AB 1309 requires the state to align compensation for rank‑and‑file firefighters in State Bargaining Unit 8 with a bench marked average drawn from 20 specified California municipal and county fire employers to improve recruitment and retention. The bill establishes an annual joint survey process to produce that benchmark and directs that any resulting pay changes be implemented through collective bargaining under the Ralph C.
Dills Act.
This matters for payroll managers, human resources, and budget officials because it converts an external municipal compensation comparison into a recurring, negotiated obligation that can shift costs to the state and change bargaining dynamics between the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and its exclusive representative.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the state to pay rank‑and‑file firefighters in State Bargaining Unit 8 to within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks across a named group of 20 California fire departments. It creates an annual joint survey—carried out by the state and the union—to calculate a projected average total salary as of July 1 each year and adds a one‑time chiefs' salary survey for five large departments.
Who It Affects
Directly affects CAL FIRE uniformed, rank‑and‑file employees represented in Bargaining Unit 8, the exclusive bargaining representative, the Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. It also touches the state budget office and legislators because salary changes flow through negotiated memoranda of understanding and may require legislative budget approval if they incur new expenditures.
Why It Matters
By tying state pay to a recurring municipal benchmark and embedding the outcome in collective bargaining, the bill institutionalizes an external competitiveness standard that can drive state wage growth. Employers and budget officers should watch the survey mechanics and the interaction between negotiated MOUs and legislative budget control.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1309 names 20 California municipal and county fire employers as the comparison group that will set the market benchmark for CAL FIRE’s rank‑and‑file pay. Those jurisdictions are listed explicitly in the bill (including Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Torrance, Stockton and others).
The bill says the state should target compensation to fall within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks across those employers, using the group average as the external reference point.
To produce that benchmark the bill requires a joint annual survey: the state and the exclusive bargaining representative for Unit 8 must survey the listed departments and calculate an estimated average based on the projected average total salary for those agencies as of July 1 of the survey year. Separately, the bill mandates that, by January 1, 2027, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection conduct a cursory, prior‑year survey of base salary and benefits for the fire chiefs at five large jurisdictions (Fresno, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, San Diego, and San Francisco) and report the results to CAL FIRE.The bill frames a policy that compensation decisions for uniformed CAL FIRE classifications should consider these external comparisons alongside internal equity considerations.
Any pay increases that flow from this statutory benchmark are not automatic; the bill requires implementation through a memorandum of understanding negotiated under the Ralph C. Dills Act.
Finally, the statute recognizes that a negotiated MOU will control over the statutory text where there is conflict, but any MOU provision that requires new expenditures will not take effect unless the Legislature approves the spending and the annual Budget Act provides the funds.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statutory target is explicit: state pay for rank‑and‑file Unit 8 firefighters must fall within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks across the listed 20 departments.
The annual benchmark uses the 'projected average total salary' for those jurisdictions measured as of July 1 of the survey year rather than actual year‑end payrolls.
The 20‑department comparator list is fixed in statute and traces to a 2017 agreement between the exclusive bargaining representative and DHR.
A one‑time, separate survey of fire chiefs in five large jurisdictions must be completed and reported to CAL FIRE by January 1, 2027.
Any pay change tied to the benchmark must be implemented through a negotiated MOU under the Ralph C. Dills Act, and MOU provisions that create new expenditures require legislative and Budget Act approval to become effective.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a statutory comparator list and a 15% pay target
Subdivision (a) names the 20 city and county fire employers that serve as the market comparator for Unit 8 rank‑and‑file pay and sets the core directive that the state shall pay within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks across that list. Practically, fixing the comparator list in statute limits future bargaining or administrative discretion to change the peer group without legislative amendment and anchors CAL FIRE pay discussions to those specific local employers.
