Yaroslavsky Will Take 5% Raise He Shunned Earlier : Council: Outgoing official had urged colleagues not to take pay hike. The increase is only $1,200 this year but will be worth more in pension benefits.

Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky has quietly decided to accept a 5% raise that he and most of his City Hall peers had forsaken earlier this year in a widely advertised gesture of fiscal belt-tightening.

The raise will be worth only $1,200 this year but will be worth much more in pension benefits when the 46-year-old councilman becomes eligible to draw retirement pay at age 55.

Yaroslavsky’s decision comes as he prepares to end his lengthy City Hall career and join the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, to which he was elected in June. Late last year, Yaroslavsky and 13 of his 15 council colleagues voluntarily agreed to forgo a 5% pay hike available to them Jan. 1, 1994.

The move to reject the money was initiated by San Fernando Valley Councilwoman Laura Chick. She argued that such self-sacrifice was a signal the council needed to send to taxpayers and city employees at a time when the city faced alarming budget deficits and thousands of municipal employees were seeking long-delayed raises.

Yaroslavsky was the first recruit to Chick’s campaign, and he joined her at a news conference where the pair urged their colleagues not to take the money.

Tim Lynch, spokesman for City Controller Rick Tuttle, said Yaroslavsky is the only one of the 13 to rescind a pay hike denial agreement. He said Yaroslavsky took the action in a one-sentence July 22 letter to the controller. The raise became effective for Yaroslavsky on Aug. 22.

The councilman is out of the country and could not be reached for comment. But his chief deputy, Alisa Katz, denied that the move was financially motivated. “That’s not why he took it,” Katz said.

The councilman intends to donate the money equally to four deserving local programs, including a project to build a library in Studio City and to the Sherman Oaks senior citizens center, Katz said. Also benefiting would be the Beverly-Fairfax Patrol and the Westwood Farmers Market.

Because he will be stepping down from the council in early December to assume his duties at the county, the raise will be in effect for him for slightly more than three months and produce only about $1,200 in additional pay.

For a retiree like Yaroslavsky with 19 1/2 years of city service, a $1,200-per-year raise would translate into more than $500 a year in additional pension benefits, said Lorraine Osuna, deputy general manager of the City Employees Retirement System. All told, Yaroslavsky would be entitled to a pension of more than $37,000 per year from the city upon retirement.

Katz said he decided to take the money only after it became clear that the need to send a message to city employees negotiating for additional wages had passed.

“At this point, city employees are getting increases,” Katz said.

City civilian employees have been offered a 2% increase, although only one of the bargaining units representing those employees has accepted the offer.

Other top City Hall officials point out privately, however, that the city is still in a budget crisis, which was one of the reasons cited by Chick and Yaroslavsky for turning down the pay raise.

While campaigning for the Board of Supervisors this spring, Yaroslavsky frequently criticized the board as fiscally reckless, citing in particular a secret decision by top county officials to increase the pensions of thousands of county employees--with the biggest windfalls going to the board and senior bureaucrats.

“I cannot imagine that (council members) would take a pay increase at a time when we are asking our own employees to make a sacrifice,” Yaroslavsky said last November when he joined Chick in urging his colleagues to reject the pay hike.

Chick refused to comment on Yaroslavsky’s decision.

This year, Yaroslavsky--as chairman of the council’s Budget Committee--voted against a raise worth a total of 9% over two years for the city’s police, saying it was too generous. He voted for a plan--still the subject of negotiations with unions--to offer the city’s civilian work force a 2% pay increase in 1994-95 and another 2% in 1995-96.

Only Councilmen Hal Bernson and Nate Holden accepted the 5% increase. Both said, however, that they intended to donate the money to police units in their districts.

Councilman Joel Wachs originally agreed to forgo the increase only until June 30, 1994. Lynch confirmed that Wachs has been receiving the additional pay since that date. Wachs, some city officials have pointed out, is up for reelection in 1995. If defeated, he would leave office June 30. By taking the raise for a full year, Wachs would be able to maximize his pension benefits.