the SRFD.
Oh well, what part of unsustainable doom do people not understand ?
Like Whitmore, I am flabbergasted.
Dig the hole deeper folks.
@Citizen.
I hear you.how about the tow truck drivers,the coroner investigators ?
Fishermen and lumberjacks have a far more dangerous job. In fact. firefighter is a safe job if you care to compare.
Really, who cares much anymore? There is so much corporate control; Wall Streets getting off, big banks are getting off … and the American middle classes wealth is being transfer to the rich …
I’d love to care about something as simple as SRFD pay but it seems the whole thing is massively broken.
And I simply don’t know what to do anymore.
I think this conversation is screaming for some perspective.
Firefighting is a tough job, both physically and emotionally. They are fully deserving of making an above average wage. We want highly qualified people staffing these positions. I, for one, do not want an economy class firefighter rendering first aid to my family or god forbid, mounting a rescue attempt. We all saw what class A morons Alameda employs as they stood by and watched that man drown in the bay. Is this the caliber of employee we want staffing our public safety departments?
It’s easy to respond emotionally to the public safety unions who come off as extremely self-serving and indifferent to the financial bind we’re all in because of our ailing economy. An emotional response tends to garner comments like “cut their pay in half” and “it’s a fairly easy job”. Let’s try and avoid that. These types of comments are unrealistic, overly dramatic, and not helpful.
It seems to me that the more important issue is the sustainability of these pensions that they were promised. First, it’s important to bear in mind that they were promised these retirements. They negotiated in good faith with the representatives that we elected and all agreed on a retirement package. It’s not their fault that our economy is in the toilet.
Having said that, I would very much like to see these people step up in negotiations with a serious gesture of good faith. Picking up a salary increase to offset their pension contributions just doesn’t qualify in my book.
I’m fearful that their failure to recognize the anger that’s simmering will end up with serious consequences when pension reform hits the ballots. I hope it’s not too late.
@Steveguy, so where have you worked as a firefighter? Obviously you were/are one since you know its an easy job. Let me take a shot….maybe some back county self-established dept with their own hiring req’s and training routine?
Don’t guess the job untill you’ve done it. My dad is a retired FF for a large city and came home injured several times both emotionally (family car fatalities) and physically (fire ground injuries).
What part of unsustainable do they not understand ?
Cut the pay and benefits by 1/2, and have thousands lining up to apply.
Cut pay by 1/3rd, and you will get 5,000 applicants.
Enough said, for a fairly easy job.
@ Kevin – You obviously don’t live in the city limits. The response for a medical or Welfare Check as you describe is one fire engine and maybe an ambulance. Nice try though.
As I recall, The Press Democrat endorsed all of the winners in the last council race.
Who has more pull with the public, Unions or The Press? Maybe they were the best candidates we had to choose from.
@Common Sense – I don’t think the Council thought that this is pension reform. Fire agreed to discuss a two-tier pension, which would be pension reform, if it were to happen. Fire was in a position of strength. If the Council were to wait for the contract to expire next year, Fire would have received their full 6% salary increase this year. I think politically, it would have been very difficult to then cut that 6%, plus whatever else they wanted on top of that. In the deal that they did make with Fire, the City saves maybe 3-4% (Fire gives up 5%, but City has higher pension, overtime, etc, costs) now and into the future. It is hard to give up the bird in hand for the two in the bush…
.
I actually give Fire a thumbs up on this one. I would have made it two thumbs up if they had given up all 6% of their raise – The 1% they got will help them keep up with inflation, but at a HUGE political cost. But hey, 5% is still something.
.
On the other hand, as far as I can tell, Unit 2 Fire has yet to see any cut in pay as a result of the crash, and if the paper is correct, have actually seen a 20% increase over their 6 year contract. They should have given up the whole 6%, and made it a condition to reinstate the other laid off employees. I would have given them 3 thumbs up for that.
BREAKING NEWS ….. Again
The Public Safety Unions got what they paid for in the election. Maybe the taxpaying public won’t be so easily duped at the next election? We can only hope.
I for one will not forget this handout and will be speaking loudly in favor of fiscal responsibility that I see from Wysocky and against cronyism that I see from Olivaries, Ous, Bartley and Sawyer.
Four names to remember come election time…. Olivares, Ours, Bartley, Sawyer.
A neighbor of mine had been briefly unconcious with a head injury and later was not answering a knock on his door. We called 911 and a few minutes later three enormous fire engines arrived as well as an EMT vehical and two police cars. This was overreaction on a grand scale. There were about 18 city personnel present and they stay for about half an hour. Well after my neighbor was roused and told everyone to go away they were still milling around outside.
Funny thing according to my source the City rejected the thought of the FF’s paying their PERS costs. Wonder why Wyswacky is lying about that? He was one the rejected it. Oh I know, it’s because they save money paying it so they don’t want to give it back and the fact that they hope the voters or state will take it away and force the employees to pay the full share without bargaining it back in any form. You must say those guys or girls in there did a good job negotiating a parachute should it be taken away since the City refused to work with them on it.
If I was in a contract I would have taken all my $$ to the end just as all the other units in the City did. Then give furloughs back, shoot, a few more weeks off not a bad deal, really not giving anything long term up. Looks like every group made out again for another year or two! No pension reform for any of them as per the Press one group is in mediation and another is still fighting through PERB and they all still get no pension cap and no two tier until those issues are resolved. Looks like a few more years of all this jockeying.
This kind of deal makes me sick to my stomach. As much as I want to accept Olivares, Ours and Bartley at their word, I just can’t. Olivares as a police pensioner and Ours and Bartley with their pre-election alliance with the police and fire unions simply have lost their credibility. While Wysocky may have been content to waste $20 million on a bicycle bridge, he does seem to be the voice of reason on this one (and Gorin too although she didn’t vote yesterday). From all appearances, this seems to be a case of short term gain, long term pain. Thanks to the PD for fleshing out the details on this one (contribution to city share versus employee share, pensionable credit of contribution to city share, pending legislation disallowing further city contributions toward employee share, addititonal raises if pending legislation enacted, etc.). Good reporting.
Either the City Council does not understand how their own pension system works or else they think the public is so ill informed that they will believe that this is “pension reform”
The increase in pay results in an increase in the amount the city/employees must pay towards retirement. It also means the firefighters will get more in retirement pay when they retire.
How is increasing pay and increasing retirement pay reform?
Both the City and County continue to resist reducing employee pay and benefits – instead reducing the services they provide to the public.
We need new representation that understands public service is different from self serving.