Mandates a joint annual salary survey and a one‑time chiefs survey
Subdivision (b) obligates the state and the exclusive bargaining representative to jointly conduct an annual calculation of the estimated average salaries for the listed departments, using the projected average total salary as of July 1. It also requires CAL FIRE to run a cursory, prior‑year chiefs' compensation survey for five major jurisdictions and report by January 1, 2027. These data duties create recurring administrative work and a standing evidentiary basis for bargaining positions.
Declares comparability policy and internal equity consideration
Subdivision (c) states that, when setting uniformed CAL FIRE pay, the state should consider the listed comparable jurisdictions as well as internal comparisons. This is a policy directive rather than a command to set specific pay steps, but it institutionalizes the comparators into the pay‑setting rationale that DHR and CAL FIRE will use in negotiations and classification decisions.
Requires implementation through the Ralph C. Dills Act (negotiated MOU)
Subdivision (d) makes clear that any salary increases flowing from the benchmark must be implemented through a memorandum of understanding negotiated under the Ralph C. Dills Act. That routes adjustments through collective bargaining rather than unilateral administrative action, preserving established labor relations procedures but also binding implementation to the pace and give‑and‑take of negotiations.
Resolves conflicts with existing MOUs and preserves budgetary control
Subdivision (e) puts the negotiated MOU ahead of conflicting statutory language, but it qualifies that if an MOU provision requires expenditures, that provision will not become effective without legislative approval and inclusion in the annual Budget Act. This clause maintains legislative prerogative over state spending while effectively deferring pay detail to the bargaining table.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Rank‑and‑file CAL FIRE firefighters (Unit 8): The bill anchors pay to a municipal benchmark that is likely to raise or stabilize compensation for corresponding ranks, improving recruitment and retention prospects.
- Exclusive bargaining representative for Unit 8: Gains a statutory anchor and a mandated data process to support bargaining claims, strengthening leverage in negotiations.
- Prospective CAL FIRE recruits: A clearer, statutory competitiveness standard makes CAL FIRE offers more predictable relative to local departments, reducing recruitment frictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- State general fund and taxpayers: Salary increases negotiated and made effective will increase the state's recurring personnel costs, subject to legislative budget approval when new expenditures are required.
- Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and DHR: Both agencies must allocate staff time and resources to conduct or support the annual joint survey and to negotiate and implement MOUs, adding administrative workload.
- Legislature and budget offices: Face pressure to find funding if MOUs produce salary increases; the bill can shift tough budget choices into annual appropriations cycles.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to ensure CAL FIRE can recruit and retain firefighters by tying state pay to local market benchmarks—thereby potentially driving higher recurring state costs—or to preserve strict legislative control over spending and budgetary trade‑offs, which can leave state recruitment weaker; the bill delegates pay pressure to bargaining and benchmarks while still requiring legislative approval for added expenditures, creating a conflict between competing authorities and fiscal realities.
The bill fixes a specific comparator set in statute and requires an annual joint survey, but it leaves important methodological choices unresolved: the bill uses a 'projected average total salary' as of July 1, a term that will require definition (does it include overtime, differential pay, pension pick‑ups, health contributions?). Those definitional choices will materially change the benchmark number and could become a bargaining battleground.
Because the list of 20 comparators is static, local shifts in municipal pay practices (for example, if some cities move to step systems, add longevity pay, or change differential rules) will affect CAL FIRE’s market position without periodic legislative review.
Another implementation tension stems from the bill’s interplay with collective bargaining and fiscal control. The statute defers pay changes to MOUs, and designates MOUs as controlling where they conflict with statute—but it also preserves the Legislature’s budget authority by blocking MOU provisions that require expenditures unless approved in the Budget Act.
That means bargaining could produce agreements the state is legally committed to in principle but practically unable to implement without new appropriations, creating asymmetry between negotiated expectations and available funding. Finally, anchoring CAL FIRE pay to municipal averages risks upward wage pressure across the state payroll but offers no mechanism for phasing, offsets, or sunset, which raises questions about long‑term fiscal sustainability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.