Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 PBA Negotiation Minutes PBA Labor Contract Negotiations Kick-Off Meeting Minutes July 16, 2013 @ 3:00 pm Present: Al Boetjjer, CFPBA Staff Representative Sarah Epifanio, CFPBA Staff Attorney Steve Marcinik, PBA Representative Mark Hepfer, PBA Representative Tim Zelinski, PEA Representative Al Minner, City Representative Debra Krueger, City Representative Chief Morris, City Representative Attachments: Initial Negotiations Between City of Sebastian & PBA — Presented by Al Minner for City's proposal. "History, Experience and Case Study of DROPs", presented by Al Boettjer, CFPBA. City—Al Minner presented financial information and the City's initial offerings. PBA - requested a multi-year contract, 2 or 3 years, with certain Article openers each year. Additionally, requested to tentatively agree (TA) to boiler plate articles in the bargaining agreement. City responded—would entertain a multi-year contract, but would not be interested in TA boiler plate articles, at this time. PBA did not furnish a proposal, however, did verbally propose the following items: ✓ Promotional Examinations, Article 31.6(C.) — Change reading list to one (1) outside original reference, and the rest of the reading materials would be limited to City, State and traffic requirements. ✓ Article 41.1 —strike (1) small badge and (2)pairs shoes or boots as needed. ✓ Article 48 —add DROP requirement Additional discussion was focused on the effect of Furloughs on overtime. City would place initial offer in Legislative format prior to next meeting. PBA would submit a proposal a couple of days in advance of the next scheduled meeting. Next Meeting: July 30, 2013, at 3:00pm in City Manager Conference Room. Respectfully Submitted, 14{,k LC el Debra ue Administrative Services Director P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations July 16, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 Z •,-, © ,1-► N Cl) V 4 4A c J cd 1 E ° p H .cu Vw ,`: d ti) 4� A t. WO w a) z 0 aD bA 4) ,I J 1 ca pq 6 1 pq w P4 ' . -.' MI ^^' rt t � U cu Z "—I .- t r..) •,1_e W U 0 Ian 6t '' 0 V U I � P Q Z ti -- b V C •l + c Iii U 0 b O f z 4 0 g : -i O J d •,_,,8 u. o Cd a al 1111 2 Ct aq 4v cn I ° Cl), P4 ecu E•�+ P O �' o N I—I ^ •,.., O rt -0 , 4t 2 t-Eci)1-im 0 E 0 (i) cL4 cts p-i P-4 4t a) c 4t pq cu z u ct ,-0 P4 ii—, p., i 4 as ca a4 V W • Z P-1 c� p� ct • ct 0 1--1 I-1 W w� 0 )-1 '8 ;..1 0 E cn 4 ''a)4 u 0 ct ;) PO to cn A A A A A A O I Z v+ cn Z 0 $: : t-0 2 0 sz V — I II 2 C t 4 = Cl)• -- ct o 0 I CI) 4 cn W P4 0 1.—• eu E w ci) . •,. c'fl 0 1-1-1 O ...., 0 4. ,.zm '7) 4, 0 "C, 0 ct cl .; bk r=4 " o U czi 4t voi W i-I r=4 H p..( i ,.. a) a V �—+ o c a) ..f:4 CI) W V cd ct ( ) Z 1—i 0 E 0 a9 1-1-1 H eiJ = .ai cu 0 )—I .a as cu W i •o 4�-+ 4 e° g c.) , , , A 0 z z d' Il a. :1 0 ' 44 2 1 en N w N r-+ A N CZ Z „ccs c w rT ' u 0 ICI I. 0 L. w O a4 6 T) il:i bA . v w F. a. ,_, O W � I�5-• O`—I N 4 r'r'I W w Ces O O O O O O O O O An- O O O O O O O O O 6.. O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O 6 00 I� tO LA 4. r (4. rl .EA- -EA- -EA- -EA- -EA- -EA- in- - -EA- .,. It z 1 4 r• �/ 1 z p..., i V �i1 1 t .4, ,,a N M 1 G ' Q NL1r O N IX O v N r, a4 ✓ o • o O ,. te Aat 4 0 L' P.1 ;, 4 4) , so N U 1.04 6 i Tei °° ii 4 g CA a.) ,r■ Z W0 Z . > •zr" O N W ��y CI Ci 0 00 O Ln ;MO^, t v Fil U g en O U to .b o o w N p bA O M y N A ER O o0 V N ER a;:S" i 0 z r- 1A z 4 t 1, p Ii W H O = O 0 O O O O =M^ O \ / n O^ 0 = = Q Cl) © = r( ta d' ) VD i N W vD 4 1..) 1 ct °.' H cut 4 H a) c.) O U P4 O (1) i LIIII r.1.4 r24 cu g:4 A v) Z N • g f 4 � N E 6 & W 1 '4. {* 9 LLI c cn . . cn cn V CU U CU 0 O V ct 4 c) + � ° N cn 4-4 cn O g O ' en V 1 II � ��4) 0.0 pp -c;M -ci N ct o ct 0 +-' ,--a I Q-+ to W � YS 1� O A be 4 , �V ( by � i[) 0 -1..)4 cNn ct I N. 4� W 4 49 ct N •z C\ O 5 c 6 ti v) u er) Ln 4 a H w cn hi) -6 4-1 ' N U c , E U W O� A A A 3'r Ii*� ^ t 0 a) L O 0 C`5 , w. p:I1 II W cn Q) ��11 71-1--� • • U U 0 o 4(n 4� Ct cd CA 4 c)_ au v) czt 1.) .., 0 O c+.1 7 0 o Fri Ocn p U 44 ci) OP-1 cn ? ' cu ~ g r-' w � w Q u w 1�-i 1� vs 4) ct o Z ‘i 1■I V U o4 N o o I-1 ct u y oo = w a� � © © � I--r c� N G, , . - ._,0 1 V a) .� o w � ct Z CJ 0 O N > > > > O I—+ Q9- A A A A CI Z f N • N LL N Z LL N/ J it 41,_ J Cl. J �,, .� LL N • • W J; '`/ LL N te • CO LL N= We C4 4 O M 4 3 A LLN cO h - LL N rrim CA _ LL N oLL N t"1 P4 1 LL N W cn 41e. N W LL N U W >-O • w LL N W �/ ) Q V LL N v` Q = 'ILI co A w O > o co Q d LL N W — M Cl) >o 4 , Q LL>- M LL N I I I LL N PLL O N O LL N O LL N Y o LL N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O ci 0 O OW o O Op 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O U, Ell Ii> 0 o 4t N S. � •o , 4 aAr V N LA V LA b O $ e ^ C �"•Al < :Y. < N N O f V M Z K M M K — K Z e 8 , < V N N tie _ T T V K M M •K +•- K �u .il e M g g_ g_ g_ $ R § M r 7, 4 lit.:: W N. N Lll ^ m 8 N as 1∎ 0 $ . 5 P T N - T W ii d • K wir K M M / K ' K M M K -s- K N ' Eno y x - n om =, z = M t e. V g m r- N N LD N e". 01.11 imil im4 W M. y� M. M M ^ K A .. A. r i. n 33 A_ ti `� ° $ o e Oil riJ M t OCR' V R ' m N N r m N 427 M rilq : ,..*I.L K M M K .T- K ten iii= 0. Y L.° m N N r CO N r �"+ 4 tO E......0 Q N cQ K M M K K �J V1 grppn [LL�7e i2i i (Pmy► 1- (apyf L��Q' ^! g :74 LA © K s m N N co M1 N ^ L•-s •1 L _ _ CA dtf CLI K CI. N M M M M C , }q� R �I j e 8 8 m om. a a g �° g -� x L.1 N N N T M1 M1 N T N W G� K K g w. M K M M K§_ Rt8- R. §11§. gtglat ' etk * k §igt C0. M M N M M N M CD s o Rj ,-...7, m O? m .^- {� L7S `p Y 14" P l N �- N fV T M1 N : _ : M ¢■K M m Z — m N W W w , C ` C G 'c H m W a cc W wd y i"' d �n u- Z o •O G m W Lu �p lep d LL U m C W m LL E ~ N d LL W L.1 V te> d , Q' N d L & ~ N W C t C O M W 'm H m L Cn Cn c G U C a c v z La Z CC W .N b W K 2 .0 d L . 