But the County has agreed to give them a larger “market rate adjustment” in following years.
(From the agreement proposed to be approved by the Supervisors next Tuesday)
Agenda Item 4g) “The Board of Supervisor’s negotiating team has met with representative(s) from Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU 1021) and have reached agreement regarding the appropriate terms and conditions of employment for the term of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2026. Attached is a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The proposed changes to the MOU include a cost of living increase FY 23/24 and bringing wages to market (total compensation, which includes benefits) over two years - FY 24/25 & FY 25/26.
Salary Year 1 (FY 23/24): All regular full-time and part-time SEIU LOCAL 1021 employees employed as of 12/1/2023 and employed on the date payment will be received, will be paid a supplemental payment equivalent of 1% of employee's base salary…
Year 2 (FY 24/25): Effective in the first full pay period in July of 2024, the County will implement one half of the total compensation study for classifications not at market. Each classification will receive a minimum increase of 2.5% through a combination of the increase from the compensation study and a cost-of-living adjustment unless they are more than 2.5% above market. Classifications that are below market average will be brought up to 100% of market average of total compensation over two years. …
Year 3 (FY 25/26): Effective in first full pay period in July of 2025, the County will implement the balance of the total compensation study for classifications not at market.
* * *
Cities & Counties to be included in the market rate salary survey include: Ukiah, Santa Rosa; El Dorado County, Humboldt, Lake, Napa, Nevada, Sonoma, Sutter and Yolo.
Source of funding: Various budget units
Current fiscal year cost: $47,164,166
Budget Clarification: Costs are covered amongst many budget units.
Annual Recurring Cost: Approximate increases- $736,361 FY 23/24, increase $1,874,216 FY 24/25, increase $2,228,923 FY 25/26”
(ms notes: A large percentage of these SEIU raises will be covered by state and federal grants. The impact on the general fund was not estimated.)
* * *
Big pay raises are proposed for law enforcement management
Item 4f) “…The proposed changes to the Law Enforcement Management Unit Memo of Understanding include an increase in wages in FY 23/24, which would bring the unit to 100% of market (total compensation, which includes benefits) and cost of living increases in FY 24/25 & FY 25/26.”
(The proposed agreement for law enforcement management applies to lieutenants and captains, patrol and jail, plus the Chief DA investigator, and the Chief Welfare Fraud investigator. Estimated total: 9 people.)
Salary Year 1 (FY 23/24): Effective the first full pay period following the Board of Supervisors approval and ratification, bargaining unit members shall receive the market salaries determined by the County's total compensation study.
Salary Year 2 (FY 24/25): Effective in the first full pay period in July of 2024, bargaining unit members shall receive a 1% cost of living adjustment (COLA).
Salary Year 3 (FY 25/26): Effective in the first full pay period in July of 2025, bargaining unit members shall receive a 3% COLA, applied to pay rates calculated in FY 24/25.
Fiscal Details:
Source of funding: County General Fund Budget Unit 2310
Current f/y cost: $1,378,998.40
(Note: $1.4 million / 9 = about $155k each. Something doesn’t add up here. Unless a significant part of the cost is non-salary like pensions and other benefits))
Budget Clarification: Costs to be covered by General Fund
* * *
County To Create A New “Auditor-Controller” position.
Consent Calendar Item 3o):
“At the request of the Auditor-Controller, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Human Resources completed a study on the Accountant-Auditor series (I, II). The Accountant-Auditor series currently contains a level I and II which was approved the Board of Supervisors at its April 19, 2022, meeting. As a result of the study, it was determined a Senior level classification is appropriate to be added to the existing Accountant-Auditor series. By adding this classification, it supports the county's commitment to align with it goals and objectives by investing in employee professional growth. This role will enhance operational efficiencies in the departments as well as this position will focus on the more complex duties at an advanced journey level. The Senior Accountant-Auditor will supervise Accountant-Auditor’s I and II.
Source of funding: Budget Unit 1110
Current f/y cost: N/A
Budget Clarification: N/A
Annual recurring cost: N/A
Budgeted in current f/y (if no, please describe): No
This request is only to establish the new classification and establish the salary.
Senior Accountant-Auditor, $78,062.40 - $94,889.60/annually”
* * *
Supervisor Mulheren’s Misinformation Misinformation
Supervisor Maureen Mulheren, on her facebook page, recently said she was surprised to be (anonymously) asked:
“Why haven’t you spent any of the Measure B money?”
Mulheren: “The goals of Measure B have largely been accomplished, first and foremost crisis workers that go out with/before law enforcement.”
The crisis response unit took them five years to even start. As useful as it has been, it was not a “goal” of Measure B.
“A Regional Training Center”? The purchase of that old Jehovah’s Witness church in Redwood Valley could be considered part of a Measure B “goal” since it was intended for first responder training. But it has yet to be used for mental health responder training. So that “goal” has not been met.
“A Crisis Residential Treatment Center”?
The CRT was not a goal of Measure B either. It was only built because the state threatened to withdraw some grant funding if it wasn’t — and the County paid a whopping $5 million of Measure B money for what should not have cost more than $1 million for a four-bedroom house.
“A Psychiatric Health Facility that begins next Spring”?
The PHF will not begin next Spring (unless you have a very loose definition of “begins.”). And it’s a grossly overdesigned and colossal waste of money.
“Programming with the remainder of the funds (IMO could be more successful, but I’m working on that).”
It certainly could be “more successful” since there’s nothing being done to provide the services mandated by the 2017 voter-approved measure. But there’s no evidence that Mulheren is “working on that.”
The original question Mulheren started with is intentionally misphrased. An honest version of that question would be, “Why haven’t you spent any of the Measure B money on the services that were required by the text of the Measure?” Which should have been the question she tried to answer. But she probably didn’t address that proper question because the answer is that they are wasting most of the Measure B money on overpriced buildings and spending none for required services.
Then Mulheren concludes:
“Unfortunately people seem to believe some misinformation that is online and I’d like to be able to give you the correct details so you are informed.”
“Some information that is on line”?
This is a thinly veiled, underhanded and dishonest attempt to falsely portray our criticism of the Board’s handling of Measure B money as “misinformation.” (There’s no other criticism of the Board’s Measure B money wasting on line.)
But Mulheren doesn’t dare cite any specific alleged “misinformation that is online,” because she knows that would be too obvious. If her unjustifiably rosy “correct details” about Measure B spending are her idea of a response to our criticism, then Mulheren is simply creating the very misinformation that she bemoans.
Be First to Comment