Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I ,ou ~u <br /> <br />HEARING <br />BUDGET <br />1966-67 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />17:6818 <br /> <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA <br /> <br />ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING <br /> <br />JUNE 28, 1966 <br /> <br />The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California met in regular <br />session in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall on June 28, <br />1966 at 8 P.M. <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen, Arth, Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Forman <br />None <br /> <br />Mayor Forman declared the hearing open on the proposed budget for <br />1966-67 and advised that copies of said budget have been on file in <br />the office of the City Clerk for the prescribed time in accordance <br />with the City Charter and that the affidavit of publication of the <br />Notice of Public Hearing is on file. <br /> <br />It was noted that at the City Council meeting of June 21, 1966 Mayor <br />Forman had appointed a Committee (Councilmen Butterworth and <br />Considine) to meet with representatives of the Arcadia Employee's <br />Association to discuss proposed salary increases. Councilman <br />Considine summarized said meeting as follows: <br /> <br />That as a result of the City Council requesting a wage adjustment of <br />$15,000 to balance the budget, the Association felt that the <br />adjustment had been taken from the salary scale on a dollar basis <br />rather than on a percentage basis, causing an inequity in the lower <br />salary levels as compared to the upper salary levels. A solution <br />proposed by the Association, and concurred in by Councilmen Butterworth <br />and Considine, was that a deferment of wage increases be made to and <br />including August 13 at which time $15,000 of salary increases would <br />have been consumed and that the salary increases then be at the rates <br />which existed in the 2 1/2%, 5% and 7 V2% increment as originally <br />proposed. <br /> <br />Councilman Considine continued that by this method the base wage <br />scale, on which the City Council had spent sometime protecting and <br />developing, would not be disturbed; that it would also give the same <br />amount to employees on a step increase which would be compatible with <br />the wage scale and would not be intentionally or unintentionally dis- <br />criminatory percentagewise. He stated in part that if this were not <br />done and an attempt were made at a later date to return to a standard <br />wage scale the $15,000 would have to be put back into the budget at <br />that time which would only defer the payment; that by deferment and <br />leaving the wage scale as it is the $15,000 would be fully recovered <br />and the raise to the employees would be a true one and continue from <br />that point; they would not be placed in a jeopardized position due to <br />reduced scales in subsequent years; that the City Council action at <br />this time would stand constant and clear and would not leave any <br />carry-over to be considered by City Councils in future budgets. <br /> <br />It was the COnsensus of the City Council that it would be preferable <br />to recover the money from the budget rather than defer the wage <br />increases and that the City Council is striving to leave the employee <br />in the most favorable position under the present financial capability <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />6-28-66 <br />