From 1996 to 2009, the population of Santa Rosa increased by about 30 percent. But in the same period, police department total wages (on which pensions are based) increased 119 percent, and fire department total wages (on which pensions are based) shot up a staggering 187 percent. What does this have to do with Santa Rosa’s Pension Task Force and a ballot measure passed in 1996? Let me explain.
Santa Rosa has an ongoing budget challenge, caused in large part by steeply rising pension costs for employees, especially police and firefighters. In response, Mayor Ernie Olivares called for a task force to examine options for pension reform.
The first meeting of the task force was held January 25, 2011. There were 10 appointed members, five from city unions and five from the public-at-large. A city council member, Scott Bartley, served as chairman. I was one of the public-at-large members. We met monthly, reviewed hundreds of pages of documents about various public employee pension issues, and had lengthy discussions. The result was a 21-page summary of facts and pension reform options, which was presented to the City Council in June 2011.
Santa Rosa’s police and firefighters have generous pension plans, providing for normal retirement at or after age 50, with the benefit calculated as 3 percent times years of service, applied to highest 12 months of wages, up to a maximum benefit of 90 percent of pay. Overtime doesn’t count as pay for pension purposes. Unlike Santa Rosa’s “miscellaneous” employees, police and firefighters do not make any direct contributions toward their own pensions. The city pays both the “employee” and “employer” shares, although, as an offset, police and firefighters gave up pay raises totaling 8 percent in the past. Total contributions now are equal to about 30 percent of pay and are projected to exceed 40 percent of pay within five years.
John E. Bartel, an actuarial consultant for the city of Santa Rosa, gave us a lengthy presentation, including 112 pages of statistics. We learned that police officer average pay (not including overtime) went from $58,100 in 1996 to $110,200 in 2009, and firefighter average pay (not including overtime) went from $52,400 to $114,400.
Why are the pay increases for police and firefighters so large? I think the answer is Measure A, a 1996 ballot measure pushed hard by police and firefighters. It passed by a margin of 53.3 percent to 46.7 percent. On the part of the ballot where voters marked “Yes” or “No,” the only reference was to binding arbitration to settle disputes about wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment between Santa Rosa and its police and firefighters. But buried in the fine print (almost 1,300 words) of the full measure was language saying arbitrators must consider the wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of employment of employees in cities of similar population. I call this the “mandatory comparable pay and benefits” provision.
City officials with whom I’ve spoken over the last 10 years confirmed that the practical effect of Measure A was to take away the bargaining power of the city of Santa Rosa. Cities routinely lose cases that are decided by arbitrators, and arbitration is an expensive process. With regular pay increases and benefit enhancements occurring in comparison cities, Santa Rosa saw the handwriting on the wall and granted similar increases and enhancements for police and firefighters here. And what was the most important (and most costly) benefit increase after 1996? That would be a 50 percent increase in the pension benefit formula for police and firefighters, from 2 percent times years of service to 3 percent times years of service.
It’s fascinating to see who opposed Measure A in the 1996 Voters’ Pamphlet. The top two signers opposing Measure A were Chief of Police Sal Rosano and Fire Chief Tony Pini. They argued that passage of the measure would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. They noted that Santa Rosa’s police officers and firefighters were already among the highest paid in Sonoma County. They predicted that passage of Measure A would eventually result in cuts to senior citizen programs, youth athletic fields, park programs and street repair. They were right.
The supporters of Measure A argued that it would “protect our city budget and hold down costs.” This is disingenuous based on subsequent increases in pay, benefits and pension costs after 1996. Supporters cited other cities that had adopted binding arbitration, including San Jose and Vallejo. But voters in both of those cash-strapped cities have now revoked binding arbitration and mandatory comparable pay and benefits.
Thus, I thought the most important option for the City Council to consider after our recent task force meetings was asking voters to repeal Measure A. But at least one member of the Task Force argued that this change to the city charter wasn’t really a “pension” issue. A vote was called for, and my option was quickly dumped from the list to be given to the City Council. My option was the only one for which a vote was called.
There was one substitute attendee at that particular meeting of the task force. The appointed police officer/union leader didn’t attend and, in his place, was another gentleman—not a police officer—whose presence seemed specifically aimed at opposition to my option of repealing Measure A. It was only after the meeting, and after the vote rejecting my option, that I saw the list of supporters of Measure A in the original 1996 Voters’ Pamphlet. The first signer was the gentleman who appeared at our Task Force meeting. He was listed as “Treasurer, Santa Rosa Police Officers & Firefighters for Binding Arbitration Committee.”
I’m betting he knows the connection between Measure A and soaring pay and pension benefits for police and firefighters.