0 ~ N G N d F W O W W W W . 02 it 5 Cn 5 - Li H d LL_ a O C.1 1- of C 1 0 ill'. z • N N Z N �FJ � I I I 1 LL • V w I 1 •' a. ■ I N �■ O I 1 N f 111 I I- U- I '.,... O I ga - I 1 F- N I 1 °w 0 • I- >- LL 1 1 M-) illail I Q I 1 co- I O I ■ I I N I LL I 1 w )1114 ■ 1 CO I ■ O N } I 1 IL 14 I W CZ I 1 W - I ■ D n I I U N ■ LL 4 I \ I ■ 1 1-( 1 1 Z N I 1 W LL = /I I ■ f V IX N ■ W O ■ N I I ; LL I ■ W I 1 W ce CA C4 •� ' ''Ll^^' N • V LL 6T4 Cl/ ' I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 CI I O N Y LL Ct O O O O O O O et O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O 1017 O CO 0 O CO 1 O N O o h 7 Ih M N N to /A fA fA /A f9 N to WO w COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2014 PROPOSAL POLICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION P Initial City Proposal (July 16, 2013) Article 1 — Union Recognition • No Change Article 2—Management Rights No Change Article 3— Bargaining Unit Representation No Change Article 4— Dues Deduction No Change Article 5— Rights of Employee No Change Article 6—No Strike No Change Article 7— Hours of Work and Overtime No Change to any section or subsection. Note: The City interpreted Article 7.1 (a) to allow for furlough days as the last sentence in this read, "This provision shall not be construed as a guarantee or limitation of the hours to be worked per week." City proposes to keep this language the same; however, on July 16, 2013 management's initial offer was to end the previously scheduled twelve furloughs. Article 8—Seniority/Layoff/Recall No Change Article 9— Miscellaneous Paid Leave No Change Article 10—Sick Leave No Change Article 11 —Annual Leave No Change Article 12—Grievance Procedure No Change Article 13— Holidays No Change Article 14— Promotions, Transfers and Adjustments No Change Article 15—Group Insurance No Change Article 16— Retirement Contributions No Change Article 17— Performance Evaluations No Change Article 18—Safety No Change Article 19—Disciplinary Action No Change Article 20—Salary 20.1 Bargaining unit members shall not receive an increase to their current step for the period of October 1, 20134 through September 30, 20143. Article 21 —Substance Abuse Testing No Change Article 22 — Uniforms No Change Article 23—Tuition Reimbursement No Change Article 24—Merit/Step Pay Plan 24.1 Not available from October 1, 20134 through September 30, 20143. New bargaining unit members who at the end of the initial probationary period, and after six (6) months from their date of hire (new employee only), will be eligible for a one-step increase, after receiving a satisfactory performance evaluation based upon satisfactory completion of work performance. 24.2 Not available from October 1, 20134 through September 30, 20143. Annually, on the date of classification, the bargaining unit members will be eligible for a one-step increase, upon receipt of a satisfactory performance appraisal of work performance. This will continue annually until the bargaining unit member reaches the maximum pay for his/her Y 9 9 classification. 24.3 Not available from October 1, 20134 through September 30, 20143. If the recommendation for an increase is for one-step, justification is stated on the performance evaluation and the pay increase will be implemented on the bargaining unit member's classification anniversary date. 24.4 Not available from October 1, 20134 through September 30, 20143. In rate cases a Supervisor or Department Head may make a recommendation for a two (2) step increase. When this occurs, the performance evaluation and justification (supporting documentation) for the greater increase will go before the City Manager. The City Manager will review the information and either accept or reject the recommendation. The Department Head will be notified of the City Manager's decision and he/she will be responsible for informing the affected bargaining unit member. Note: Examples of supporting documentation would include letters of commendation from supervisors, department heads or citizens, being considered for or selected as an employee of the quarter and any other documentation that would help justify a two (2) step increase. 24.5 Not available from October 1, 20134 through September 30, 20143. If the City Manager rejects the recommendation then a one-step increase is given. The Department Head can request another review in thirty (30) days to convince the City Manager to approve the special merit increase. The City Manager's decision will be final in all requests for a two (2) step increase. 24.6—24.7— No Change Article 25—Severability No Change Article 26—Counseling No Change Article 27—Term of Agreement This Agreement shall become effective upon the date of ratification by the parties and shall remain in full force and effect until 12:00 midnight on September 30, 20143. Appraiser's Office on July 1, 2012, is greater than $878,441,378, the term of this Agreement shall end midnight September 30, 1212. Design and Actuarial Aspects of Deferred Retirement Option Programs Copyright©2003, Society of Actuaries • . 3. History, Experience and Case Studies of DROPs The first DROP design began in East Baton Rouge Parish in 1981 and covered all groups of employees (police, fire and general employees). The initial plan was intended to be cost neutral. The neutrality was partly as a result of requiring the DROP to be elected prior to a scheduled post-NRD longevity pay increase. After about three years a DROP feature was added to the Louisiana Municipal State Police plan and then to the state firefighters' plan. There were a few other DROPs started in the 1980s. DROPs began to spread in a material fashion starting in the mid-1990s. Some of the earlier plans included: Louisiana, Oklahoma, Dallas and Hollywood, Fla. Many of the early DROP plans were limited to public safety employees. Below are some specific DROP experiences in certain jurisdictions. 