CAN the Consumer Price Index-urban Keep UP with Ocfa Wages?

Additional Recommendations 3

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R6
  If the growth of firefighter‟s salaries is reduced to reflect the economy of the citizens they serve, the OCFA should consider reducing the fees that they charge their contract cities to reflect the change and to be responsive to the financial realities of the cities.
• R7
  The OCFA should consider requiring the terms of office of the directors to be at least two years to provide longer time for continuity of the leadership.
• R40
  c n I 20 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 US Bureau of Labor Statistics; CPI Detailed Report; March 2012 FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Findings/Conclusions presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its study of the Orange County Fire Authority, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following Findings/Conclusions: F1. The costs of labor of the OCFA, excluding benefits, are growing annually almost ten times faster than the increase of personnel and 3.5 faster than the Consumer Price Index-U. F2. Labor agreements of the past have included salary increases of 3 and 4 percent per year while the cost of living represented by the Consumer Price Index-Urban have averaged slightly more than 2.3 percent per year. Future wage increases are based on a “trigger formula” that is tied to the “secured property tax dollar amount” and any “General Fund Surplus/Deficit,” and the average of the top quarter of neighboring non-Authority fire departments. F3. Basing firefighter‟s salaries to the “secured property tax” that are founded primarily on the assessed value of the property served may not be the most economically responsive (or seemly rational to the public) method of calculating wages from a taxpayer perspective. This method produces salaries that do not appear to be compatible with actual wages within the communities they serve. Furthermore, basing salaries on those of neighboring firefighters can result in “spiraling” increases if those agencies base their wages on those of OCFA. F4. Labor agreements for the firefighters that do not appear to reflect the overall economy and finances of the taxpayers and cities they serve may show a deficiency of civic duty of the Directors in making the tough choices and balancing the needs of the citizens that they serve. F5. The terms of office of the Board of Directors (some of which are only a year) appear to be too short for directors to become thoroughly acquainted with the complex operations and finances of this large agency. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its study of the Orange County Fire Authority, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: R1. The OCFA should state on their website how firefighter‟s salaries are based in the past on the OCFA revenue, and currently on the OCFA general fund surplus/deficit rather than on the living costs and financial conditions of the cities and citizens they serve. R2. Prior to entering into or negotiating any labor agreements, the OCFA Board of Directors should ensure that the law of supply and demand or the overall economic health of the communities that they serve is reflected in the salaries and benefits packages. Preferably, methods in determining salaries and benefits, among others, might include: Relating salaries and benefits to what the market will bear, i.e., high applications numbers for a job would usually lead to offering lower salaries and benefits; Tying salaries and benefits to local economic indexes that reflect the economies of the community served. R3. OCFA salaries should be renegotiated annually to reflect the actual economic trends of those citizens they serve as opposed to entering into labor agreement that project salary and benefit increases too far in the future with set increases that do not reflect the unreliable economic volatile future. R4. The OCFA Board of Directors should clarify and explain which part of the current Memorandum of Understanding controls: Article XXIV that sets annual increases through 2015, or the requirement of Article XXIX that requires compatibility with neighboring non-Authority fire departments, and explain the reasoning for that rationale. This should be included on OCFA‟s website under the Memorandum of Understanding. R5. The OCFA Board of Directors should provide and make public both a short-term and long-term plan that brings the labor agreements in line with the living cost of the citizens they serve rather than solely upon the revenues derived from secured property tax of the property and city fees in their realm. R6. If the growth of firefighter‟s salaries is reduced to reflect the economy of the citizens they serve, the OCFA should consider reducing the fees that they charge their contract cities to reflect the change and to be responsive to the financial realities of the cities. R7. The OCFA should consider requiring the terms of office of the directors to be at least two years to provide longer time for continuity of the leadership. REQUIRED RESPONSES In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury requires responses from the OCFA and the OCFA Board of Directors to the Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. “Not later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section §914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and commendations…” The Penal Code lists the following response choices for a responding entity: Responses to Findings 1. The respondent agrees with the finding. 2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding in dispute and shall include an explanation of the reason. Responses to Recommendations 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope and parameters of that analysis and timeframe. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. All responses should be received no later than October 1 (unless the agency or department has requested in writing an additional extension). Follow-up is the responsibility of the sitting Grand Jury.