SR-12-12-1978-13ESanta Monica, California, December 12, 1978
T0: Mayor and City Council
DEC 1 2 9976
FROM: Mayor Pro Tom Cohen
SUBJECT: Request for Additional Agenda Item for
December 12, 1978 City Council Meeting re:
Ratification of Wage Determination for
Fire Fighters for FY 1978 -79.
I would like to place on the agenda for the regular City Council
meeting of December 12, 1978 ratification of the wage determination
for fire fighters for FY 1978 -79.
Attached as background is the memorandum from the Acting City
Manager to the City Council dated November 28, 1978.
The City Attorney feels that it is appropriate for the City
Council to ratify the staff's decision in this regard, and he
and City staff concur in this proposed course of action.
SC:DPD:dvl
Attachment
/3r
DEC 1 2 1976
INFORMATION
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
Santa Monica, California, November 28, 1978
SUBJECT: 1978 -79 Wage Increase. Determination for Firefighters
INTRODUCTION
This report explains how the determination of the wage increase for Fiscal Year
1978 -79 covering firefighting employees represented by Santa Monica Firefighters
(SMFF), Local 1109, IAFF, was made.
BACKGROUND
In August, 1977, the City Council ratified a 42 month Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the above unit. The wage provision of this MOU made annual across -
the -board salary increases a function of the lesser of the regional consumer
price index increase or the average percentage increase granted by survey cities
identified in the MOU.
The wage increase for 1977 -78 (last fiscal year) was based on wage increases in
the survey cities since the average percentage increase was less than the
percentage increase in the regional consumer price index. The actual salary
increase percent applicable for Fiscal Year 1977 -78 was 6.32 %.
However, the passage of the Proposition 13 implementation legislation (i.e.,
SB 154 and SB 2212) has caused some difficulty in applying the formula specified
in the MOU and arriving at a Fiscal Year 1978 -79 wage increase percent.
Although this is a somewhat complex situation', the essence of the problem was
as follows
1. The Proposition 13 implementation legislation conditioned cities' receipt
of State surplus funds on cities not providing pay increases.
TO: Mayor and City Co, -ncil _2- November 28, 1978
2. Thus, although the survey cities in the SMFF /MOU had previously made
determinations on wages prior to Proposition 13 via multi -year MOUs,
many froze those increases to receive State surplus funds.
3. The formula agreed to in 1977 did not and could not anticipate Proposition
13. On the surface it appeared that Santa Monica could provide no wage
increase to firefighters even though the funds were budgeted and the Council
.had agreed to honor the.MOU's. The reason is that the MOU provided that
the City would pay the lesser of the regional consumer price index (CPI)
percentage increase or the average percentage increase granted by at-least
six of the nine survey cities specified in the SMFF /MOU. It was apparent
that several unforseen possibilities could occur:
A. For Fiscal Year 1978 -79, we could see at least six
of the nine cities not granting increases.
B. This would compute to a" "zero percent" wage increase
since it would obviously be "less" than the regional CPI.
It was certainly not the intent of the parties in 1977 to fashion a wage ad-
justment formula that would, in its second year of operation, be frustrated
by Proposition 13, especially in light of the increases which have been granted
for all other employees. Thus, the parties have met and conferred to find a
solution to the. problem of how to balance the intentions of the parties, the terms
of the existing MOU and the interpretive diffibulties caused by Proposition 13
as they affect the wage formula.
Therefore, it was agreed by the parties that wage determinations were in fact
made by the following MOU survey cities, although as noted below, some froze
the i.ncrease previously negotiated:
P
TO: Mayor and City Coup -il -3- November 28, 1978
Survey City
Long Beach
Downey
Torrance
Glendale
Burbank
Inglewood
Hawthorne
Average
May 1977 - May 1978 CPI
% Increase
% Increase Scheduled
For FY 1978 -79
5.5%
5.75%
6.0%
3.21 %1
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
6.35%
6.9%
Determined Previously
But Withheld- Yes /No
Yes
Yes
No - Granted
Yes
Yes
No - Granted
Yes
1Granted benefits only. 3.21% equals percent increase in dollar
value of this benefit increase over Fiscal Year 1977 -78.
The 1978 -79 Fiscal Year wage increase for firefighters is 6.35 %. This compares
favorably with the 6.32% increase received, by them last year. It is also less
than the May 1977 - May 1978 CPI increase and less than average CPI increase
for calendar year 1977.
6
The parties also agreed that the methodology used in applying the MOU criteria
for Fiscal Year 1978 -79 would not be used as a precedent future years in that
many distortions were created by Proposition 13.
SMFF has also waived any and all rights to any interest on the withheld salary
increase.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Prepared by: DAVID P. DOLTER
Acting City Manager
DPD: -dar
1 �
agenda Item 13 -E: Presented at this time was the request of Mayor Pro
Tempore Cohen for ratification of the wage increase determination for
fire fighters for fiscal year 1978 -79. Councilmember van den Steenhoven
moved to ratify the wage increase determination for fire ig ters or
fi- al year 1978 -79 pursuant to the staff report dated November 28; 1978.
Second by Mayor Swink.
Council Vote: Unanimously approved 7 -0
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - 12/12/78