3.1 Dallas Police and Fire Pension System The Dallas plan began in 1993. It is one of the few forward DROPs that has an unlimited DROP participation period. One-hundred percent of the frozen annuity is added to the DROP account. Participants are not eligible for disability benefits during the DROP participation period. The following experiences have been reported: • Employees have worked longer after NRA since the DROP was added. • The plan's actuary has reported that the DROP is basically cost neutral. • The DROP participation rate is almost 100%. • In a 2001 survey, young members expressed concern about senior employees staying on longer. The initial DROP was approved for only a five-year period. After the end of the five years (September 1997), a study was undertaken to measure the fiscal impact of the DROP. If the impact was negative, the DROP would be eliminated Or modified. The initial 1992 cost estimate assumed that DROP would add an annual cost of 0.24% of payroll and that employees would work an average of 1.6 • years longer: The results of the five-year study showed that retirement ages have increased from 52.4 before the DROP to 57.7 after the introduction of DROP. The 1997 study stated that mcst members elected DROP and most did so within two months of becoming eligible. The study contains retirement rates and information on when DROP was elected after first eligibility. Given the unlimited election period and the plan design, a high and immediate participation rate should not be surprising. Care should be taken not to assume this experience would emerge for plans with materially different provisions. 3.2 Anne Arundel County (Md.) Anne Arundel County added a DROP feature in CY2001 for firefighters and CY2002 for police officers. The DROP required a minimum participation period of 36 months and a maximum of 60 months. Employees electing DROP must retire after 60 months. Employees that leave before being in the DROP for 36 months get the non-DROP benefit. The initial experiences of these plans have been as follows: • In the first 16 months of the DROP existence,40 out of 79 eligible firefighters elected to join DROP. The percentage electing to join in the future is expected to increase slightly. Current estimates are that 60%-70% will elect DROP. Officers tend to elect DROP more often than non-officers. • After three months, only 10 out of 129 eligible police employees have elected to join DROP. It appears that police officers have materially less interest in DROP than firefighters. The current estimate is that only about 20% will elect DROP. Police tend to work less after retirement eligibility and many do not expect to stay the 36 months required to receive the DROP balance as a lump sum. Many of the senior officers who were expected to favor DROP have been electing to retire and take senior "security" positions related to terrorist concerns (e.g., head of security for a local utility company). 3.3 Pennsylvania Plans . Lancaster, Pa: The firefighters of Lancaster proposed a DROP plan in their contract negotiations with the city. The proposed DROP was designed to be cost neutral The union and the city were unable to reach agreement through negotiations, and the issue went to arbitration. Actuarial testimony was presented by both the union and the city. After considering testimony and arguments put forth by both sides, the arbitrator concluded that the DROP was a reasonable benefit for the firefighters and should be offered by the City. State Aid In Pennsylvania, cities are generally provided per capita state aid for certain employees covered under retirement plans. In the case of Lancaster, the state aid was $5,400 for each active firefighter. Even though DROP was simply an election under the retirement plan and in no other way impacted the individual's employment, it was not clear at the time of the arbitrator's award that state aid would be continued for the firefighters who had elected DROP. The arbitrator directed the city and the union to jointly seek the opinion of the Auditor General of Pennsylvania or a final resolution from the Pennsylvania judicial system on the issue of whether state aid could be denied to Lancaster on behalf of the firefighters who were active employees and participants in the DROP program. At the time of this study, the determination of state aid has not been finalized. The arbitrator's ruling stated: If it is determined with finality, that General Municipal Pension Fund State Aid may be denied to the City of Lancaster for Fire Fighters who are active employees participating in the DROP plan, the following shall occur: The pension that would otherwise have been payable at the time of their DROP election, had they chosen to retire then, that is credited to each participant's DROP account, shall be reduced by two-percent (.02)per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00); to a maximum of ten-percent in any year, that the City loses in General Municipal Pension Fund State Aid for each DROP participant. This proviso shall not be applied retroactively to DROP participants who have received the (DROP) lump sum. There is a real possibility that state aid will not be paid.for DROP participants and that the arbitrator would choose to reduce the pension increase if that were to occur. 