NEWS — Firefighters reject city pay offer; negotiations to continue

By Karen Gleason

The 830 Times

Members of the Del Rio Professional FireFighters Association Local 3662 (DRPFA) have rejected an offer by the city for a 2 percent salary increase and called on the city to offer firefighters the same pay increase offered to the city’s police officers.

DRPFA representatives met with top city administrators in council chambers at City Hall at 2 p.m. Friday, Nov. 6. Sitting at the negotiating table for the firefighters were Edgar Escobedo, DRPFA president; Jacob Trevino and Raul Castillo, while City Manager Manuel Chavez, City Attorney Ana Markowski Smith and City Finance Director Roxy Soto represented the city.

Camela Sandmann, an attorney with Denton Navarro Rodriguez Bernal Santee & Zech, the city’s contracted law firm, served as chief negotiator for the city.

Sandmann opened Friday’s meeting and told the firefighters the city had a proposal for them to review and consider.

After the firefighters received the proposal, Escobedo said he wished to caucus with his negotiating team.

Escobedo and his team returned to the council chambers about 40 minutes later.

Castillo said, “We’d like to respectfully decline this proposal.”

He referenced the “me too” clause in the contract, saying, “That’s like a big protection for us.”

The “me too” clause ensures that the city’s civil service employees — police officers and firefighters — receive any pay increase given to the city’s non-civil service employees.

Castillo went on, “Since 2017, we’ve lost 39 percent of compounded interest through the COLAs (cost-of-living adjustments). We’ve lost overtime pay. We were at $300,000, and now we’re at $5,000. We’ve had 46 departures (of personnel) since 2019, with six more reported to leave, by survey. The ‘me too’ clause is our protection for future growth.”

Escobedo added, “Also, just working on good faith here, the ‘me too’ clause is one of the biggest elements we wouldn’t want to give up. It’s a little bit of a protection, but also with what was proposed, it’s a very, very small amount of personnel that would end up benefiting from it, but in good faith, we’re willing to continue to work, if the city is able to continue to meet with us and negotiate with us.”

Escobedo said firefighters would like to “meet what the police got under (their) collective bargaining contract.”

The contract between the city and the Del Rio Police Officers Association will go before city council on Monday, Nov. 9. The DRPOA agreement is a three-year contract and stipulates police officers will receive a 2.5 percent salary increase to all positions beginning Nov. 14, with an additional 0.5 percent salary increase on March 1, 2027.

The contract also provides a 3.5 percent salary increase to all positions beginning Oct. 1, 2027, and a 4 percent salary increase to all positions beginning Oct. 1, 2028. The agreement also provides funeral/bereavement leave of 36 hours for each civil service employee annually.

Escobedo said, “We would like to be equivalent to them, and I believe they also got a couple of things extra.”

Sandmann interjected, saying, “When you say equivalent, just so we’re clear, do you mean a three-year contract like they got?”

“Yes, ma’am,” Escobedo replied. “I would say the same thing on the salary side. I believe they got bereavement pay and also a $40 to $50 difference on their civic center overtime, so with that, if we were able to do the same on salaries and then on our structural and degree side, for our firefighters, change that to $25 more.”

Trevino added, “Let me chime in. So just so everyone has an understanding, for the intermediate, advanced and master’s, in order for you to attain those higher certificate tiers, you have to have time in service, so it takes about four years, so a lot of the newer guys, which is the bulk of the people we have in our department, they would have to wait 12 years to get to their advanced, and then for them to receive their master’s, it requires a degree, which only a few individuals in this department have.

“So for that, it just takes too long for the certification pay to get paid out for anyone to see a benefit, so we would like to get at least, what you currently have in the proposal, which is the certification pay for the basic to the master for our structural, and the education, from the associate’s to the bachelor’s, to have those increased by $25 extra a month, which would be capped at $275,” Trevino added.

Trevino, Escobedo and Sandmann then spent some time discussing the various certifications and requirements for those certifications, as well as educational requirements that exist for some of the certifications.

After the discussion, Escobedo said, “And just to refrain on this real quick: The reason why we’ve come back and said we want something equivalent to what PD got on the salaries side of it is it comes down to we’re both public servants, public safety entities for the city. I don’t think that one is more important than the other. I mean, we have missed out on a couple of things in the past. We continued to just struggle to keep personnel and morale and something that would be equivalent to that in a three-year contract, we would be fine with that.”

City representatives then went to caucus. They met privately for about 20 minutes, then returned to council chambers.

Sandmann said, “We took what you guys had to say, and what we think, what we’re willing to put across the table right now, is a one-year contract. We think it’s best for both sides, and in that one-year contract, it would be a 2 percent increase to salaries, and we would leave the ‘me too’ clause in for this one year. The only reason we’re leaving it in for one year, we’re hoping over the course of this time, that other options and revenue avenues are being looked at, and that maybe next year, it will be a better position for you and us.

“So we’re willing to increase, like you said, take the specialty certifications out and increase it by $25 on each of those that you requested. We’ve also requested that the effective date of this contract, we’re able to get this done and make the next council meeting. I think, which is the 17th of November, for efficiency for the staff, we would make this effective Nov. 28 through Sept. 20, 2027. That is what we are proposing across the table to you guys today,” Sandmann finished.

Trevino responded, “So when you state you’re looking at possible revenues for the next year, if we decline this right now, is this going to be the end of negotiations?”

Sandmann said, “I’m not going to say that we are quite at an impasse at this time for meet and confer, but that would be up to you all. Do you have anything you want to put back across the table that you want us to consider?”

Trevino, Castillo and Escobedo conferred among themselves for a moment, then Escobedo said, “At this time, we decline that proposal. Again, it’s one of those situations where we’ve already spoken with our members, and what we proposed earlier today was … to see if we could continue to work with you all to get to that point, but for 2 percent for a one-year contract and the circumstances that we’ve already explained in the past, it will just put us in the same situation … so we’ll respectfully decline that proposal at this time.”

Sandmann asked, “Is that the only proposal you put across the table?”

Escobedo said, “The proposal that we put forward earlier today is one that we would really, really like to work on.”

Sandmann said, “Right, and we had declined that. There’s not going to be a multi-year contract at this time, especially with the ‘me too’ clause included. But definitely not a multi-year contract at this stage of the game and in the budget cycle. This is the best we have to offer across the table, and the reason why we only did one year, is because we think maybe next year after certain things are looked at and other revenue options, there may be an option to be better for the next year.

“Whether that happens or not, that’s the hope from our side to you guys. We can’t commit to a multi-year contract to you guys at this time, whether a ‘me too’ clause is in there or not,” Sandmann added.

Escobedo said, “We understand, and we fall back on just the same comment that you said right now, so it’s never a situation where things are promised and may look a little bit better in a year or two, but they never have. They don’t. So we would like to, the 2 percent for this year and the increments in our education and structural side, that proposal itself would be declined on our side, but we would have to go into caucus to allow us to see if we would bring back something else, and if that’s allowed from your side.”

Sandmann responded, “You can try again, and keep in mind, if you’re going to try and keep a ‘me too’ clause in there, it’s only going to be a one-year contract, but yes, by all means, if you all want to go caucus again and see if there’s something you can come up with now, or if you can’t come up with anything, we can always reschedule again for another day.”

Escobedo said, “Yes, we’ll reschedule and get with our members and then connect with you.”

The two groups agreed to meet again at 3 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 19.

The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com.