Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City and Local 51 confirm tentative agreements on pay items, table several issues pending language
Summary
City negotiators and Local 51 reviewed a lengthy list of contract items; the city accepted or agreed to several incentive and administrative changes, rejected some wage requests, and tabled others for additional language or committee review. A follow-up meeting was set for July 14.
The city and representatives of Local 51 reviewed and confirmed tentative outcomes on multiple contract items during a bargaining session that focused on pay, benefits and language clarifications.
Moderator opened the meeting and asked presenters to start with compensation. Sashan Donoski of the Office of Management and Budget summarized proposals and cost estimates, and the parties proceeded item by item through a 40-point handout. “So the total cost of the contract is $56,000,000,” Donoski said when summarizing the union’s June 26 proposal.
Why it matters: the session narrowed differences on several operational and incentive-pay items while leaving others unresolved. Those open items will require revised language or committee review before they can be finalized.
Major outcomes confirmed during the meeting included city acceptance of a combined field-training-officer (FTO) and mentor pay proposal; city approval of longevity pay and increases tied to TCFP certification; acceptance of an electronic-payroll-deduction process and expanded use of electronic documents; and creation of a labor-management committee to research feasibility and structure for a uniformed-fire health-care trust. Several proposals were rejected by the city (including certain wage-increase requests and bilingual-pay proposals) or were explicitly tabled for additional language or committee consideration.
Negotiators agreed on process: for items requiring further drafting or review, the parties will return revised language at the next session. The meeting concluded with both sides scheduling a follow-up for Tuesday, 2026-07-14 at 2:00 p.m.
Quotes and attributions follow the meeting record: Donoski provided the cost estimates for the proposals; a staff member responsible for the slide deck said they would revise presentation materials for clarity before posting; union participants repeatedly answered affirmatively when the facilitator asked for verbal confirmation of agreements.
Next steps: the city will add proposals presented that day to the packet for the next meeting; parties will rework language on tabled items (drug‑and‑alcohol testing changes, some uniform and restructuring requests, and committee composition for certain matters) and return with edits or take items back to committee as needed.
The session did not produce signed contract language; it recorded verbal confirmations and direction for drafting next steps rather than final, enforceable actions.