3.4 Baltimore City The Baltimore City Retirement System provides for a "20 & out'" retirement at 50% of final average earnings. Benefit credits continue after 20 years of service at a rate of two percent per year. In the early 1990s, Baltimore City was faced with the exodus of qualified police officers as soon as they met the 20 years of service requirement. The pension system also covered firefighters. Firefighters tended to continue employment well past the time of initial retirement eligibility. The system provided a post-retirement COLA using a formula based on investment earnings in excess of the actuarial assumptions. The mayor requested ideas from the Fraternal Order of Police on ways to slow down the exodus of police officers. This led to the development of the Baltimore DROP. The initial DROP credited the DROP account with the participant's frozen pension plus employee contributions plus interest at the pre-retirement investment return assumption of 8.25%. The accumulation period was for three years; however, retirement was not mandatory at the end of the three-year term. In order to continue the encouragement for officers to stay on, the DROP account was continued with further crediting of interest. Additional pension credits were also earned for service after the 3 year DROP period; however, no more pension amounts or employee contributions were added to the DROP account. After five post-DROP years (e.g., after 28 years of service =20+3+5), the pre-DROP "frozen" benefit was recalculated on the new final average earnings. This was an expensive program, but it directly met the goals of continued employment. Retirements from the system had been averaging approximately 200 per year, but, during the first three years of DROP, there were less than a dozen service retirements. Retirements picked up at the end of the three-year period. Because of the significant attraction of the recalculation of the benefit, many officers continued employment past the end of the three-year period. In the late 1990s, "20 and out"refers to normal retirement after 20 years of service regardless of age. the eight-year time period (3+5) for the recomputation of the pension benefit was reduced to four and a half years (3+11/2). DROP Cost Test As in many jurisdictions, pens on benefits in,Baltimore City are subject to a contractual guarantee. Under The guarantee, the projected (not simply accrued) benefits cannot be diminished after they are granted. An exception to the contract right was put into place for the DROP benefit. The approach taken was to put a cost test in the initial DROP legislation. Under the cost test, essentially, if, after eight years of operation, the cost of DROP was not offset by net actuarial gains, the benefit would no longer be protected by the contract guarantee. The DROP benefit would still continue and it would take affirmative action by the City Council through an ordinance to reduce the DROP benefit. Moreover, the reduction of the DROP benefit could only be to the extent necessary to satisfy the DROP cost test. While the concept is not particularly complicated, there are real complexities in practice. For example, when the plan was improved to reduce the recalculation period from eight to four and a half years, the benefit improvement was funded through actuarial gains. The DROP test language was not, and under the contract provisions could not be, amended to add a charge for the benefit improvement. The law calls for the system's actuary, in consultation with an actuary selected by the union, to make the determination of whether the cost test has been satisfied. At the time of this study, the actuaries have not agreed on the interpretations and determinations for the DROP cost test. 3.5 San Jose In 1999 San Jose police and fire officers were negotiating for a DROP feature. Normally the benefit at retirement was 50% of final average pay plus additional accruals after 25 years of service. The city's charter required that the minimum benefit be at least 50% of final average pay. (It was noted that some alternate annuity forms could take the benefit below 50% after J&S form conversion factors were applied.) The DROP feature would freeze final average pay for benefit purposes but not for "charter" purposes. The city was not sure whether the DROP lump-sum value could be applied to pass the 50% charter requirement. A solution was to allow employees to elect a 50% current final average pay benefit without a DROP lump sum. This was never expected to be elected since the value would almost certainly be less than that of the DROP benefit. San Jose does not currently have a DROP. 3.6 New York City • • _ New York City has not yet adopted DROP. However, we have discussed• DROP with various fire and police officials and have some observations. Firefighters were very much in favor of adding a DROP. Most firefighters already work many years beyond their NRA. Police officers were materially less interested in DROPs. Few work any material amount of time beyond their NRA. The plan contains a "bad-boy clause" which adversely affects several participants each year. This means that certain events (e.g. failing a drug test) result in the loss of 100% of a participant's pension. Police officers in the city generally do not view the value of a DROP as balancing the risk of losing their pension. Firefighters have the same bad-boy clause but it seldom applies. 3.7 Louisiana Teachers About 1,800 Louisiana teachers elect DROP every year and slightly over half of the retirements have been by those who elected DROP. The system also noted that a handful of disabled members have returned to work just to join the DROP. 3.8 Milwaukee County Milwaukee County implemented a back DROP in 2001. The plan covered general employees, had no limit on the number of post-NRD years that could be used to calculate the lump sum and used 8.5 percent to nine percent interest rates to determine DROP lump sums. The result was that some participants were immediately eligible for DROP lump sums that exceeded $1 million.The Milwaukee County DROP has been viewed by many as a pension scandal and more issues and lessons may emerge. PBA Labor Contract Negotiation Meeting Minutes July 30, 2013 @ 3:00 pm Present: Al Boettjer, CFPBA Staff Representative Steve Marcinik, PBA Representative Mark Hepfer, PBA Representative Tim Zelinski, PEA Representative Al Minner, City Representative Debra Krueger, City Representative Chief Michelle Morris, City Representative Attachments: Collective Bargaining Agreement—Tentatively Agreed to Sections Meeting began 3:15 The minutes from the July 16, 2013 Labor Contract Negotiations were approved. The PBA stated their legal team was reviewing the wage issues, which is why it was not included in the proposal provided today. As such City stated that based on this and that Union proposal was provided on hour prior to meeting, it would be difficult to discuss items of significance. Both parties agreed to tentatively agree to non-financial items. The following contract items were tentatively agreed to with minor grammatical changes: ✓ Agreement ✓ Preamble ✓ Article 1 —Recognition ✓ Article 2—Organizational Survey ✓ Article 3—No Strike or Lock Out ✓ Article 4—Non-Discrimination ✓ Article 5—Dues Deduction ✓ Article 6 -Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action ✓ Article 7—Labor Management Communications ✓ Article 8—P.B.A.Representation ✓ Article 9—Bulletin Board ✓ Article 10—Personnel Records ✓ Article 11 — Right of Law Enforcement Officers While Under Investigation, Internal Investigations and Obligations to the Public. ✓ Article 12—Legal Benefit ✓ Article 13—Management Rights ✓ Article 14—Discipline and Discharge PBA agreed to have their full proposal well in advance of our next meeting. Next meeting scheduled for August 20, 2013 at 3:00pm in City Manager Conference Room 3:30—Meeting Adjourned Respectfully Submitted, G�fiL1'LLC- I; ' Debra Krueger Administrative Services Director P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations July 30, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 PBA Labor Contract Negotiation Meeting Minutes August 20, 2013 @ 3:00 pm Present: Al Boettjer, CFPBA Staff Representative Steve Marcinik, PBA Representative Mark Hepfer, PBA Representative Tim Zelinski, PEA Representative Al Minner, City Representative Debra Krueger, City Representative Chief Michelle Morris, City Representative PEA Member Attendance: Michael Brandes, Eric Antosia and Richard Snell Attachments: CBA- Union Financial Proposal Impact—Prepared by City Management Meeting began 3:00 The minutes from the July 30, 2013 Labor Contract Negotiations were approved. Al Minner reviewed the attached Union Financial Proposal Impact on next year's budget as well as the long term impact, and stated that we are starting to see subtle growth, but still do not have a good handle on where the economy is going. Both parties discussed Article 15, Rates of Pay, and all agreed it was very cumbersome and required clarification. The changes to the Article were agreed to in concept, and the City agreed to re-write and submit to PBA for approval. PBA summarized the major items to be negotiated were COLA, Merit, Sergeant Promotion Step Increase, Sergeant Pay Grade Cap, DROP and Military buy-back provision of the Chapter 185 pension. City then presented their position on the DROP and Military Buy-Back. 1. PBA must present a 30 year cost projection on these items, in order for the City to seriously consider implementation. It is the City's position that there are long term liability implications as well as unknown costs to the membership to pay for buying back years of service. It was further presented that one of the factors that increases liability is that members retire sooner causing the plan to pay longer. 2. PBA must pay for the projection, and not the Pension Fund or the City. When the City implemented Pension Reform in the last bargaining agreement, the City paid for the actuarial study. Caucus—4:00pm Returned—4:35pm P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations August 20, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 1 PBA proposed a 3 year contract, to include elimination of furloughs, no COLA & Merit, wage re-openers for years 2 & 3 and to withdraw DROP and Military buy-back request. Both parties then reviewed Articles 15 —49 to see where we stood in concept only. Article 15, Rates of Pay - Both parties discussed Article 15, Rates of Pay, and all agreed it was very cumbersome and required clarification. The changes to the Article were agreed to in concept, and the City agreed to re-write and submit to PBA for approval. Article 15.11 (new article 15.8), Rates of Pay — City requested a reduction in the promotion of Sergeant from five (5) steps to two (2) steps. After much discussion it was agreed to by both parties to reduce the promotional increase to four(4) steps. New Article 15.7, Rates of Pay—PBA agreed to the City request of a cap to the Sergeant Pay to Pay Grade 30#, Step 20. Articles 16—21 - no changes requested from either party. Article 22.1, Bereavement Leave — City agreed to PBA request to add compensatory leave, to the accrued leave not to be charged for bereavement. Article 22.2, Bereavement Leave — City agreed to add Step Children to the bargaining unit member's immediate family, as long as it is supported by a marriage certificate. Articles 23 —26—no changes requested from either party. Article 27.6, Basic Workweek and Overtime — PBA agreed to City's request to remove "All full time bargaining unit members agree to ninety six (96) hours of furlough leave to be taken at the Police Chiefs discretion within the duration of this agreement". Article 28.5, Holidays— PBA agreed to City request to change the language of this article back to language prior to the October 1, 2011 — September 30, 2013 contract. "Bargaining unit members who are not scheduled to work a holiday will receive 8, 10, or 12 hours of pay at straight time, not to be counted for overtime calculation. For example, if an employee is scheduled Tuesday thru Friday and the holiday falls on a Monday, the employee would receive 8, 10 or 12 hour of straight pay for the holiday. The holiday pay would not be included as hours worked for the purpose of overtime calculation". Articles 29—30—no changes requested from either party. Article 31.3(A.a.) & (B.), Promotional Examinations— City agreed to in concept only the PBA request changes to the number of questions and scoring. Chief Morris will re-write the language. P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations August 20, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 2 Article 32—no changes requested by either party. Article 33.7, Vacation Leave — PBA agreed to withdraw their request to eliminate "Annual Leave Buy Back Prohibition — Bargaining unit members hired on or after October 1, 2011 shall not be eligible for the provisions of Articles 33.5 and 33.6. Article 33.8 (new article), Vacation Leave — PBA tentatively agreed to City's request to add the following pension language as required by state law. "Any payment made to the bargaining member for accrued leave shall not be used in calculating retirement payments". Article 34.6, Sick Leave — PBA agreed to withdraw their request to eliminate "Sick Leave Buy Back Prohibition — Bargaining unit members hired on or after October 1, 2011 shall not be eligible for the provisions of Articles 34.5. Article 34.7 (new article), Sick Leave — PBA tentatively agreed to City's request to add the following pension language as required by state law. "Any payment made to the bargaining member for accrued leave shall not be used in calculating retirement payments". Articles 35 —36—no changes requested from either party. Article 37.5 I (new article), Grievance Procedure — City agreed to PBA's request to add "In the event that a non-member files a grievance, the P.B.A. is entitled to send a representative to each step to ensure that the integrity of the Agreement is upheld". Articles 38 —39—no changes requested from either party. Article 40.1, Group Health Insurance — Both parties agreed to correct language that was incorrect from previous agreement. "During the term of this Agreement, all full time bargaining unit members who participate in the group insurance coverage, agree to pay twenty five ($25.00) per month toward the premium for group insurance coverage. The City agrees to pay the remainder of the premium to provide individual group insurance coverage to all regular full-time bargaining unit members". Article 40.4, Group Insurance— PBA withdrew their request to change Article 15.4 "Any bargaining unit member, hired on or after October 1, 2011, who elects to participate in the group insurance dependent coverage option plan will pay seventy five percent (75%) to fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the premium. The member shall pay any additional supplemental insurance that is optional coverage to the bargaining unit member. Article 41.1, Clothing Maintenance, Equipment and Vehicles — City agreed to PBA's request to reduce number of shoes or boots provided each year from 2 pairs to 1 pair, and to remove one (1) small badge. P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations August 20, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 3 Articles 42 —45 —no changes requested from either party. Article 46.2 (new article), Substance Abuse Testing — City agreed to PBA's request to add "An employee subject to drug testing for reasonable suspicion shall be placed on administrative leave with pay pending the laboratory results of the test". Article 46.3 (new article), Substance Abuse Testing — PBA agreed to City's request to add "On a quarterly basis, bargaining unit members agree to participate in a random drug screening". Article 47—no changes requested from either party. Article 48.5 (new article), Retirement — PBA withdrew their request to add article 48.5 "The City of Sebastian Police Department stall institute a deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) for which a bargaining unit member may elect to join within five (5) years of his/her retirement". Article 48.6 (new article), Retirement — PBA withdrew their request to add article 48.6 "The City of Sebastian Police Department shall institute a Military and Prior Service Buy-Back Program based on the proposed City Ordinance set forth by the Pension Board upon approval of the City Counsel". Article 49.2, Duration of Agreement, Dates — City agreed to PBA's request to remove article 49.2 "If total taxable assessed value of the City of Sebastian, as projected by the Indian River County Appraiser Office on July 1, 2012, is greater than $878,411,378, then the term of the Agreement shall end midnight September 30, 2012". Next meeting scheduled for September 3, 2013 at 3:00pm in City Manager Conference Room 5:30—Meeting Adjourned Respectfully Submitted, htha l - Debra Krueger Administrative Services Director P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations August 20, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 4 i r M Oo o O N M 0) u7 N- to •f N CO ®.. to CP 40 44. NV >- N '4• 00 ' ' P 0) O CA N r N CO O 00 NNi Q Cr) OD dry VP 00 ' ' O O O h O O O o at r O c)) O co NV '41r ( Co O O m. 6®cy,6 EL la M N 0 401. I I CO N C' )~00 N 2 Lo- co O a n at co LC) r to to , N O. i U) M ilk a CO ' I O O O N® V) N ILI Cie CO O O co N V N c`) CO- L O P M 0 Z co r N et W Z 762 1 u ® 0 0> ca N c '° c0 0 0 i i 1*-- LE N N O O o I- ) O) CC) 4 c M 00 CA ti 0 4111 • EL Q N C) 4segk 70 2 d O U O c as as U = N I- 0 O ) co L 0 - a 0 _ MI A O N U 4' 0 o 6..- C1 >' a) Z m a o W C) ® a� r U) N CO 4— (0 ' ' ' ' ' co O < m m ii 7 O N 0 O O 0 0 0 ` O m n N CC 0 NN 7 O aD CO N O 9- 0 O r 7 0 N CO N n U) �'. -O CO 7 CO CO CO a 0 O f� O O � N- rn o v � h Q N N 7 M 7 N U) U) O CD O N O M N O co v CO N C°0 r n n N C O O O N O 7 O O N O co '0 16 N N N O a) N N 'aj, N CO O tf CO V N CD U) N CO E v 40.'1- O .., 7 N N O N M o) o 4 r P. Q W Vi 69 69 69 H 69 w w n: 0 0 7 co O ' O O ' ' O ' ■ ' ' 7 O R 7 e • e O N r CO M b m a O r CO U) O W U) O W O O U) CO O N w O • O p y 7or r co: - O co N CO M W O O CO O O CO CO (D • 00 O'.; N U) O N U) N O O O r O co-N W CO F N N M m Or N W O' N N O N O N W co co O O N �" r N N '0 C C H N N' ,- ') O M co 7 O .- co 7 D) U) 7 7 V' .- N N — O N )- M iO N 69 V) 0 N N N Cn `n N CO N- r CO (D O ' CO O ' ' O ' ' ' ' CO O 0 P. M e N o N d C m N b 'CC n a O U) O N N O U) 0) 7 0 0 CO N 0 0 0 0 - � O N O' v N CO r U) CO, r 7 CD O CO CO CO O O 0 N O M CO N N N O U) N Ui 7 U) U) co' (h O N O Zr-, N o A N ° w w CC a s O O CO N W O 0 CO CO U n O co Y co N N N b N e N N O N CO N CO 7 t O 7 D 7 43:. 0-a 4- N N th r ' y 49 69 69 69 69 44 M w ' N U) ;O n I"- O U) O ' CO O ' ' O ' ' ' ' U) O We O O e 7 r O n A E M C) N m v N CD M CO CO O U) O N O O N 7 0 co 0 CO 0 Qry O 7 ;O) 0 7 e- CO CO N- O O N 1- 0 W N fg N Om N Cn W o m 0 N W C O r .CO W O O N U) N U) CD U) co- O M M m N N CCC m n ° n m S`.jj'' 0 'O 7 M 0 a0 co 0 7 0 7 0 0 N N CCC 0 * M N CO N Ir N CO 7 M I� 7 M 7 t4 it Ni 0 M N N -. 0O N M CC EO N e9 69 69 W w C9 w w O 000000 ' O ' ' O ' ' ' ' CO O O O CO U) a N ' O O - M n M N F, r r 0 U) O n CO O O O CO 0 7 N N rn - N CO N N 7 O O W M .1.1...0; 0 O 0 7 W O O n 7 N 0 47.4"N: N N_ O CD 0 7 000_ M "4,?..-C3 .:0°) M v 0 O1 ° N '0 r r n o A U) I� U) ' O 0 a0 W CO N 0 0 v N N N,�]Ie f`') U) Y h N (O OD 7 O N 7 O M 7 CO C04- NN OD N s._ M DI F E Vw 69 t9 69 M vT w 9 a CO 0 0 0 7 0 0 ' O ' O ' ' ' ' M O 7 1`• 0 0 r °o N M N ° ro w R N 7 N' 7 0 N tO O N O O 7 0 0 M 0 U) U) h m Co .'i/ M m m N m 0 M 7; N N N r O M r O O co 7 0 co r N 0 M O w C r -- W of of (- _ .1 O' N n N N U) 7 (O (D O O O O (D P 7 F; m N N O M N CC N te,W O CD Ir CO O O CO O CO CO CO 0 0 CO M M N Is Cg N e co.. CO' O U) O m 7 r N 7 N- N ° Z O 014- NN O N N O M g Z N 69 69 69 N N W y )y O U) CO CD CO 0 0 7 0 0 ' U) O ' ' O ' ' CD 7 0 0 (n O e o O n 8 n n r 0 U7 0 CO O N N N� U O O O n N O CO N- O O D CO U 'Cr CD • M m O b - < � M N _ 8 0 •g ) C CO O r 7 o NLL O UW O CO 7 D M O M O O M )c) Cu _1 O a0 N O M g r ^ m N co w Z W N w C9 C9 9 N W W w w M N ((pp n ° O ' K O D CO N CD M O M N O 7 O O N O o CO CO W U o W a O n N 2 m o O ON N r N O NO M CD N N co co M O O 7 O co N N 33 O CC Fri f.2- N O M U) r N N U) U O co- 7 M 0 r V O 7 si >- r ao U M N r CO O O CD 7 CO O N O WD N CO r o N v n M CD ( O U O ( N C N O LL O O M 7 4 O N N a co a w w 69 09 49 49 w w CC 69 tp p Cp po op pQ e N 0 0 r0 0 0 Om M O ^ O O CO °v $ O CD (°�, Y CO O) CO° O $ rS CO N m o r'.-- m m r cOi °_ ° Cc n m m N N O QD t0 b O CO CO N WO W „ (7 E CO p) r N U) U) O (D CA O O p CO co Cp 4 - N - - e v v m p op U) r N N P N N W -, W CV N W O O t') N .- O c) O (D A O )OO O co CO W CO N CO M W W LL Y N N '0 N N W n r N W N O 2 a° 1 N ... .. C9 C9 ... N CA to CO • CD 7 0 0 0 N O ((O O ' ' ' ' ' ' ' (D ON O ' N o 0 O O CD U 0 O O CD O N CO 7 U) O 0 W CO O N O n co co Co CD U) •• M CO D. N OO) M r (7D _ f` C0D CO W M U) 7 M 0 7 _ O CO CO U) CO f� O O 7 h U) CO 7 CO CO a7 N N N N O r N W N ia0 C9 M CA 0 CA 0 N 49 E r w N w 2 I- m O d Z a (0 to w 0 0 w w a y w x o Y n D m aci L 'O W U a ° O o is xZ KQ n a d w x > c ce r a c Cd F- aci W w 7 R' ~ d Z m y y 1- jr'- li z a 1 (`� in E ; c o :o O E Z X O > W - 7 (i ° ° U C §' W x E � oo D � O > > o d x al 3 v c m LL c 2 0 a� `� o a 't, LL w w U Q E _ 'c o )- z w d d 1!-5 . N w w d v n - = o m j PC a) m `0 t I- c Z u a3 m U (Sec vi d o y c Z ] > 1- w w E e E ct E w F _, rn m ° a) L to K c w W' o c r E 2 o) E ° - N a -c-':' W Z d' W z `- i , 3 m E ¢ ' w w w a � (� Q ... m m �� m e O w w Z - � > m U a) -a) 7 t0 W E d (O QQ E N W a) E. a) D `C d a _ to O O O N a) (O U N a' W O K Z a' ... N - .‘„C c = E F Q m - - ") - a a) 'n � w )- > to O_ z rn z ¢ � r- w w w �' _ = c 0 O W D U in °' m x 0 K M W Z m m m .‹Z 6 w D w w w W Q I- U. D (n O a 1- S a lL a O U w d n a a a a a a a a ca 0 (r ¢ Pir 1 . _ ' I: 1 I i i!I • r I I 1 r N i ; O N : I 1 i , i I [ .. , ! N N i ›- ! i I U- • I I ! O . N 1 . I I I 1 - Z j • I CO O ; I N � � f a < 1 , I to a 1 I a * 1 I P- r O p V r o i 'g ; �;� Z I � N !z I 1 I I _ P I NO ~ I I UU. w 2 v 0 ' N W CU I >- Z 0 X W W L i _ > d Z W co H O z W / . I0 0 Li 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ta PBA Labor Contract Negotiation Meeting Minutes September 3, 3013 @ 3:00 pm Present: Al Boettjer, CFPBA Staff Representative Steve Marcinik, PBA Representative Mark Hepfer, PBA Representative Tim Zelinski, PEA Representative Al Minner, City Representative Debra Krueger, City Representative Chief Michelle Morris, City Representative Attachment: Tentatively Agreed to CBA between the City and CFPBA Meeting began 3:15 The minutes from the August 20, 2013 Labor Contract Negotiations were approved. Al Boettjer opened discussion with DROP and Military buy-back. If the PBA paid for 30 year cost projection, would the City be interested in agreeing to implement the benefits if the cost projection showed a minimal cost to the City. Al Minner responded by saying we would agree to look at the projection before making a decision, but until the projection was reviewed the City is not in a position to approve. Both parties then reviewed and tentatively agreed to the following articles of the CBA: Articles 16—26, 28-39 and 41-47. Articles 15, 27, 40 and 48 still required discussion. ' ment —Discussion on Senate Bill 1128, and the Union request and the Article 48 — Retire � q City agreed to add unused annual or sick leave accrued with service earned before July 1, 2011. The City requested the following provisions for the accruals to be included in retirement calculations: 1. annual and sick leave accruals would be calculated using the rage of pay as of July 1, 2011 2. maximum accrual rate caps based on longevity 3. if at any time the accruals drop below the accrual level as of July 1, 2011, the lower accrual rate becomes the new capped accrual. 4. attach an exhibit to this article to memorialize members who are affected, along with capped accruals The City will write language for this article and submit to Al Boettjer, Steve Marcinik and Mark Hepfer to tentatively agree. P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations September 3, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 1 Article 40.4 —Group Health Insurance—The PBA once again requested to change 40.4 to allow all members to pay 50% of the cost of the premium, not just members hired prior to 10/1/11, and the City once again reiterated the additional liability cost. The PBA agreed to withdraw, and was tentatively agreed to. Article 27 — Basic Workweek and Overtime — Both parties were OK with the revised language from previous meeting. Article 15 —Rates of Pay—City proposed the following: 1St year—end furloughs 2nd year—3% cola and no wage opener 3rd year—wage re-opener Caucus 4:10 Re-adjourn 4:20 PBA came back and proposed: 1St year—end furloughs 2"d year—3% cola and no wage opener 3rd year—3% cola with a wage opener if economy supports. City was not prepared to offer a 3% COLA in year 3 due to uncertainty of the economy Both parties then tentatively agreed to the following: 1St year—end furloughs 2"d year— 3% cola no wage re-opener 3`d year—wage re-opener Next step was to schedule a meeting with the unit to review proposal, and then schedule the ratification vote. Al Boettjer would get with the City to schedule. 5:30—Meeting Adjourned Respectfully Submitted, .fW v Debra Krueger `- Administrative Services Director P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations September 3, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 2 PBA Labor Contract Negotiation Meeting Minutes September 25, 3013 @ 10:00 am Present: Al Boettjer, CFPBA Staff Representative Steve Marcinik, PBA Representative Mark Hepfer, PBA Representative Al Minner, City Representative Debra Krueger, City Representative PBA member in attendance: Eric Antosia Meeting began 10:15am The tentative agreement was not ratified. 26 members voted, 16 -No and 10 - Yes. Discussion began with Article 48 —Retirement The concern was the language. PBA requested confirmation that the members on "Exhibit A" were the only members eligible for this benefit. City agreed to add to Article 48.5.D. "Only members listed in Exhibit "A: shall be eligible to apply accruals in the pension benefit formula". 10:30 - PBA requested Caucus 10:37—re-adjourned. Next discussion was Article 15 —Rate of Pay PBA began the discussion stating wages were the main reason the tentative agreement was not ratified. The membership requested for the 2nd year of the agreement, a 3% COLA with a re-opener if economy allows. Previous discussions regarding financial options were reviewed. The City stood by its position that Council was looking for restoration of furlough days, which was above and beyond available funds, and the City was already taking a gamble on 3% for the 2nd year. The following factors were reviewed which would prevent management from presenting a 2nd year 3% increase with a re-opener to Council. 1. Would require a substantial increase in taxes 2. Other City needs 3. Will not pass P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations September 25, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 1 10:45 - Caucus 10:50 - Re-adjourned PBA proposed the following: ✓ Year 1 —eliminate furloughs ✓ Year 2—wage re-opener • Year 3 —wage re-opener Al Minner then stated it is the intent of City management to have a cohesive relationship between all employees, and that all employees are recognized and paid competitively. In the past there was no unrest when CBAs were discussed in the same year and were ultimately similar and one unit was not favored over another. General perception of the PEA bargaining unit is the PBA will get something they didn't. When the economy tanked, the PEA took the 1st hit. If we agree to this proposal, it won't help that perception. There was a time before the tentative agreement when this proposal would have been better. It is a gamble because if growth does not come in, the increase could potentially be less than 3%. PBA and City management agreed to the above proposal. PBA then requested an opener for Year 3 to discuss the DROP & Military buy-back. City management stood their ground that changes in behavior increases cost, despite it is being sold as a no cost item. Discussion then ensued on pension board rules and regulations, specifically about the pension board directing their attorney to create ordinances for pension changes not collectively bargained. City will not agree to this opener, however, the City is open to discuss this item at anytime, as long as the PBA and not the pension pays for the 30 year cost projections on DROP and Military Buy-Back. The agreement was then tentatively agreed to, with ratification vote scheduled for 9/30/13 and 10/2/13 from 5pm to 7pm. 12:00 pm—Meeting Adjourned Respectfully Submitted, 4 Debra Krueger / Administrative Services Director P:\PBA\PBA Oct 2013\Minutes Labor Contract Negotiations September 25, 2013.doc 10/14/2013 2